Forcing Microsoft to produce a stripped-down version of the OS will not really benefit anyone, especially not the end-user. Having a choice of browsers and IM clients is one thing, forcing a company to strip down completely their OS is the wrong way of doing it.
It sounds to me that these states want to punish Microsoft for its practices (and I'm all for that), but they have no clue how to go about it.
Everyone says they want what's best for the end-user, yet I fail to see how a crippled OS will promote competition and benefit the end-user.
mm/memory.c - pte_alloc() and pmd_alloc() - has been modified, but asm-sparc/pgalloc.h has not been updated and this results in type conflicts and undefined calls during the compilation of mm/memory.c.
Slashdot Mirror
Forcing Microsoft to produce a stripped-down version of the OS will not really benefit anyone, especially not the end-user. Having a choice of browsers and IM clients is one thing, forcing a company to strip down completely their OS is the wrong way of doing it.
It sounds to me that these states want to punish Microsoft for its practices (and I'm all for that), but they have no clue how to go about it.
Everyone says they want what's best for the end-user, yet I fail to see how a crippled OS will promote competition and benefit the end-user.
There's a similar problem on SPARC 32:
mm/memory.c - pte_alloc() and pmd_alloc() - has been modified, but asm-sparc/pgalloc.h has not been updated and this results in type conflicts and undefined calls during the compilation of mm/memory.c.