Microsoft Expert Witness Stumbles 1023
parking_god writes "MIT prof Stuart Madnick, testifying on MS's behalf, was caught out twice when a government attorney asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed.
Madnick also faltered on several other questions." Basically he doesn't
understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all
holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;)
Coincidental Slashdot Fortune (Score:5, Funny)
-- Andrew Lang
Talk about perfect timing for a random draw from the fortune file...
Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think (Score:3, Interesting)
The spin in Seattle on public radio was entirely positive onn this -- which was interesting.
Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how many "respectable" people can be swayed by that payment for being a professional witness.
It would take an unimaginable sum of money for me to sell out and lose the respect of my peers.
Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think (Score:3, Redundant)
Well lucky for you MS has unimaginable sums of money.
Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think (Score:3, Interesting)
Remove *all* the html viewers, and you still can do everything else with KDE - except view help and browse the web (both of which require something to view HTML). Or you can put in your own third party HTML viewer, and distribute KDE (after all, KDE dosen't even release binaries, the distros package them themselves). MS won't only not allow people to do that, they say it's impossible to do.
--
Evan
Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think (Score:3, Informative)
The particularly amusing thing about this statement is that this "computer and software expert" (from the article) is not a professor in the computer science department, but a professor in the business school. I guess Ron Rivest wasn't for sale.
Re:yeah, and... (Score:4, Funny)
Only by pretending to be an expert when the only OS he knows is Windows...
IE is just a shell (Score:2, Troll)
Is Internet Explorer any less a part of Windows than the shell is a part of Unix? Where exactly do you draw the line? Discuss.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:5, Insightful)
//rdj
shells (Score:5, Funny)
Re:shells (Score:3, Funny)
Haha. Dunno if that worked in english, though.
Re:shells (Score:3, Funny)
I think you misspelled "bitch."
Or possibly beast.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:2, Insightful)
IE is a program that runs as an integral part of the Windows kernel and can not be replaced by a different browser. Or so the states are trying to argue.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is not the ability to install and use another browser. It's a tad more complicated than that.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:3, Interesting)
What about all the competition with the calculator, Telnet clients, PPP clients (Who buys Trumpet Winsock?) etc. The Internet is now one of the most common uses of a computer. Of course MS is goign to bundle or even integrate a browser into their OS since that's what their customers want. Does a consumer even "know" what a PPP client is? Should these be "unbundled" from the OS so that there can be more competition? The competition is in the OS, and what the OS bundles. Maybe IE should be able to be removed (at least superficially, like the win98lite program does) by OEM's. Although, I've yet to see how this benefits the customer. They want something that works, not with 100 privacy settings.
Footprint is the big one for me. If you don't unbundle the IE browser so that it can be replaced with another one, you're drastically increasing the memory and hard disk footprint needed for browsing.
Huh? Opera takes an additional 4MB of space (on top of IE which is not that big either). While I use Opera, IE is not "browsing at the same time" and therefore is not "increasing the memory footprint" for browsing. Your browsing experience with Opera is not affected at all by the existence of another browser on your system. I fail to see any technical merit in your point.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:2)
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:2, Informative)
So there are two aspects of shell, removable and not removable. And because IE is so tightly integrated in a shell that makes hard way to be competitive for companies like Netscape. Don't you agree
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:4, Insightful)
Does Unix require one type of shell over another? You could write init scripts that used csh, ksh, bash, tcsh, or something else entirely. You could use python interactively, or make emacs the default shell. There is no requirement of one over another fundamentally.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:3, Interesting)
Another consideration is that Konqueror is an integral part of KDE (not the OS as noted in the article - I realize this. But it fits more into the M$ gui thing), yet it's a lot easier to get Netscape on there than on Windows. Reason? Konqueror lets you remove its icon from the desktop, and doesn't step on Netscape's toes (not that I like using 128 megs of RAM to use a browser like Netscape...)
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:3, Insightful)
IE is just a wrapper around the HTML control. You could remove IEXPLORE.EXE and all the icons, put netscape on and the system would run - which is why doing on and on about this is such a joke. It's trivial to replace IE with Netscape. Much less trivial to replace ALL html with Netscape, since Start|Run|C:\ is an explorer window, and putting http://www.yahoo.com in the address bar of that window pulls down web pages.
The underlying HTML control is deeply tied into the "OS" - where OS is the desktop as well as the kernel. Remove that and you're probably screwed.
The shell in unix is just another program that may get launched. There is nothing stopping you from removing it. At bootup, the init program will get called as the first process. If nothing in there, or any other part of the initialization of your system requires the shell, then you could do away with it.
Of course, all the rc.d/* stuff, and much of the system startup files would need to be rewritten in C or something, since they are just shell scripts...but it could be done. Yes...it is more trouble than it is worth, but at no time does this affect the OS.
Now...if you had said is the HTML control any less a part of windows than the init program is a part of Unix....
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:4, Insightful)
The part which is unreasonable, is the strong-arm tactics happening between Microsoft and the OEM world, where PC manufacturers are not penalized for things they do with a system after Windows is installed and before the product ships.
e.g. "We'll give you this incredible price as long as you don't support any of our competitors in your system configuration. That means, no removing IE from the desktop, no placing Mozilla/Netscape/AOL there, etc. If you do not comply, you can get our standard rate, which, as you can see, is far less generous. Now, do you want to stay competitive in the hardware business, or not?"
In this way, Microsoft is able to undermine the free market, taking choice away from the consumer.
As an analogy, say you wanted to buy a puppy from me. I give you two options, you can sign this contract or not. If you do sign the contract (which includes provisions to make sure the puppy is the only pet in the household currently, that you will not shop at any competitors stores, etc), then you get a 50% discount. Otherwise, you pay full price.
Note that this approach is markedly different than frequent buyer type programs, which reward you based on your business relationship with the company offering the program. What Microsoft does is punish customers for doing business with anyone else. That is clearly an abuse of monopoly power, is it not?
IE is NOT a shell (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, Microsoft still separates it. If you enter the registry:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft there is an Internet Explorer folder/group.
If you want to find the Explorer information, it isn't in the Microsoft folder with the other applications, it is in the Microsoft\Windows folder:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Win
For added fun, it is NOT in the Windows NT folder, just the Windows folder. This indicates that Explorer on Windows and Windows NT (4.0+ of course) likely share a significant amount of code, the settings are grouped there.
What is interesting, is that in Windows 3.1 (and Win95 presumably, I saw a shell= registry key) there was a line in System.ini that set the shell. You could replace the shell with another application. I once setup winfile.exe as my shell, and many companys had alternative shells. A friend of mine with a Compaq Presario once had a completely odd shell placed on the system.
Unix allows you to use ANY shell that is POSIX compliant (matching what sh originally did).
Windows pre-monopoly allowed you to use ANY shell or ANY web browser. After Windows 95 and Office 95 established the Windows monopoly (before that DOS/Word Perfect w/ Novell servers was just as common a combination), they leveraged this to sell everything. They refused to update the Novell Client (which they needed when Novell was the NOS of choice to get Windows into corporate America) to push NT Server sales, they prohibited OEMs from replacing the shell (and later removing as far as I can tell the technical capacity to easily do so) to establish explorer as the only interface, and locked IE into the OS.
Alex
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:3, Redundant)
It is a program that erradicates IExplorer from Windows. Windows is completely usable. You have to get another web browser (Netscape, Mozilla...) and a file amnager (the old on from Win95... or use Midnight Commander ontop a Cygwin bash shell).
I used back then, to get a P1666 no-mmx with 32MB of RAM to run Windows 98. Before Win98Lite, it was slow as.... as WinXP. After using Win98Lite, it was usable again, moderately fast... a cool college machine. Until SuSE 5.3 got its way into it, of course *grin*
More information can be found here [98lite.net]
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Not even a little.
Permissions are applied to files by the filesystem code, typically a kernel module.
The shell is a program that runs on top of the OS, interprets user commands and runs programs (as well as providing a programming language, in many cases). It is totally separable from the OS.
Maybe you meant capabilities, but again, this would typically be imposed by kernel code, with the shell utilizing the information provided. In no way could the shell be said to underly any of this.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:4, Insightful)
What you don't comprehend is that UNIX is modular. This allows us to replace virtually every single command/component in the system with a different one. It also is what allows us to fairly easily support multiple differnt file systems of which linux supports over a dozen (maybe almost 2 dozen), different terminal programs, window managers, desktop environments (kde/gnome/etc) and web browsers.
What MS is trying to do (and having a hard time with) is actually having a stand-alone component be integrated. If MS wants to be able to upgrade IE (and it history proves that it does), it MUST be modular. The very fact that IE is upgradable totally blows MS's argument that IE cannot be separated.
Now there is the argument that you would lose the shell. This is bull. MS already has a IE-free shell that was available in 95 and NT4. What they did since then was add hooks in the shell to call IE at various places.
The bottom line is that there is no reason that Mozilla / netscape / opera couldn't use the same APIs that windows uses to "integrate" with IE other than the fact that MS keeps those APIs secret.
Re:IE is just a shell (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously [litestep.net], if there was [winstep.net] no way of running [hoverdesk.net] other shells than Explorer [stardock.com], why would so many programs exist to do just that [lighttek.com]?
Internet Explorer is a vital component to Explorer, the Shell. Not Windows, the Operating System. It seems that even the teeming masses on Slashdot are missing this point.
I also had to giggle (Score:2, Funny)
He's working at the wrong place, he should be in someone's [microsoft.com] PR department.
don't be too polemic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:don't be too polemic (Score:3, Funny)
It's 100% true... less a few tiny differences.
So apart from it being completely, utterly different to anyone but an uninformed hermit, it's exactly the same.
Re:don't be too polemic (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, didn't make sense to me either.
Re:don't be too polemic (Score:4, Insightful)
We are now in the remedy phase where indeed the government CAN tell MS what to do, just like in any civil case where the guilty party can have all sorts of penalties such as fines, requirments to change contracts, etc., etc. etc.
Our laws are here to protect us from companies that behave like MS, and allow for penalties to prohibit them from continuing illegal behavior.
Your analogy is also like a rapist defending his right to rape. "Why should the government be allowed to tell me what to do?" Well, maybe to protect society from the people breaking the law.
If you don't like it, write your congressmen. Tell him that you don't like having the government penalize people for breaking the law and see how far that gets you...
surprised? (Score:2, Funny)
The only Answer (Score:2, Funny)
msLacky: Well of course you cant remove Netscape from the Mozilla Operating system.
No sir that isnt an OS
mslacky: But its EVIL!!! Ill get That damn Dragon and his little penguin too!!!!
Thats enough sir you can step down
mslacky: Dont you see him that peguin hes making fun of me... oh Mr penguin stay right there ill get you, bad Mr penguin
Huh?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I have to wonder what sort of deal did Microsoft offer him to forget the difference between Windoze and KDE?
wait a second... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought with KDE you did not HAVE to have Konquerer though it is by default the file manager/browser for KDE. There are other file managers that can be used with KDE that do not have built-in browsers I think.
I understand fully that KDE and GNOME are desktop environments for the Linux OS. Even so, even if the desktop could be considered the OS, his examples still do not apply.
Am I wrong on this or is this guy just the clueless MIT professor ever?
This is not a Troll I would actually like to know if I am wrong.
_______________________________________________
Re:wait a second... (Score:2, Informative)
Not only that, KDE has that menu that allows you to PICK BETWEEN DIFFERENT BROWSERS TO VIEW WITH when you copy a URL to the clipboard.
Re:wait a second... (Score:3, Funny)
However, he is the auther of the classic textbook "Operating Systems". So classic that it was written in 1974, and has been long out of print. What the hell was MS thinking? This guy wouldn't know a GUI if it bit him!
Unbelievable (Score:2)
The whole idea that an operating system (Windows) is dependent on an application (Internet Explorer) is a complete joke. I can't believe they have spent so much time and money arguing about this.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why Microsoft keeps on claiming that the application itself is nonremoveable. Just delete the IE binary; of course it's removeable. What they should do is have some kind of "Internet Services Pack" or whatever which is a basic, nonremoveable part of Windoze, and then just have IE be the shell that accesses those components. There, problem solved. I'm guessing it'd just be a matter of repackaging some things.
I'm guessing that MS is still claiming that IE the application can't be removed just because they want to keep everyone using it by default. Keepin' the resellers down and all. Or hell, I don't care if IE keeps on getting shipped with Windows, just let the poor OEM people install Mozilla by default! Anyway, yeah.
I could be totally wrong about all that, but that's how it seems to me.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
Know-It-Alls (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Know-It-Alls (Score:2, Funny)
apypollylogies.
Re:Know-It-Alls (Score:3, Insightful)
What don't they want to happen? Microsoft split up, or shackled.
They would actually like to be fined massively (as a final, no other restrictions remedy) - out of existence is almost impossible given how much cash they have, and without the shackles, they'll just tack it onto the cost of the next version of windows and office.
So if Microsoft know that the situations that they fear are not going to happen, they're not going to be scared, are they
Of course the expert doesn't understand the difference between an application and an OS. The concept that there is a difference is alien to the entire Microsoft argument at this point
Re:Know-It-Alls (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not quite sure how they've been so successful in the server market, though.
The answer lies in your analysis of their success in the desktop OS segment. Here's how it works:
Cisco employs similar tactics, but since they don't have the license audit leverage, they engage in character assassination of IT people who resist Cisco implementations. Isn't capitalism fun?
Madnick is not an MIT computer science professor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Madnick is not an MIT computer science professo (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, they're probably all dead now...
Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
They've had several industry witnesses who were forced to admit that they'd never read the settlement or the states proposals. The economist who testified for Microsoft had to admit that all of his research in this area had been funded by Microsoft, the Autodesk exec who after defending Microsoft had to relate how screwed over he felt by them excluding Java from Windows XP (needed for some Autodesk software). The most fun was the former Microsoftie, now head of his own company, who testified that the states plan would lead to the "balkanization" of Windows. On cross, he admitted that the Microsoft lawyers wrote the first draft of his testimony, and that he hadn't even know what balkanization meant.
How much are these Microsoft lawyers getting if this is the level of their trial prep?
Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
From news.com.com [com.com]:
From the Register [theregister.co.uk]:
Back to news.com.com [com.com]:
Even Business Week [businessweek.com], in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:
Good old news.com.com [com.com] again:
Back to the Register [theregister.co.uk]:
Now from Wired [wired.com]:
And again from news.com.com [com.com]:
As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.
Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, you're acting like illegally abusing your monopoly to shut out competition and reduce consumer choice with hopes of cornering the market on desktop operating systems, office productivity software, media, and the Internet is a crime or something. What you're failing to take into account is I got Solitare for free. That's right, FOR FREE! Is that the sign of a heartless monopoly? No, of course not. And do I see you offering me free, cheapo quality shovelware? No, all I get from you are a bunch of "facts" and "news". Well, you can keep your "facts", Mister-- I've got a game of Klondike I must win!
Re:of course.... (Score:4, Insightful)
By definition, anything that hurts Microsoft will help their competitors. How does hurting Microsoft help the consumer?
The consumer is supposed to be served by a free market. A free market requires competitors. Yet, Microsoft has been rather skillfull in dismantling that free market - abusing their position to remove competition.
The remedy phase is designed to help consumers by restoring competition. Let's not obscure the truth with anti-market Microsoft cheering.
Simpsons (Score:3, Funny)
The most popular prof... (Score:5, Funny)
So lemme get this straight -- this guy is a CS prof at MIT, home of the FSF. He voluntarily agreed to testify on Microsoft's behalf, and then didn't know the difference between an operating system and a desktop environment?
Man, this guy's courses must be popular! I bet you really have to fight to get in to: "Introduction to flicking on the power switch thingy 101" and "How to click on the start menu 304"
Madnick is *not* a CS prof (Score:5, Insightful)
He is most famous for co-authoring the book mostly called "Madnick and Donovan" which was some sort of IBM 360 OS bible back in the way-back days of punch cards.
BTW, it is might be interesting to note that Richard Schmalensee was the MIT professor who humiliated himself on the stand in the first phase of the trial, and he is also a professor of management in the same school at MIT. It's really not a bad school, they only look bad when they whore themselves for Microsoft money
Re:The most popular prof... (Score:5, Funny)
DOS is an OS? Really? Maybe just barely...
The Master was explaining the nature of Tao to one of his novices.
"The Tao is embodied in all software -- regardless of how insignificant,"
said the Master.
"Is the Tao in a hand-held calculator?" asked the novice.
"It is," came the reply.
"Is the Tao in a video game?" asked the novice.
"It is even in a video game," said the Master.
"Is the Tao in the DOS for a personal computer?" asked the novice.
The Master coughed and shifted his position slightly. "The lesson is over
for today," he said.
Re:The most popular prof... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to remove the browser from KDE, you can remove the KHTML part. The rest of the functionality will remain intact.
Re:The most popular prof... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what *is* an operating system? (Score:3, Funny)
Except that someone else has already argued above that, in the case of KDE, it can. And probably by the time I post someone will say the same for Gnome.
I'm afraid I can't comment on which of you folks is actually right... since I use Linux/twm (fear my l33t "operating system"
Re:The most popular prof... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mouth agape...
Then how did Microsoft postulate that he was a qualified expert on the removability factors of IE? Wasn't technical feasability a more primary point of contention than fiscal feasabilty? If not why not?
I realize Project Manager has the word manager in it but it has ALOT more to do with CS than traditional management. The wide availibity of more qualified persons at MIT must speak volumes about his relationship with MSFT.
I wonder ... (Score:2, Funny)
smak.
--
b0rk!
Business press doesn't see it that way (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is that the judge's viewpoint is going to be closer to the general business press than the IT world (much less Slashdot), so I am not holding out much hope for a meaningful order here.
sPh
Re: Business press doesn't see it that way (Score:5, Insightful)
> the general business press is taking the line that Microsoft's legal team has everything under control this time and is crushing the States.
Let's not forget that the business press exists for the sole purpose of keeping stock prices high. It's hard to imagine that they would say anything different no matter what was going on.
But of course, they have the DoJ's desire to throw the game to give them confidence that they're going to be right this time anyway.
Cash for questions.....or answers (Score:2, Funny)
The pre-prepared script from Microsoft that they had e-mailed to him perchance?
This mail was of course lost when someone sent him a malicious VB script entitled "How to make quick easy money".
;)
He is not part of (EE)CS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He is not part of (EE)CS (Score:5, Informative)
Dr. Madnick has degrees in Electrical Engineering (B.S. and M.S.), Management (M.S.), and Computer Science (Ph.D.) from MIT. He has been a Visiting Professor at Harvard University, Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), University of Newcastle (England), and Technion (Israel).
C'mon, a doctorate in comp sci from MIT, with just one management degree compared to the 3 EE/comp sci degrees. He must know something about the subject, if not to the specific degree slashdot would like, but maybe we're not getting the whole story.
Re:He is not part of (EE)CS (Score:3, Funny)
Did you see his Microsoft projects? (Score:4, Funny)
Co-Principal Inbestigator, COntext INtercharge (COIN) project: http://context.mit.edu/~coin/
PROFIT and COIN - yep. Must be a Microsoft shill.
Control, you must learn control! (Score:3, Informative)
And he's right, it's not technically feasible because Microsoft will not relinquish control of the necessary source, preferring to keep everything black boxed, the hell away from people who could alter the product that carries their name. It's about controlling how you can use the product that they are associated with, because, "hell, a third party could screw Windows up and Microsoft could get a bad rep."
We know Microsoft are control freaks, there's no way they'd allow Windows to be opened up like that, and without that unlocking of the black box, it *is* not technically feasible for a computer manufacturer to alter Windows, and the reason for this is "technically" MSFT are not legally bound to release their source, and "technically" could charge for any SDK they may choose to never release that would allow that access.
"technically" this poor bastard who's been set up to fail, trying to defend the indefensible, is correct. In an "I did not have sexual relations..." kind of way.
Chris.
The
how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw (Score:4, Informative)
WebTV (Score:2)
It's consistent with Microsoft's past marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
Based on that reasoning, KDE and Gnome could be considered operating systems too. They're GUIs that run on top of *nix.
It's wrong, but they're using the term consistently. Perhaps they have some adgenda to redefine the term "operating system".
But you can change the browser (Score:2, Interesting)
All you have to do is replace mshtml.dll (the html rendering engine for windows) with one that is based off of gecko code. There! Now windows uses gecko instead of whatever they call explorer's rendering engine.
Problem is, i have no clue how to do this
Now all someone needs to do is write a VB app that lets you "choose" which rendering engine you want and sell it to the DOJ as a MS "remedy." Voila! Quick cash.
Product Interference Not So Uncommon (Score:5, Informative)
This is not an uncommon practice. Don't believe me? Try installing Real Player (Real One) and watch the default installation - that which the majority of users would use - take over every media file in your system. This is directly interfering with the use of other media - now requiring extra steps to use anything but the default. Try unassociating - no obvious route exists. This is just one example.
Counterpoint: You are still able to use these alternative media, even though there is a "performance cost" involved in having to take extra steps. Don't like it? Don't be an idiot and use the default install.
Both are worth considering in the overall sense of programming specifically to exclude the competition and its prevalence in the computer industry - especially given the foreknowledge that the majority of your users will not consider themselves 'advanced' enough to select options in the non-default setup. It's another question of ethics that really has not been given a great deal of attention - though we've likely got more pressing issues to consider (e.g.: DMCA, etc).
Try This... (Score:4, Insightful)
This takes the cake .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok then ... so what about the examples that you gave earlier ...
But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. But GNOME performs the same function as KDE on a computer equipped with the Linux operating system.
This is VERY funny ... on one hand, it's "theoretical impossibility" to have TWO INDEPENDENT systems that can "be substituted for each other with no performance degradation" ...
Yet he uses the PERFECT example of doing such ... KDE and GNOME.
This stuff is so funny, it writes itself ...
On a bit of a serious note, IS there any performance degradation between KDE and GNOME?
STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought this was wierd, so I did some checking on this guy. I looked for him on MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science faculty list, but couldn't find him. So I looked him up in the people directory and found this:
name: Madnick, Stuart E email: smadnick@MIT.EDU phone: (617) 253-6671 address: E53-321 department: School Of Mgmt title: J N Maguire Prof Of Info Tech url: http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html
His department is not EECS, it is the School of Management! His research is in areas such as Total Data Quality Management and Productivity From Information Technology. Here is a bio description from his web page:
http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html [mit.edu] Madnick finds ways to integrate information systems, giving organizations a more global view of their operations. He is leading a project that develops new technologies for gathering and analyzing information from many different sources, including conventional databases and the World Wide Web. He is also testing these new technologies in industries such as financial services, manufacturing, logistics, and transportation.
Microsoft basically found anyone from MIT they could because it is MIT. I'm surprised they didn't find a janitor from MIT to testify.
Brian EllenbergerRe:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor (Score:3, Interesting)
My mom was an RPG programmer in the 80's on 390's and PICK OS...
I suppose if you didn't know her, you'd think she could comment on the current state of programming and operating systems. I'll give you a hint - She hasn't kept up.
well, isn't he right? (Score:4, Insightful)
What would KDE be without Konq? Same thing as Windows. Not really usable the way it was intended.
The article ribs the witness for calling KDE an operating system. Well, no, KDE is a user interface / window manager / shell sitting on top of the Linux (or other) kernel. Same as Explorer, which is a user interface / window manager / shell on top of the Windows NT kernel (in NT/2000/XP anyway). Perhaps he should have said KDE/Linux, but do we really want to go there?
Re:well, isn't he right? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'll go right out and buy a copy of just the Windows NT kernel with no MS window manager and install that other window manager for the Windows/NT OS from ... um ... Oh I guess there isn't another window manager for MS OS, and come to think of it Microsoft doesn't offer their OS without a Window Manager. Come to think of it they claim a Window Manager is an integral part of an OS. Strange that... guess all those systems with no console don't run an OS.
Re:well, isn't he right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, isn't that Microsoft's point? The GUI shell (which includes IE) is tied to the OS. They are the same thing as far as the user is concerned. If you told the typical Windows user "you can run Windows, but with this other shell which makes it look and act nothing like Windows" they would stare at you blankly. "That's not Windows."
What is an OS? You guys are limiting the definition to the kernel. Explorer is not tied inextricably to the NT kernel. Explorer IS tied inextricably to Windows.
Great, Linux is better because I can replace the GUI shell. Linux is also better because I can replace the memory manager (via recompiling). Can Windows do that? No. Is it fair for the DOJ to force Microsoft to allow users to replace the MM?
Well, I guess that's the question, isn't it?
finger madnick@mit.edu :: NOT AN MIT CS PROF! (Score:3, Insightful)
again and again. Madnick is not a computer
science professor at MIT!!!! I find this
frustrating, especially having graduated from MIT
in CS. I'm so sad that this guy is spoiling the
reputation of the MIT CS department.
He teaches management!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[686 parkerlocal@waikiki Documentation]$ finger madnick@mit.edu
[mit.edu]
...
There was 1 match to your request.
name: Madnick, Stuart E
email: smadnick@MIT.EDU
phone: (617) 253-6671
address: E53-321
department: School Of Mgmt
title: J N Maguire Prof Of Info Tech
url: http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html
alias: S-madnick
Feh (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me all you'd have to do is force MS to publically document the API. Actually they should be forced to document APIs, file formats and protocols BEFORE their products are released, and they should be compelled to use only protocols and formats unencumbered by patents or copyrights (for things like XML DTDs.) The documentation should be unencumbered by any license and should be freely available on their web site for all to download.
He's NOT a CS professor (Score:3, Informative)
"House of cards" (Score:5, Funny)
How's this for a ringing endorsement of Microsoft's products?
Emphasis mine. Source: ZDNet: Microsoft's MIT prof gets grilled by states [com.com]
Mind you, this was a witness for Microsoft. Amazing. Microsoft is so arrogant, it can claim gross incompetence to avoid incrimination, and still look forward to getting away with it.
Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
The truly surprising thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I am surprised (pleasantly) that the lawyer recognized and was able to deal with the situation. I mean, sure, I have little doubt that the lawyers have been briefed, but this lawyer:
So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
KDE and GNOME may not be "operating systems" in the strictest sense of the term, but for the end-user they form the most critical and recognizable part of the operating system: the desktop. What part of Linux is the OS anyway? Is it the underlying kernel that provides support for your hardware and devices? Is it the set of GNU system tools and utilities that you use to maintain your system? Is it the window manager and desktop shell?
Linux was designed to be more modular than Windows, but this additional freedom and flexibility come at a price. What parts of a bundled Linux distribution can be removed or replaced by other work-alike components? Almost everything, but when modern applications come to depend on the existence of other "operating system" components, the complexity of setting up a system can increase exponentially. The operating system itself, however, is not useful in the general sense; it is only necessary. For a computer to be useful, you need applications.
Microsoft has chosen the route of providing a consistent base of OS and applications which are always installed and, in some cases, cannot be easily removed. Consider this the lowest-common denominator approach that bundles every basic tool that the average computer user may need. This includes (in Windows XP): video and audio player/editor (Media Player, Sound Recorder, Movie Maker), basic text editor (Notepad and Wordpad), e-mail (Outlook Express), web browser (Internet Explorer), file manager (Explorer), image/photo viewer/editor (Picture Viewer and Paintbrush), and communications software(Hyperterminal and MSN Instant Messenger) among other things.
Out of all of these commonly bundled applications (after all what desktop OS distribution doesn't include one of these applications in some form or another), the web browser has assumed a unique and important role in the modern computing environment. It has transcended its role as a mere user application and has become a vital system component that other applications have come to rely on. Will your operating system work without a web browser? Yes but, as I stated earlier, the operating system *doesn't matter*.
People use computers to get work done. Work is done by using applications. Applications rely on the operating system to provide basic system services. HTML and HTTP have become basic system services for a large number of applications to provide online help systems, downloadable updates and enhancements, and even application user interface. Because a web browser is included as part of the operating system, Windows application vendors can rely on its existence to provide features to their own applications. Is this not, after all, the entire purpose of the operating system?
The states and the DOJ can force Microsoft's hand and make them remove Internet Explorer from the operating system, but does this really make any sense? Users have always had the ability to use another browser when they surf the web, but an integrated HTML rendering engine and HTTP protocol implementation that it guaranteed to be bundled with the OS makes so much damn sense I really, truly don't understand what all the fuss is about.
standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Missed in the hubbub (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that one point that's been missed in the hubbub about whether KDE and GNOME are desktop environments or part of the operating system is that the witness was wrong about the web browsers' removability. It's quite possible to pull remove the web browser from either KDE or GNOME. If I decide that Konqueror is taking up valuable space that should be saved for Mozilla, I can just rpm -e kdeaddons-konqueror and it's gone. Similarly I can remove galeon with rpm -e galeon. I'll lose some functionality by doing so, true, but neither one is so deeply entwined into the system that it's unremovable.
The Dead Cow (Score:5, Informative)
Q. You mentioned in paragraph 20 TCP/IP. Could you tell us what is TCP/IP?
A. Well, the initials stand for transmission control protocol slash Internet protocol, and these are the two primary protocols used in the Internet for computers to communicate with each other.
Q. Is TCP/IP something that is part of the operating system or part of the Web browser?
A. In... I guess I would say part of the operating system in the sense as this section has illustrated, the functionality of operating systems have constantly increased over the past decades, and I believe almost every operating system, commercial operating system, I know of today provides TCP/IP whether or not, because -- if I can -- there are many other functions, such as FTP and others, that rely upon IP in order to do their job.
So there are many other functions besides browsing that operating systems rely upon these things, so therefore it would have to be part of the operating system.
Q. As part of the operating system in Windows 95, is that your testimony?
A. It was added, as I mentioned, over time. I don't -- I believe it was added into Windows 95. I forgot exactly which version it was added into.
Q. And in the current version of windows today, it's part of the operating system and not part of the Web browser. Is that your testimony?
A. As I said, as in many other -- most other commercial operating systems, I believe it is part of the key functions of the operating system.
Q. Let's turn if we could to paragraph 22 of your testimony, which is at page 11. Professor, at paragraph 22 you mention IBM's OS/2 Warp 3 operating system. Do you see that.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you say that IBM's OS/2 Warp operating system included Web browsing software. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was the OS/2 Web browser removable without impairing the functionality of the IBM operating system?
A. I do not know that. I did not study that aspect. My point in this section was to illustrate that these functionalities are included in operating systems in various ways.
Q. Since you don't know about OS/2, is there any other operating system you're aware of in which the Web browsing functionality is commingled with the operating system?
A. Yes, I do, if we take the view that the Web browsing functionality is also relied upon in other parts of the operating system.
Q. Which operating systems would those be?
A. Well, some examples, and there may be many others, would be the KDE user interface or GUI that exists on the Linux operating system.
Q. Now, KDE is not an operating system; correct?
A. I think I -- every definition in this court it would be middleware, in which case it would be a platform software.
Q. KDE is the graphic user interface, graphical user interface, for the Linux operating system; is that correct?
A. Yes. It's one of the interfaces available.
Q. It can be removed and replaced; correct?
A. Well, it can be -- if it is removed, of course, by -- if it's just removed, then the user will not be able to use the system. You could replace it by others and, in fact, most of the others I'm aware of likewise have, as you would call it, commingled Web browsing with their functionality.
Q. In Windows can you remove the graphical user interface?
THE COURT: Are you talking about now?
MR. HODGES: Today, correct.
A. As I understand -- I believe it's either yes or will soon be. I believe the provision that the Microsoft has agreed to as part of the settlement is that the end user would be able to remove access to the browser, if that was your question.
Q. My question is: Can the graphical user interface of Windows be removed?
A. I'm sorry. No, I do not believe so. It would no longer be Windows.
Q. Has it ever been the case that the graphical user interface of Windows could be removed?
A. I guess the answer might be yes in the sense, as I said again in this session, at one time operating systems had no graphical interface at all if you go back to essentially the original MS-DOS. So this is the examples of the kinds of functionality that operating systems have increasingly provided to users to enhance their effectiveness. So, yes, there was a point in time where it did not exist and there's a point in time where it was added to the operating system.
Q. If KDE is removed from the Linux operating system, then its Web browsing functionality is also removed; is that correct?
A. Well, the Web browsing that's provided through the interface is removed, yes.
Q. The Web browsing provided through KDE; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you say that, in paragraph 24 -- it's actually on page 12, paragraph 24. I'll read this to you. "One cannot delete the Web browser from KDE without losing the ability to manage files on the user's own hard disk." Do you see that language?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, isn't it the case that files can be managed by using standard UNIX command in the shell even if KDE is not installed?
A. That is correct. The assumption here was we are talking about the user using the system as a modern operating system which requires access to this kind of interface.
Q. We've talked about Windows and we've talked about the KDE interface, and my question is: Can you name any operating system, other than Windows, that commingles a Web browser with the operating system?
A. I have not attempted to identify all the others. As I indicate in this whole section, these are examples of the kinds of innovative features that vendors constantly add to the systems. Some have reached that stage of benefiting from the kinds of interactions possible, some have not. These are the ones I've identified as part of the study so far.
Q. Based on your experience as a computer scientist and as a Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are you aware of any operating system, other than Windows, that binds the Web browser into the operating system? MR. LACOVARA: I'll object. We have now shifted from commingling to binding without a definition. It may have just been inadvertent on Mr. Hodges' part.
MR. HODGES: It was inadvertent, and I appreciate that clarification.
Q. If I change the word from "binding" to "commingling," let me ask you, are you aware of any operating system, other than Windows, that commingles a Web browser with the operating system?
MR. LACOVARA: I would object to that. I think it's the third time he's asked the question. Asked and answered. THE COURT: I'll let him to proceed. But this is the last time.
A. Okay. If I recall the question, I think I answered it in terms of identifying KDE and I believe GNOME, which is another interface on Linux, also has the Web browser functionality integrated. So those are two examples. And, once again, this was not an attempt to exhaustively study all the others or systems that are under development today.
Q. GNOME is a -- it's spelled G-N-O-M-E; correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. It's not the way most people would pronounce that word. GNOME is also a graphical user interface for Linux; correct.
A. That is correct. It provides that kind of functionality.
Q. And it is also, like KDE, a removable graphical user interface for Linux; correct?
A. It's removable in the sense if you remove it you no longer have access to a graphical user interface.
Q. It's not an operating system; correct?
A. Well, it is part of what we described as middleware under the understanding of the terms being used, and we go from there.
Q. I'll try to stay in order, but I need to flip back to page 11 and paragraph 23 if I could. You say in the second sentence --
A. I'm sorry. What page?
Q. I'm sorry. It's page 11, paragraph 23. I can tell you, Professor, it also appears up there on the monitor in front of you, so whatever is easier for you is fine.
THE COURT: The small monitor has it, too.
THE WITNESS: It's sometimes helpful to see the context. That's why I like to look at the documents.
BY MR. HODGES:
Q. The second line of paragraph 23 -- the second sentence, I'm sorry -- you say that Windows, like all commercial operating systems of which I am aware, ships with a simple text editor, Notepad in the case of Windows, that is a relatively self-contained block of code that is easily removable. What's the basis for that statement?
A. It's a long sentence. Is there some particular part of it you're having a question about?
Q. Yes. I want to know what's the basis for your statement that the Notepad is easily removable?
A. The fact that there is a file -- I can't remember it's name, but it's probably something like Notepad.exe -- that in theory one could delete without having any other effects upon the operating system.
Q. Is this based on your review of the Windows XP source code?
A. Not specifically.
Q. Professor, have you had an opportunity to review the direct testimony of Robert Short of Microsoft?
A. I have seen it.
Q. Mr. Short is the vice president of Windows core
technologies. Does that sound right to you?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short testified that there are
cross-dependencies between the Notepad and Internet Explorer?
A. After I wrote my report, I believe I remembered hearing
that mentioned in his report or his testimony. Yes the answer
is.
Q. Do you disagree with Mr. Short?
A. I assume he knows much more about the internals of Windows
than I do. I believe my point may still be true, although I've
not consulted with him, in that I believe the removable of
Notepad does not impact any other part of the system.
I believe in his testimony -- I think he was trying to
illustrate that other parts -- using my earlier diagram of HTML
Renderer, for example, or Shell Doc Viewer -- that removal of
other parts of the middleware that might seem to be unrelated
might cause Notepad to fail.
Am I clear on the duality here or the differences? Am
I clear on the differences that removing Notepad may not cause
other parts of the system to fail, but that removing other
parts of the system that may appear to be file removed from
Notepad might cause Notepad to fail. I think that is two
different issues.
Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short used the term
cross-dependencies?
A. I don't recall what exact term he used.
Q. If there are cross-dependencies, doesn't that apply that
Notepad relies on Internet Explorer and Internet Explorer
relies on Notepad?
A. I can't speak for him.
Q. Is that what the term cross-dependencies means to you?
A. That would be a one interpretation, yes.
Q. And if there are cross-dependencies, wouldn't it be the
case that removing Notepad would affect other parts of the
Windows operating system product?
A. That might be true. I was only trying to give a simple
example here. If that one doesn't apply I'll have to find some
other example.
Q. I take it you were not aware of any cross-dependency involving the Notepad?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Is there any technical reason that there needs to be a cross-dependency between the Notepad and Internet Explorer?
A. As I said, this is not an area that I have studied. If you would like me to speculate or to try to conjure up a reason, I could try to do so, but it would be totally ad hoc thinking.
Q. I don't want you to speculate. I want to ask if you are aware of any technical reason that there needs to be a cross-dependency between the Notepad and Internet Explorer? And if you don't know, that's acceptable.
A. What might be helpful is the realization based upon my many years trying to understand all of the inter-dependencies that go on in a complex product is extremely difficult, and often I've been quite surprised myself to realize that one part of the system was able to make use of another part.
So, you know, with some careful thought it is possible I might find that there actually is a reason for cross- dependencies. But it was not something that immediately came to mind.
Q. So you could speculate that, but you don't know. Is that an accurate summary?
A. As I've said, I have not studied that issue.
Q. Now, you have reviewed the Windows XP source code; correct?
A. Yes, I have. Though I will not say I've looked at every 36 million or so lines of code carefully.
Q. Is it 36 million or 39 million?
A. As I said, a million here, a million there, it adds up after a while I guess.
Q. Pretty soon you're talking about real lines of code?
A. Exactly.
Q. What exactly have you done?
A. The main purpose of looking -- once again, given both the limited amount of time and the size, was really to better understand the way in which a system was modularized, the way in which it's broken up into individual routines and the types of interdepencies that exist, so it's more to get a feel for the overall structure of the system.
Q. Is there any way you can quantify how much effort was involved in your review of the Windows XP source code?
A. Physical amount of time, probably 8 or 10 hours.
Re:The Dead Cow (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly this witness was a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than the slashbot responses suggest.
With regards to some of the final questioning there on the cross dependencies between Notepad and IE, I think the most obvious thing is if you were to delete Notepad from the system... View-Source would no longer function within IE. So yes, Mr. Short from Microsoft was technically correct.
Is there a technical need for the cross dependency? Well assuming we are talking specifically about View->Source. Then yes, in so much as the browser needs to have some way to display the source. The method must be well known, and exist at the time IE is installed to the system, or installed in conjunction with IE. Notepad is an obvious choice. Otherwise, the IE team would have to recreate this functionality within the program.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it a technical desirable solution? No... application modularity is very desirable and makes development more efficient instead of constantly recreating the wheel.
Focusing on the wrong issue (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that you can't be a licensed Windows PC Provider AND sell naked PC's or PC's with Linux or ANY OTHER OS on them when you sign the contract with Microsoft is the issue they should be looking at.
If I told you that you could sell PC's with Mandrake on them but if you signed up to do so were then legally inable to sell naked PC's or PC's with Windows on them you'd be pissed too.
A simple request (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you.
Link to the ORIGINAL Article... (Score:5, Informative)
Go grab it here: http://sage.che.pitt.edu/~harrold/tmp/73B9A1D4d01
Re:gnome and kde aren't OSes (Score:2)
Well this guy was an MIT prof (Score:3, Insightful)
But really - what does this mean? The layperson out and about won't hear about this. They are not informed about this and regardless of what happenes, short of M$ being broken up - people won't stop using their products. I like all of this news, but the masses just don't hear about these things (they don't read slashodot).
RonB
Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof (Score:3, Informative)
The one to have faith in is the non-settling state AGs who are still pursuing the case. The DoJ has determined they don't care, they got enough of MS $$ to satisfy their needs.
Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof (Score:4, Informative)
Windows and Microsoft shouldn't go out of its way to make it more difficult for non-MS apps to work well.
They don't, that's just anti-MS FUD.
Bullshit. You all can mod me down as flamebait, but I just can't let you get away with this lie. All one has to do is go back to the Caldera lawsuit, and read the transcripts. There was email after email between high-ranking MS execs coming up with a strategy to sabotage DR-DOS's perceived interoperability with Windows. They even went so far as to encrypt the code that displayed the "error" to make it harder to see that they were doing.
It ain't FUD if it's a matter of public record.
Re:MS withdrawing witnesses (Score:3, Informative)
There has been a couple of news items about this, there's one from the FT here [ft.com] - it says:
Lawyers for the nine litigating US states in the Microsoft antitrust remedy hearings yesterday appeared to have been comprehensively out-manoeuvered by their counterparts defending the software giant, after the Microsoft legal team decided to halve the number of defence witnesses it would call.
In particular, Microsoft's decision not to call Richard Fade, its executive in charge of relations with computer manufacturers, means the states' lawyers will probably not be able to enter critical evidence before the court.
This is the latest blow to the states' case. Earlier in the hearings, their lawyers misunderstood rules about how new witnesses should be called, leaving them without key testimony.
Great news, huh?