Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Likely Going Modular, Subscription-based
Microsoft CRM writes "When Windows 7 launches sometime after the start of 2010, the desktop OS will be Microsoft's most 'modular' operating system to date. That's not necessarily a good thing, of course; Windows Vista is a sprawling, complex OS. From Microsoft's perspective, though, there are many possible benefits. The OS's developers can add/remove functionality module by module. New modules could be sold post-launch, keeping revenue streams strong. A modular approach could also allow the company to make functionality available on a time-limited basis, potentially allowing users to 'rent' a feature if it's needed on a one-off basis. Microsoft is already testing 'pay as you go' consumer subscriptions in developing countries."
Once that becomes possible, less microsoft-friendly jurisdictions (like say the EU) might demand they open up the interfaces so competitors can use them. People buying chunks of OS from non-microsoft vendors probably isn't in microsoft's best interest...
Microsoft seems to be hell bent on making their product harder to use, and at its own peril.
What Microsoft doesn't get is that operating systems and computers, in general, are just appliances. Yes, people like to tinker, but, when one opens up the box, they want everything. This fascination with dynamically installed and dynamically loaded modularity has been the ruin of Microsoft ever since Windows 3.1 began prompting me for Disk 5 when I tried to do something, and it continues to this day. All the Windows versions continually ask for the CD/DVD, whatever, Visual Studio defaults to online help - which sucks when you are on the train, and now they want to make Windows even more modular?
By contrast, I put in a Linux DVD, and I install everything. If I want to install something more, I can do the insanely difficult exercise of typing "sudo apt get install [programname]".
This is my sig.
Michael Hart (of Project Gutenberg) has it right. He's been saying for about a decade now that publishers, music companies, software companies, etc. are trying to move us into a world where ownership as we know it will no longer exist; nothing will be owned (at least not by consumers), everything will be rented. E.g. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2003&post=2003-01-22,3>here
This is an issue that both liberals and conservatives should be united on. The desire to own stuff goes deep in the human psyche. The person who rents everything is utterly dependent on a high, steady stream of income can't survive even a short interruption or reduction in that stream. It's a very insecure and anxiety-provoking way to live.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
a) What? You want to use ALL of your installed 8 GB or RAM, not only 2 GB? Sure! The "improved memory accessibility module" subscription goes for just $1.50/GB/month!
b) So, you say you want to use all 4 of your cores instead of just 2? Plus have access to the 2nd processor in your 3D graphics board? Why, no problem! We're selling a PERMANENT, I say PERMANENT license to the "multi-core compatibility mode" for just $35! Offers end by July 13th, 2011.
c) Ah, you need to have 5 USB devices connected simultaneously, and need them all to work in fast USB 3.0 mode instead of USB 2.0? We had a promotion for that last month, but unfortunately now we're back to the standard price, sorry. It'll be $0.50/USB device/month for every device above the 4th, plus $14.99 for the permanent 3.0 functionality, or $0.90/month for the subscription version. The module name is "FastUSB expansion/speed-up bundle package", and you can find the different option in the Connectivity tab at the Module Shop window.
And so on and an so forth.
Not a pretty picture.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
It's the business model that's different. Technically, they're doing little more than selling/renting out DLLs. (Well, .Net assemblies, most likely)
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
I wouldn't call the bizarre mess of the MacOS kernel "modular". It's certainly not a micro-kernel, if that's what you mean.
All the mainstream operating systems today are somewhat modular, in that you can swap components in and out if they implement the same interface. This is especially true for Windows, in which long-term heavy usage of COM (which was explicitly designed to promote modularity) has meant that you can do things like swap out the IE rendering engine for Firefox, and it'll work. Well, assuming that Firefox supports the features the embedding app in question needs, of course. If you doubt this, feel free to download the Gecko ActiveX plugin and try it ... most apps use IE just as a convenient rendering engine and can run when Gecko replaces it.
That might not sound impressive, but try swapping out Gecko for WebKit or Opera on Linux and see what a mess you get into. Hell, just try upgrading Firefox on Ubuntu. You will almost certainly fail. I know, because I've tried it. About the only sane way forward is to leave the old version in place and install a new, parallel copy - but that has its own problems due to general brokenness in the way ELF was designed (it doesn't seal off shared libraries from each other properly, so they can interfere and cause crashes). Although to be fair, Linux (really, unix) does let you swap out your display subsystem for another one thanks to X. So they all have strengths and weaknesses in this area.
I'm not really sure why you think Apple has "specced out its software at a maximum consistent level". Dealing with missing features is just a part of the software development game, and Apple supports that with what they call weak symbols. It's important because not everybody upgrades their OS at once, so even if you only have one edition of your operating system, developers still need to adapt at runtime to things that are missing. The piss-poor support for this in Linux is another reason upgrades are so flaky (it's only done at compile time for most programs).
I'll be interested to see what Windows 7 actually ends up being. I suspect that this whole modularity drive is coming from upper management somewhere, and by the time it reaches the engineers they will say "well .... but windows is already modular!". They'll make some token gestures, clean up some cruft that users won't really notice except in worse app compatibility, marketing will trumpet the changes as meaning that things will Really Be Different This Time! and nothing will really change.
On the other hand, if MS does this, then competitors can come in and offer the same components/services. Open source will do it very quickly, driving the cost to zero. If MS tries to shut out anyone else, the result is antitrust action.
Selling the OS as on-demand modules could be the first great leap in converting the Windows user base to 100% open source.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-