Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

Professor Testifies Windows Is Modular, Separable 650

circlejtp writes: "Princeton University professor Andrew Appel said in written testimony that modular design is an accepted standard in the industry, and Microsoft has already created a version of Windows for interactive television boxes that has removable functions. The full story can be found on the Tacoma Tribune website." At issue is Microsoft's claim that separating Windows' components would cripple the OS.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Professor Testifies Windows Is Modular, Separable

Comments Filter:
  • cripple (Score:2, Insightful)

    by havaloc ( 50551 )
    The only thing it would cripple is their business model. So in a sense they aren't lying.
    • Re:cripple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lysurgon ( 126252 ) <<moc.hsojhsidnaltuo> <ta> <khsoj>> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:26PM (#3317708) Homepage Journal
      The only thing it would cripple is their business model. So in a sense they aren't lying.

      Exactly! But that's an admission of gult there! Check it: the DOJ has found that their business model is monopolistic and anti-competative. Ergo, any solution that would rectify that situation would by necessity cause them to change the way they do business.

      That's why these nine states are holding out, because the current government settlement will not stop microsoft from deploying its monopoly of the desktop in anti-competative ways.

      The problem is that with the influence of Sun and AOL/TW, this case is becoming more about giving up market share to existing competitors (cementing the current plutocratic high-tech oligarchy) and not about opening the field to innovation, entrepeneurialism and true competition.

      Sadly, it's mega-corp vs mega-corp at this point... feels a bit like the last presidential election: you root for the lesser of two evils.
      • Re:cripple (Score:2, Funny)

        by freaq ( 466117 )
        i got tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils, so i summ^H^H^H^Hvoted for Cthulhu, the Greater Evil.
    • Re:cripple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brian Kendig ( 1959 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:34PM (#3317799) Homepage
      That's true, since it's absolutely crucial to Microsoft's business model to avoid giving any ground to any of Microsoft's competitors.

      Microsoft will *not* release a version of Windows that's stripped-down with the browser removed. Period.

      They will assert to the end that it's simply not possible for them to do. Eventually the government will require them to, but then they'll do like they did during the court case in 1999 and make a version of Windows which simply doesn't work, and they'll point to this as proof that they were right all along.

      When the government continues to require Microsoft to release a version of Windows that doesn't have IE bundled in, Microsoft will continue to not offer such a product. The court case will drag on for another seven years. If eventually Microsoft is backed into a corner and somehow *forced* to offer a stripped-down version of Windows, then it'll be more expensive than the standard version, have more bugs, and PC makers will face stiff penalties from Microsoft if they use it. And then *that* court case will drag on for seven more years.

      Meanwhile, Microsoft will misrepresent this to the public as 'the government is trying to get us to remove useful software from Windows and not let you have it for free!'

      The real problem is that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand the big deal. He gets Windows with his PC, and it comes with a web browser and an instant messager built in, and any great new killer apps to appear in the future will have a workalike clone also built into Windows so that he doesn't have to go figure out how to download and install it. He doesn't understand that he's paying for these 'freebies' in the cost of Windows, which is part of the cost of his PC. He doesn't understand that without competition these handy utilities won't be any better than they need to be, as long as they're not so bad that he is driven to figure out how to download/install other companies' software.

      • Re:cripple (Score:4, Funny)

        by unformed ( 225214 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:57PM (#3317987)
        but then they'll do like they did during the court case in 1999 and make a version of Windows which simply doesn't work.

        As opposed to all the other times when it did work.
      • Re:cripple (Score:3, Funny)

        by AntiNorm ( 155641 )
        but then they'll do like they did during the court case in 1999 and make a version of Windows which simply doesn't work

        You mean like WinME?
      • by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @01:02PM (#3318033) Homepage
        Each PC needs to have a sticker on it that says "$120 of the price of this PC goes to Microsoft for its products" like they have for the $.33 gasoline tax here in Indiana.
        • Each PC needs to have a sticker on it that says "$120 of the price of this PC goes to Microsoft for its products" like they have for the $.33 gasoline tax here in Indiana.

          Except that they can't. Part of the whole argument over Windows OEM pricing is that the big OEMs like Compaq and Dell, as part of their OEM licencing agreement that gives them cheap bulk Windows licences, are not allowed to make public how much it cost them. After all, if one OEM could publicly state that they got Windows cheaper than anyone else, then all the other OEMs would be able to ask Microsoft WHY they weren't getting the same deal. Keeping the OEMs from being able to compare notes allows Microsoft to set what prices they want, and make deals the way they want.

          -- Bryan Feir
        • This is what I've been preaching all along. If they did this, then consumers would start bitching about the fact that MS no longers allow vendors to sell licenses that aren't physically affixed to a PC. With the old Windows, the license was transferrable since the holographic license was seperate (it was stuck to the manual). MS now realizes that they are running out of "new releases" so they have all this crap with trying to make the license non-transferrable. Hell, you can't even get an installable package with a PC anymore - only restore images. And you can bet your sweet bippie that MS was behind all of this. Greedy bastards.

          The bottom line is that an itemization of costs would make the consumer stop throwing away their valuable license with their old PC. The market would eventually become saturated (or supersaturated which was my case with Win95 - I'm still throwing those things away) and MS will cease to be an OS vendor. I see no reason for a consumer to venture beyond Windows 2K or XP.

          With that in mind, the gov't needs to set a guideline for the support of products. If an OS is still viable, then there is no reason that MS should stop supporting it.
      • "The real problem is that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand the big deal. He gets Windows with his PC, and it comes with a web browser and an instant messager built in, and any great new killer apps to appear in the future will have a workalike clone also built into Windows so that he doesn't have to go figure out how to download and install it. He doesn't understand that he's paying for these 'freebies' in the cost of Windows, which is part of the cost of his PC."

        The "freebies" part doesn't really matter. Even if Microsoft made a modular version of Windows they could still include the free programs.

        Why would Microsoft lower the prices on the OS even if it didn't include the freebies? They have to go through and redesign Windows to make it modular so they could say "we've made it better (modular) and left the price the same!".

        If the Music Industry doesn't have to lower prices on "copy protected" CDs then why would Microsoft lower the price of Windows when it will include all of the same (and possibly more) free programs?

      • Re:cripple (Score:4, Informative)

        by blibbleblobble ( 526872 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @01:29PM (#3318259)
        Who cares about a Windows without IE6? Let's start with a Windows that it's not illegal to sell as dual-boot Windows/Linux from computer shops.
  • Thats funny (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 )
    In any other industry, modularity and flexibility are considered desirable properties. Only in Microsofts ass-backwards world do they run round denying these things...
    • Re:Thats funny (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TummyX ( 84871 )
      How did you get modded up?

      Microsoft has never denied modularity at all. The fact that so many apps depend on IE is a testimant to it's componentised design. Somehow everyone here seems to think componentisation implies less coupling between apps. It actually promotes MORE coupling.

      The only people who've been talking about modularity and flexibility (or lack thereof) are the anti-microsoft camp.
      • Re:Thats funny (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Edgewize ( 262271 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:35PM (#3317808)
        I don't know what kind of world you program in, but where I code, componentisation and coupling are not even close to the same thing. For example:

        Mozilla encourages use of its components. Anyone can use the rendering engine and distribute it with his own product, saving on development time while still providing a product to the widest possible market.

        Internet Explorer promotes coupling. Anyone can use its rendering engine, except that nobody is allowed to distribute its rendering engine except as part of the full Internet Explorer package. This cuts down on development time at the cost of forcing all your users to run Internet Explorer.

        See the difference?
  • by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:15PM (#3317591)
    What do they mean, Windows would be crippled? ;-)

    Cheers,

    Tim
    • Of course it would.....

      Without the intrusive middleware, the thing would actually work. People would not be looking for the latest version, and hence rely on their doggedly old Windows1836, just as we have old clunkers on the road.

      Since a working windows would not help Microsoft take over the world, it would be ....

      crippled!

      {OT subject="cripple"}Years ago, I heard that you could circumvent viruses by renaming command.com to 1234567.com, and doing a few string hacks in the kernel. Lots of other 7-letter words work: legless.com and cripple.com. Armed with the wheel-chair icon, it makes a dandy command propt for Windows.{/OT}

  • Sure it's modular... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Skweetis ( 46377 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:17PM (#3317611) Homepage
    Here [98lite.net] is proof.
    • I used their IEradicator utility in Win2k on my laptop (I will NOT run Windows on my main computer, but that's another story). I think I was running Win2k without any service packs or with service pack 1. I made completely sure that my system was fully complient with IEradicator's requirements. I'm only using Mozilla, both in Linux and in Windows, so I figured removing Explorer would be a good ideea.

      Well, it wasn't. After the eradication process was completed, my system was working, but with some major problems. The most annoying one was the "Add/Remove Programs" in Control Panel. That thing would not even load anymore. I did not try installing any new programs after I got the error, but I'm sure that they would not install properly (since they could not be removed anymore). I was also getting some minor error messages on bootup, but I was sure I could get rid of them if I would take the time to edit them out of the registry.

      When I saw that IEradicator did not do a good job, I tried reinstalling Explorer 6. No dice. It would not install at all. No matter how hard I tried, I had to give up. I even tried installing IE5 and then 4. Those didn't work either, so I tried repairing Win2k, again, no luck. The only solution I had was to reinstall Win2k from scratch.

      While Windows might be modular. I'm sure it is, otherwise patching it with service packs and updates would be close to impossible, since you'd have to upgrade the whole OS if it weren't. M$ is definitely making it damn hard to remove any of the modules.
      • by Reziac ( 43301 )
        Um.. you DID notice that 98lite and IEradicator are for Win95/98/ME, and have not yet been released for Win2K, right?? And you DO know that Win9*/ME and WinNT/2K are very different animals, right?

        Just went to 98lite.net and checked -- nope, not available for Win2K yet. Tho I've heard it's in the works, and an XPLite version is expected to follow.

  • ... that when I see this story posted I notice the Microsoft Visual Studio .NET banner ad on the /. front page? I don't know how long it's been running but today is the first I noticed it.

    Apparently our hypocrisy knows no bounds.
    • <Conspiracy Class="M$" Believability=0>

      That's right, Cmdr. Taco has ensured that, from now on, .NET banner ads would run with every MS story. With all the positive press Microsoft already receives from /., this targeted advertising is sure to draw wheelbarrows of money from click-throughs.

      Or not. Hey, someone make sure there're no nanoprobes in Taco's bloodstream. . .

      </Conspiracy>

  • by dickens ( 31040 )
    The Maxtor Windows-Based NAS boxes.

    Or am I to assume they all contain a web browser, etc ?
  • by gergi ( 220700 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:19PM (#3317627)
    maybe someone will figure out how to uninstall the BSOD program... it tends to run randomly and always seems to crash my computer.
  • What about OS X? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nakhla ( 68363 )
    My question is, why isn't anyone complaining about bundling in the case of Mac OS X? Yes, I know, Apple isn't trying to tie a web browser in as part of the underlying OS. But still, they include things like iPhoto and iMovie. Aren't these considered "middleware"? Why isn't anyone complaining about that?
    • by generic-man ( 33649 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:23PM (#3317667) Homepage Journal
      Apple doesn't have a monopoly to leverage, so there is no recourse. For the same reason, Red Hat doesn't get in trouble for bundling various applications with their Linux distribution since they are not a monopoly.
      • by schon ( 31600 )
        For the same reason, Red Hat doesn't get in trouble for bundling various applications with their Linux distribution since they are not a monopoly.

        You're correct about leveraging a monopoly, but this isn't proof of it.

        Even if Redhat was a monopoly, bundling other people's applications (which is what RHAT does) wouldn't necessarily be an antitrust violation.

        MS is in hot water because they bundle their own products, in an attempt to kill these products' competition.

        If MS had decided to bundle Netscape's browser with the OS (negotiating an appropriate license,) the browser-bundling wouldn't be an issue.
    • Re:What about OS X? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tweek ( 18111 )
      Exactly. I htink Microsoft was rather bright in including the browser with the OS. It showed a bit of forsight into how important the web would be in the evolution of the internet as a whole. No one bitches about KDE ( via konq) and Gnome (via nautilus) embedding web code into the file managers.

      I never understood why the states went after the bundling issue when it's not the smoking gun. Look at the business practices with OEM's and things like the BeOS bootloader issue.

      I'm also opposed to forcing them to release sourcecode. I think it's thier right as a company to keep technology within the company if they so desire.

      I tell you. This is a simple fact. If you want to hurt microsoft, force them to release specs to the office file formats. Enough said.
      • I tell you. This is a simple fact. If you want to hurt microsoft, force them to release specs to the office file formats

        <homie>WORD!</homie>

        No pun intended, but props. I don't know why people don't go after this more zealously. If seamless interoperability were possible with other applications (and there's no technical reason why it shouldn't be), M$'s office monopoly would crumble. Without the office monopoly, the server-side monopoly has no basis. The house of cards will crumble.

      • You are missing the point. Try uninstalling Internet Explorer. It will kill you're windows installation. Sure KDE defaults Konqueror, but my installation didn't go bananas when I desided to switch to Nautilus (konq crashes my X.) Bundeled middleware is not a problem either, it's uninstallable.
    • Maybe because you can remove/uninstall iPHOTO/iMOVIE/iTUNES and still have a fully functional OS. Not so w- IE, which is intigrated as Windiws file browser AS WELL AS an internet browser.

      I could be incorect though.. this is just speculation on my part.

    • by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:30PM (#3317762) Homepage
      Remove iTunes.

      OS X still works.

      Remove iPhoto.

      OS X still works.

      Remove IE.

      OS X still works.

      It doesn't come back and say "No, you can't use Kodak's software - you must use iPhoto!" You don't have to fear something coming back and making iMovie your default application over Adobe Studio (or whatever it is).

      That's the big difference. If you try and remove IE from Windows, Microsoft gets pissed off because that's a big bad no-no, so you have no choice but to have that software whether you want it or not. It was put on to keep their monopoly - not because they thought they had a better browser. (Whether it became a better browser is not for debate here - that happened after Netscape basically was dried up.)
      • Remove iTunes.

        OS X still works.

        Remove iPhoto.

        OS X still works.

        Remove IE.

        OS X still works.


        But try and remove QuickTime and OS X doesn't work. Apple has tightly integrated QuickTime into the core of its OS. Originally QuickTime was a separate and modular software technology that you could replace. Now its an integral part of the OS. This is what Microsoft have done with IE on Windows.

        It doesn't come back and say "No, you can't use Kodak's software - you must use iPhoto!" You don't have to fear something coming back and making iMovie your default application over Adobe Studio (or whatever it is).

        That's the big difference. If you try and remove IE from Windows, Microsoft gets pissed off because that's a big bad no-no, so you have no choice but to have that software whether you want it or not. It was put on to keep their monopoly - not because they thought they had a better browser. (Whether it became a better browser is not for debate here - that happened after Netscape basically was dried up.)


        But I can still run Mozilla on Windows. Just because IE is there doesn't mean I can't run an alternative browser. I don't have to remove IE in order to run Netscape/Opera/MyFavoriteBrowser.

        So this is really no different to the iPhoto/Kodak situation you describe, except I can't remove IE just like I can't remove QuickTime from OS X.

        The big difference is that Microsoft are a monopoly and Apple aren't. The law says that what you can do as a non-monopoly player is different from what you can do when you have an effective monopoly. This is what Microsoft have done wrong and this is what they should be punished for, not for integrating software components into the core OS (IMHO, of course).
        • I'm pretty certain you can remove the Quicktime Player and all the codecs if you really want to without losing OS functionality (besides uhh.. playing movies).

          As far as the 'graphics interface', ala DirectX style stuff.. you may run into issues. I'm curious what specific files from Quicktime you claim will break the general UI, in any case. Something I would like to try.

          • I'm pretty certain you can remove the Quicktime Player and all the codecs if you really want to without losing OS functionality (besides uhh.. playing movies).

            Right, but QuickTime is a software architecture for playing time-based media. It is much, much more than the Player and the codecs. The QuickTime infrastructure is tightly bound into OS X and used by several other vital system components. For example the Finder won't work without QuickTime present. Yes, you can still use the command line but for most users an OS X without a Finder is seriously compromised.

            I don't think the OS will even boot into the GUI if you remove QuickTime fully, although its been a few versions since I tried.
          • At home I have a Mac 8500 running OS 9, and I was using it as a server so I took off almost everything. That includes Quicktime (and removal was easily done in about 30 seconds, by the way). I could still browse the web and do email and word. Some apps of course expect Quicktime to be there, but they could pretty much be configured otherwise.

            Since it was a server I didn't test every app under the sun, but the OS definitely doesn't choke.

            mark
        • > So this is really no different to the iPhoto/
          > Kodak situation you describe, except I can't
          > remove IE just like I can't remove QuickTime
          > from OS X.

          There's a big difference.

          QuickTime is a set of APIs that support certain types of codecs (Sorenson, being one). To play media that supports QuickTime's API's, you have an *application* called, "QuickTime Player". One can remove QuickTime Player, and the Mac OS will run fine. QuickTime (as a set of APIs and collection of codecs) is very different from Microsoft shoving Internet Explorer application into Windows and intertwining it as much as possible.

          Of course, there's always the point that Microsoft was found by a court and an appeals court to have illegally abused their monopoly. So if you want to yell at Apple about QuickTime, convince the DOJ to take 'em to court over monopoly charges. Good luck trying to prove that.
    • No, they're applications.

      Bit of history, because we're all forgetting this stuff: Back in the day, Netscape's claim was that Navigator was more than a browser, that because of its plug-in architecture people would write applications that would run under Netscape. Since Netscape ran on multiple OS'es, applications written to Netscape API's, rather than OS API's, would be portable, rendering the underlying OS irrelevant, or at least much less significant. This "middleware" aspect to Netscape -- a platform on the platform -- was what frightened Microsoft (according to Netscape, mind you), causing Bill and company to come after Netscape with chains and knives.

      iWhatever, AFAIK, are simply programs that do stuff themselves, not platforms upon which other programs are to be built.

      Ah, but you say that you've never seen a database or word-processor written as a Netscape plugin? Me neither, nor did Netscape ever bring one out and show it to people as a proof-of-concept. Still, they convinced the court.

    • Re:What about OS X? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aexia ( 517457 )
      My problem wasn't that MS was bundling IE with Windows. That's the media's gross oversimplification of the problem.

      The problem was Microsoft leveraging their near-OS monopoly to bully OEMs and competitors. The bundling of IE was just part of that attack strategy.

      Apple, of course, doesn't have any OEMs to bully nor a desktop monopoly to leverage. That's the difference.
    • Because Apple isn't a monopoly. What Apple is doing is legal, ethical and moral. What Microsoft is doing is illegal, unethical and immoral. Even though they're both doing the same thing. Lady Justice has removed her blindfold and is saying "tell me who you are and then I will tell you can or cannot do."
  • Everyone Knew (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:19PM (#3317633) Homepage Journal
    this- especially MS. But anything they can do to delay things is in their favor.

    Look how helpful it has been already. Delay allowed a shift to a friendlier administration. Delay let the economy go down the crapper and resolve to punish MS weaken.

    A lot of this centers around events that no one could have predicted. They just know that the longer they can push things back, the better off they will be.

    It's like paying taxes. You know you're gonna have to pay some eventually. But you are smart to delay it whenever possible and keep looking for ways to pay less.

    As this drags on - the resolve to do anything siginificant will weaken.

    Many of the facts of this case have never been in question by any party (admitted or not). But the MS lawyers have done a great job of making this last forever. They will eventually wear down the opposition and walk away w/a slap on the wrist. I don't like it - but there are lots of things I don't like.

    .
  • Mirror (Score:2, Informative)

    by qurob ( 543434 )
  • not to mention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by btellier ( 126120 ) <btellier@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:20PM (#3317643)
    the X-Box, which is basically a stripped down Windows OS. Their claims are bogus, they know they _can_ make it modular when they want to. However they can say it will cripple their OS to remove parts and not lie. Imagine

    if (have_IE())
    {
    printf("welcome to windows");
    }

    if someone only wants the printf part.. You can't just give them that without IE without crippling the entire program. However it would only take the Microsoft Programmer Zerglings a few days to get it functioning. It's creative lying (or possibly a "disputed distribution of factual material). I think they learned it from the government.
  • that microsoft shot itself in the foot when they made windows embedded? is their next OS going to have to be made with the removable programs as well? or am i just reading too much into it?
  • XP embedded... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tcc ( 140386 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:22PM (#3317653) Homepage Journal
    I've received my XP embedded toolkit [microsoft.com] and the first reaction I got when I started building images was "hey that thing is so modular, you can put whatever you actually NEED and save storage footprint or cpu cycles, etc" so, if they made that, in one way, it MUST be possible to do the same with the other distribution (if there's not already such a thing internally at microsoft).

    • Re:XP embedded... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Arandir ( 19206 )
      That's true. Very true. But XP Embedded is not a consumer OS. I hate to stick up for Microsoft, but they are right in a sense. If Dell, for example, starts shipping it's computers with a stripped down modularized XP, have the shrink-wrap software on the market won't run.

      Of course, that bed of nails was made by Microsoft itself, so I find it ironic that they're the ones bitching that they don't want to sleep in it.

      Linux is very modularized to. You don't have to install XFree86. But if you don't, you can't expect StarOffice to run out of the box. Windows users expect every piece of software they buy to run out of the box with no extra work. That can't happen if the software expects to find the IExplorer libs and it's not installed on the system.
      • Re:XP embedded... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @02:07PM (#3318513) Homepage
        If Dell wants to make a Windows box that doesn't run half the Win32 software on the market, then that should be their perogative. People fail to realize that the real "customer" here is Dell, Gateway, Compaq, IBM and the like. The so-called consumer is generally out of the equation.

        Microsoft's reputation is irrelevant. It's the Dells of the industry that put their reputation on the line when they ship a product bundled with Windows. They should have some say in what the final product looks like.

        If VARs don't like a particular new bit of Monopolyware, they should be able to reject it en masse.

        Dell and Compaq should be able to act more like Redhat or Mandrake in the level that they get to customize Windows. They should be able to make deletions and additions that reduce their own support costs.
  • XBox (Score:2, Redundant)

    by ZaneMcAuley ( 266747 )
    That is a cut down windows. Modified afterwards to provide the features needed. What about Windows Embedded? Isnt that cut down also?
  • by rhiorg ( 213355 ) <rhiorg@sarcasmic.net> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:22PM (#3317657)
    It really slays me that MS gets slammed by a guy named Appel.

  • I agree with requiring Microsoft to let companies un-bundle IE and whatnot from windows. But..

    The states also want Microsoft to divulge the blueprints for its Internet Explorer browser and let its Office business software be translated to other operating systems.

    Why do they want this? I for one don't want to see Microsoft extend it's Office monopoly (and along with it its incompatable proprietary binary formats) to other platforms. And we already have several Open-Source web browsers that pretty much kick the crap out of IE in terms of features. MS Office for Linux / Sun is something I hope I will NEVER have to see.

    • If they are forced to release the source to IE, shouldnt the other non opensource browsers reveal theirs? Even playing field? Or give those competitors an edge over MS in that they can see their code but they dont have to release theirs... Hmmm double standard?
    • Microsoft's desktop-platform and office-suite monopolies are very much dependant on each other. You could break either by breaking the other. Consider what's easier to do:
      1. force tens of millions of MS customers to use Linux thus creating a demand for a solid Linux office-suite, or
      2. creating a Linux version of Office, thus easing the move to 1inux for tens of millions of MS customers.
  • Here's five moves to make me trust MS:
    * Release a Linux module (binary ok) for Windows execs.
    * Make Windows modular (to all consumers.)
    * Start porting software like Office.
    * Make DirectX cross platform compatible.
    * ... uhmm ... I'll give 'em the last for free.
  • Judge to Ballmer: "Well Mr. Ballmer, the cat is out of the bag. Windows is modular and Internet Explorer can be easily removed. I see no reason not to implement the 9 states' requested settlement."

    Ballmer to Judge: "Your honor, how much would it cost to put the cat back in the bag?"
  • by EccentricAnomaly ( 451326 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:26PM (#3317717) Homepage
    Princeton University professor Andrew Appel said in written testimony....

    Professor "Appel" is totally impartial... yeah right. Why don't we ask Proffessor Sun or Professor Internationl Business Machine what they think.
    • Appel's his real name. I studied his book on compilers in shool; he's a pretty sharp guy.

      Professor Sun, however, didn't speak English too well, and I found his class difficult. Professor International Business Machine was a terrible teacher...he just stood there and hummed. Very annoying.
  • *sigh* not again (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TummyX ( 84871 )
    Windows ofcourse is VERY modular and componentised. Many of those components however can't be easily removed because of the modularity. Modularity promotes component reuse which causes many depedencies. The reason windows will break as a result of removing IE is precisely because windows is so componentised. If IE wasn't a component, no apps would depend on it.

    The point isn't whether you can seperate certain components from windows. The point is whether windows will be crippled without those components.

    IE is relied upon by many windows and third party components/applications. Without IE windows WOULD be crippled. This is just like how KDE would be crippled without Konquerer.

    It really should never have been an argument of whether it's technically possible or not. I can understand the Microsoft argument though. Technically it isn't possible to remove IE from windows and have windows function the same. No one ever denied that you COULD remove IE from windows in a way that would cripple it (Win95 exists no?).

    The issue here is not if IE can be removed, but whether IE should be removed.
    • The point isn't whether you can seperate certain components from windows. The point is whether windows will be crippled without those components.

      This is only true if you accept the premise that the applications are the components. With a slight twist to the packaging (which MSFT is loathe to do), a given component (say, the html renderer) could be installed separately from the major application (IE). Most OS's do this already, in that necessary libraries are in separate packages from the applications.

      There is absolutely nothing stopping MSFT from unbundling the components other than the desire to continue with business as usual.

    • Exactly what part of IE are ISV using? If it is just an HTML viewer you should be using what ever component that is registered to view that type of data. Where does "IE Only" fit in?

      Exactly how much of KDE is really tied to Konquerer? I honestly don't know since I've used GNOME forever. I suspect however that many pieces of functionality still work whether or not Konquerer is functional. Why would the KDE crew want to make Konquerer's bugs effect all of KDE?

      The issue here is not if IE can be removed, but whether Microsoft wants too. Since punishments rarely take into account what the offernder wants why should it matter to the Judge what Microsoft claims.
  • I assure you, this isn't flamebait, although some may preceive it as such.

    What, exactly, is the difference between the integration of Windows and IE vs the integration of KE and Konqueror?
    • Re:What About KDE? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Cyph ( 240321 )
      I think the issue is that Windows is an operating system that comes with all of these components preinstalled, and KDE is just a desktop environment, that you're free to install or remove at any time.
    • Re:What About KDE? (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilpenguin ( 18720 )
      The fact that konqueror is not integrated. You don't have to have konqueror to use KDE. Also you don't have to have KDE to run Linux. You don't pay anything for either of them, and finally, KDE is not a monopoly.

      The whole issue is the "tying" of IE (at the time not a monopoly product) to Windows (a monopoloy) for the sole purpose of harming a competitot (Netscape). If this isn't clear to you, then I suggest you are not up on the issues.

      Read the Findings of Fact [usdoj.gov] in the case. The present debate is only over the remedy. No one has successfully challenged the findings of fact. Read. Learn. Enjoy. Then come back and tell me there is no difference between the two.

      Ignorance is bliss and we are a happy country.
  • Now that there's some science brass disputing the claims of a M$'s lawyers, maybe the judge will stiffen the penalty.

    If only "Add/Remove Programs" would allow me to DELETE Internet Explorer as opposed to only UPDATING Internet Explorer.

    The only thing crippled here is the OS's interface. They've deliberately removed function from the user's perspective... I'm sure its possible to delete IE. And I'm sure its possible to automate it without deleting any otherwise necessary files. They just don't LET you.

    I can't believe there has even been a DEBATE about MS being a monopoly or using their market share to influence and dominate not one industry (software) but THREE (also hardware and the internet-related stuff).
  • That may be true, but it still could be argued that a consumer version would do the damage they say it would. The version for tv boxes is a closed/controled system that consumers don't mess with, so you could say that it wouldn't generate the support calls.

    That is, if you buy the argument at all, which I think is poppycock. In windows since 95 (I can't remember about 3.1) you can remove certain parts of windows. Don't want minesweeper, disable it. It acutally takes it off your system, not just removes the icon from the start menu. I think it has been well proven that you can do the same for IE, or the CD writer software with XP, or Windows media player.

    I do, however think that they need to keep windows messenger from being removable (in XP), I mean, that improves connectivity and system performance [theregister.co.uk], right? not!

  • For the end goal (that is, no bundling) to be achieved, Microsoft can simply remove the Internet Explorer icon (and maybe iexplore.exe) from the desktop, right? I mean, sure, there are a few small other places it's integrated (explorer.exe will start internet explorer if I navigate to a URL rather than a folder), but they wouldn't actually have to remove anything but the code that starts the browser and the justice department would be pretty happy (i.e. not be able to tell the difference). I suppose this would make the IE download awfully small, too...
  • You know... (Score:2, Informative)

    by compupc1 ( 138208 )
    As much as they might want to complain about wanting to remove Microsoft's components, the fact of the matter is that there simply aren't competing products that work as well as Microsoft's products. (Note: I'm not talking about Office or anything like that...I'm talking about components that come with Windows).

    Take IE. It used to be a pretty lousy program, but anyone who says that IE 6 isn't a good program (with the exception of some security issues) is delusional. I have yet to see a comparable program for the Windows platform that can do things as fast and as well as IE can. Even if someone didn't want to use it, there's nothing stopping them from using a different browser. I used Netscape and Mozilla along side IE for years without problems. The simple fact of the matter is that Netscape lost the Windows browser war because it failed to stay up to date. It crashed. It didn't support as many standards as IE did. It was slower. Also, think about this: as we see more and more online storage services, ftp repositories, etc. popping up on the Internet, is it not logical that one would ususally want to browse through these remote sites, as well as Intranets in the same way they browse through their local computer? It only makes sense that eventually the Internet would have to become seamlessly integrated with the OS. And when push came to shove, IE won out because it was just better.

    Take Windows Media Player. Tell me, what program is better? Real is full of ads, Quicktime isn't free, and Winamp is only good for audio. Again, the exact same situation applies. WMP is simply the better program in most cases. And, of course, there's NOTHING stopping consumers from installing 3rd party software if they so choose.

    Short of driving down prices on Windows, I fail to see how requiring them to strip it down will be of benefit to consumers. It'll just mean more hassle - you've got to search for and download all those things by yourself. And the average newbie can't do that. Look, allowing OEMs to include alternate programs and changing the desktop to have the icons point to those by defalt is one thing, but requiring Windows to be stripped down to a point where it would actually have LESS capabilities than competing OSs won't solve anything. What WILL make a difference is more closely monitoring Microsoft's buisness practices, and maybe making select parts of their code open source. This is to the point where I think some of these states are just on a rampage, blowing the problem out of proportion and failing to understand the real issues at stake.
    • Re:You know... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bigbadwlf ( 304883 )
      IE6 has no option to turn off popup windows and no right-click option that says "block images from this server."
      Have you tried Mozilla lately? The odd time I boot Windows I *still* use Mozilla.

      Furthermore, no browser other than IE will perform as well as it should on Windows because IE is always running. IE is the only browser you can run by itself in Windows.
    • No browser better that IE6?!

      Well, IE is technically not a browser at all. To call something a "web browser" it must at least adhere to RFC 2616 [faqs.org]. Well, MSIE does not. To quote the RFC:

      7.2.1 Type
      [snip]
      Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource. [snipped]

      Thus, a browser MUST adhere the Content-Type if it's given.
      OK, now load IE and try to visit this site [wox.org], or this site (warning: browser will crash) [wox.org]. Note that the content type of these sites is text/plain and thus the text should simply be displayed on screen.

      Therefore, IE6 is not a "web browser" and thus the best browser for the M$Win platform is Mozilla [mozilla.org].
  • by defaulthtm ( 464486 ) <defaulthtm&hotmail,com> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:34PM (#3317801)
    In previous court testimony he has said that source code is free speach (see his public policy page [princeton.edu]). Yet he seems to be suggesting that Microsoft's private free speach can be regulated by law while others cannot. I want to have my cake and eat it too as well, but it seems to me that he has to pick one postion or the other.
    K.
    • by Fiver-rah ( 564801 ) <slashdot AT qiken DOT org> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:53PM (#3317955) Homepage Journal
      I'm not sure I buy this. Appel says:

      Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.

      Now if Microsoft wanted to release the source code to their IE/Windows, I don't think Appel (or anyone here) would argue with their right to do so, even if IE and Windows were inextricably tangled. Clearly, that isn't going to happen. The issue is over the executables they release. Which are not protected. The Windows CDs which MS provides do not provide for the exhange of information and ideas about programming. As a matter of fact, the EULA you have to accept to run this software specifically binds you not to try to figure out how it works. No sane person would consider a non-human-readable executable to be protected free speech. Come on.

    • Microsoft is a monopoly, that has been convicted of illegally leveraging that monopoly to expand it further. Just like any other convict, Microsoft must forfeit some of their rights as part of the penalty.

      So there is no contradiction, no need to "pick one position or the other."
  • Well (Score:2, Funny)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
    there's another professor who will never work in this country again.

  • by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:40PM (#3317841) Homepage Journal
    How modular is Linux?
    How easy is it to pull apart the pieces?
    (I honestly don't know the answers, so input would be great).

    Honestly, coders strive for modularity on almost every project. Theory says its possible, but anyone that's worked on a large OO project knows that there is always an exception (usually a dozen) to the rule, and "seperating" the modules is a lot more work than you'd think.

    So, the professor is correct that THEORETICALLY there is modularity that's simple to seperate.

    It always gets me when people ask professors about stuff that a business does. Like this. Most professors (note: I said "most", not "all") go to school and get their bachelors, then grad school for masters and PhD, then off to teaching. Most haven't had much of a job outside the schooling system. Sure they know the theory expertly, but theory and practice, as always, are different.
    • by Boulder Geek ( 137307 ) <archer@goldenagewireless.net> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @01:09PM (#3318094)
      How modular is Linux? How easy is it to pull apart the pieces? (I honestly don't know the answers, so input would be great).

      Pretty easy, depending on how you define Linux. The kernel is a monolithic kernel made from many modules. The rest of the system is just a bunch of programs that depend on various shared libraries. In this regard Windows is essentially identical, other than the fact that MSFT refuses to distribute various key components independant of particular applications, even though other applications use those components. This is why MSFT continues to maintain that Windows would be crippled if IE were removed. They are claiming that components such as the html renderer cannot be distributed without IE. This is contradicted by the fact that many applications use that component and no other part of IE.

      Honestly, coders strive for modularity on almost every project. Theory says its possible, but anyone that's worked on a large OO project knows that there is always an exception (usually a dozen) to the rule, and "seperating" the modules is a lot more work than you'd think.

      MSFT uses COM to export various modules from programs like IE. All of these modules have well-defined interfaces that can be used by other programs. By definition these parts are modular, and have no dependenciels other than (perhaps) on other COM modules. Any spaghetti is hidden behind the COM interface. In the UNIX world we sort of do the same thing, in that code that is meant to be shared is put into shared libraries and usually packaged separately from the main application.

    • Well, it's insanely modular; what most people call "Linux" is in fact an enormous pile of software including a small (but important part, the kernel, which is Linux. And usually there are multiple choices for each component, often that come on the same CD. SO while Windows comes with edit.com, the average Linux distribution comes with say 20 different text editors. (before you ask, vi.)

      This in fact often confuses people - for example, understanding that X, the window manager, and the desktop environment are all different bits often throws people for a moment. Then they realsie that this means they have a choice to pick the one they like. In fact, they don't need any of these bits if they don't need them. I reckon, for example, that if I could make Linux work on my personal machine, I wouldn't need a GUI at all as console apps + the odd SVGAlib utility would do everything I need.

      In fact, Linux is so modular that you can remove the Linux part and replace it with a different kernel!
  • Easily defended (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mjh ( 57755 ) <mark@noSpaM.hornclan.com> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:41PM (#3317854) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess depending on your perspective) this is probably pretty easily defended. The difference between an embeded OS and a consumer computer OS is pretty significant. In the embedded OS, you can take out a bunch of features and not consider the OS to be crippled. Whereas the lack of those features in a general purpose consumer computer would make that OS crippled.

    The reason is that in the embedded space, the OS tends to be used for very specific services. Thus removing any services not related to the one being provided does not cripple the OS. But in a general purpose computer, as the name implies, the OS is expected to do a huge variety of things. Hence losing some of those features would cripple a general purpose OS, but not cripple an embedded OS.

    An analogy: an automobile that came with no radio, no cup holders, no airconditioning, a net instead of a drivers window, and no doors, would by consumer standards be crippled. However those same things that cripple a consumer car are requirements on a car that's going to race for NASCAR.

    So while it's interesting to see that MS *can* modularize their system. It's not a very compelling argument.

    (Just a minute, I gotta get on the asbestos suit on... ok flame away.)
    • Re:Easily defended (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kindbud ( 90044 )
      But in a general purpose computer, as the name implies, the OS is expected to do a huge variety of things. Hence losing some of those features would cripple a general purpose OS, but not cripple an embedded OS.

      So if I cannot remove Media Player or Internet Explorer, to replace them with something else that I prefer, something which a versatile general purpose computer should be expected to be capable of doing, is the OS crippled by not being modular?

      I say yes. If it cannot do what I want it to do, it is crippled. Therefore, not making it modular has crippled it. Uncrippling it requires that it be made modular.
    • Re:Easily defended (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RailGunner ( 554645 )
      I'll take that argument.

      The Radio, the air conditioning, the CD player, the automatic transmissions, the power doors, the power windows, the tinted windows, etc, on a car are all options . You can still buy a base model car at just about any car dealership. However, with Windows, you can't. You can go to Best Buy today, and buy either a Compaq with Windows XP or a HP with Windows XP or any other manufacturer WITH WINDOWS XP.

      Given that it costs money to develop software, there is a cost associated with Internet Exploder that Microsoft is probably adding into the cost of buying Windows. However, much like a car, shouldn't consumers have a choice or whether or not they just want an operation system, or whether or not they want to spring extra money for "features" like Internet Exploder or Windows Media Player or any other middleware apps that Windows ships with?

    • Leaving out or enabling the removal of a useful feature does not render the system as a whole non-functional. Microsoft's argument is that taking out components like IE and Media Player will result in a non-functional system. That is, if you take out IE, not only can you no longer browse the Web, but you can no longer use the system in any meaningful way at all.

      A modular system means that you can have IE if you want to browse the Web, but you can rip it out and replace it with Mozilla if you prefer, or you can rip it out and not replace it if you don't want to browse the Web at all. Windows without IE is only crippled if it's not possible to add IE or some other browser.

      My understanding of the proposal is not that the states want to force people to buy Windows with no browser, no multimedia, and no instant messaging. Rather, they want the decision of which browser, multimedia player, and instant messenger is enabled to be someone's other than Microsoft's. Typically, this would be the PC vendor so, for example, IBM could choose to ship Windows PCs with Mozilla, Windows Media Player, and ICQ. Compaq might offer a different combination, or even let the end user decide which.

      Retail versions of Windows would presumably come with these features available, but would be added and removed only at the user's request and would not break other components in the process.
    • An analogy: an automobile that came with no radio, no cup holders, no airconditioning, a
      net instead of a drivers window, and no doors, would by consumer standards be crippled.


      What if I want to take out the factory AM/FM radio and install a Bose CD changer?

      Microsoft Car 2002 won't let me do that.
    • Re:Easily defended (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rhizome ( 115711 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @02:58PM (#3318912) Homepage Journal
      You're playing right into Microsoft's game: it's not the OS that would be crippled, but the *product*. Microsoft markets Windows almost as a suite of functions, and to take any of those away would necessitate their changing their marketing stragegy that has evolved over years and years. I'll repeat: Embedded Windows seems to use a modular structure much like UNIX, while consumer Windows is a branded, packaged set of functions. It would not "cripple" Windows if Media Player was de-integrated. It would not cripple Windows if Notepad was left out (edit.com is just as good ;). It *would* cripple their product vision, however, because consumers would become aware of the changes and have cause to reflect upon the usefulness of Windows as a whole. Many many people see Windows as a single entity, if they recognized that any OS is basically a hardware handler with whatever frills happen to be included (or available), then they could become smart enough to choose something else. It runs counter to an entrenched market leader's interests for people to have a benchmark to compare OSes where before there was only one OS. Users who are able to ask themselves or their friends if they really need some particular feature of what they're buying are Microsoft's nightmare.
  • by RailGunner ( 554645 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:49PM (#3317924) Journal
    I don't know how many of you are Windows developers, but one thing that you all should know is that the Windows Common Controls have been, and will likely continue to be, updated via newer versions of Internet Exploder. In Visual Studio.NET there's even a browser MFC control - CHtmlEditCtrl - that allows you to embed the ActiveX browser part of Internet Exploder into your application.

    And that's all fine and dandy.

    However, there's nothing stopping a developer from writing their own controls or using a library such as Qt for their UI. Since it's not mandatory that a developer use the Windows Common Controls to write a Windows application, Microsoft's argument that the browser is too tightly integrated to remove is absolute bullshit, and always has been.

    The example of XP embedded is a very good one - as far as I can tell, the lionshare of Internet Exploder "embedding" has been in the Common Controls. The most glaring example I can think of is the CReBarCtrl - a new toolbar style that you had to install IE 4.0 or higher to have access to. Again, it's not mandatory that you use it, and since it's not mandatory, Microsoft's lawyers simply prove that they're full of it.

    The larger problem here is that here on SlashDot, we are the technically elite. We are the upper 1% of the technically minded, Mom and Pop AOL user wouldn't understand my comments, and unfortunately, neither would most judges. Lawyers, on the other hand, get to submit partial information and not full disclosure to try and sway a judge's opinion. The crux of this is: Did Microsoft embed Internet Exploder into Windows? Yes. Is it mandatory to use this? NO!

    And thus, Microsoft's argument that they can't remove IE fails. Some applications may need the extension, but that's their own damned problem.

    • You just said yourself what the problem is. IE is a part of the "Common Controls." Common == used by a bunch of programs. A hellbunch. So yes you CAN replace them, but someone needs to make functionally identical controls. Even if such things existed, Windows couldn't possibly ship without some sort of Common Control library. So if it's not MS's common controls it's someone else's bundled and integrated with the OS.

      As for it being applications' own problem, I say it's not. They used a component that was guaranteed to be installed on every version of Windows. That's a no brainer. Microsoft has harmed itself bending over for backwards compatibility and their track record shows that once they put something in as a common component they will maintain compatibility as long and as much as possible. If you are an application developer and you say "I need web browsing functionality, oh hey, here's a common Windows component I can use, or I can write my own, or I can find or license some other web browser functionality." It's an easy choice to make. Now, all these apps that expect IE to be there and it's not, you know what they will do? Install IE. It's freely redistributable, afterall, so the first time you use one of these many many programs that use the functionality of IE or its common controls you have IE (or at least the core components) installed.

      Looks like it's back to being your problem.
  • by Ryu2 ( 89645 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @12:52PM (#3317952) Homepage Journal
    When will you guys understand? Windows has always been modular, in that it separates functions nicely into DLLs which export APIs and can be replaced or removed as needed. It's rather that as a standard part of Windows, many MS and non-MS apps use components from IE to do various things, like render HTML (including many non-"web" apps that use the HTML renderer as a quick way to have a nice UI), or do network stuff like HTTP queries without having to "reinvent the wheel" with each app.

    If you remove IE (meaning all the dlls that form it, not just the stub executable which is little more than a front-end to the underlying HTML rendering and networking DLLs), sure the OS will still run and you could definitely still use it as a server, BUT a lot of user-level stuff like the shell and applications, not just IE, would suddenly break. So even if it were removed, you would need to have some sort of other implementation of the functionality that IE provides to other apps via COM.

    • by killthiskid ( 197397 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @01:00PM (#3318015) Homepage Journal

      However, as such programs as 98Lite [98lite.net] show, you take the IE out of windows and still leave the ability to render html, by leaving the html rendering dlls registered and on the machine.


      So, not IE, no active desktop, and the ability for apps to still use built in html rendering. Isn't this what we are looking for? Then any program could be the browser, MS would just be providing the guts.


      I think that this is what MS is afraid of. They want control of the browser becuase it roughly equels control of the internet (for the average person).


      Ever notice what happens when you upgrade IE? The first screen you get when IE is fired back up is a request for the user to change the home page to MSN. This is a big deal in terms of driving traffic to MSN.


      This grip on the internet via IE also allows MS to embrace-and-extend... which they could still by controlling the abilities of the html rendering dlls...


      You're right about one thing: it is not a technical issue. It's about control.


    • As far as I can tell, only one DLL is required by Office and other apps that want to render HTML, and that is mshtml.dll. You can remove all of the rest of IE, and leave mshtml.dll, and your Office apps will all still work. This is exactly what 98lite.net does with IEradicator.

      You are correct that removing IE gets rid of the web integration in the shell. That's a good thing AFAIAC. Much mischief is avoided if you divorce the desktop from the web.
  • After all, you're still alive without your arms, legs, eyes, or even a kidney.

    It doesn't mean you're not crippled.

    Lobbing off something like the HTML component from Windows is really no different.

    98Lite is a perfect example of this. Your OS becomes less functional, you can't use many features.

    That's not to say you can't go and remove any added components. Such as Messenger, Calculator or Solitare (just to name a few), but remove enough and the value of the product goes down the drain.

    So yes, Windows can be taken apart. But it doesn't mean it's not crippled.
  • So you buy this really cool old car: '68 Cadillac, for example. The air conditioning's compressor takes a hike. Remove belt. Replace with shorter belt. Done deal. Removing the compressor is optional. (That also goes for a 1976-8x 240d Benz). I know this because I've owned both and had to do just that.

    The point is, you are not crippled, except on a really hot day. Same goes for radio, electric seats, and this list could go on - but you get the gist of it.

    The only argument against my point is that someone needs to understand dependencies - and the mechanically challenged might have to take the car into the shop to have these things performed. Big deal.

    Bottom line: these blathering greedy idiots are slowly but surely sinking into the very *shit* they've been producing, and I (as a MCSE) am truly enjoying the irony; albeit humor! It's all good...

  • by Jboy_24 ( 88864 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @01:59PM (#3318465) Homepage
    Why desktop windows would be crippled by modularizing it into basic components ...

    They designed it that way.

    It seems that everyone is buying into the argument that the un-modudular design of Windows and its use of IE everywhere is just something that happened by Microsoft's inability to design good software. No, Microsoft has expertly designed Windows... only their goal is different then they portray. Microsoft carefully designed their DLL schemes and their API's, with great thought and planning, to insure that every developer used every component that Microsoft wishes to own, to do their projects.

    The Embedded XP has nothing to do with it, sure it 'proves' that at the heart of windows there exists a modular framework. Lets not kid ourselves, they would have some sort of modular design that would make it easier to support and develop it. But on top of that is an Enigma-machine like network of intertwining API calls so that the simplest highlevel API call filters down into components scattered everywhere in the system. i.e. a high level function to create a socket is in a .dll for IE and a function to return the screen resolution was in a media player .dll.

    The low level calls to the kernal or underlieing framework, are of course, hidden, and the reason why Microsoft will only release the source of that to people who swear their life to microsoft.

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch

Working...