Re:not component based? (Score 1)

What comes around .... Soon it may be Google that is universally perceived as the monopoly or worse. The worse refers to a perception of them as a source of user data leakage. Now speaking as someone who has been a OS implementer for many years the notion of materializing low level interfaces to internal OS code is anathema. For one thing there is the issue of integrated system testing. How do you do it? Then there are the performance and footprint trade-offs associated with redundant parameter validation. Worst of all is the following possibility: (WARNING: War story follows) I was once responsible for the design and implementation of a major mainframe DBMS. This DBMS was hosted on a number of dissimilar systems. Some of these provided interprocess communications and some did not. The primary market was the IBM 360/370 market. If you needed interprocess communications on IBM mainframes your had to write your own. The hardware command SVC (SuperVisor Call)invoked code that ran in the privileged state. This code was then linked into the operating system. The operating system provided a clean interface that specified everything down to register contents. For the first few years after releasing this code we received calls from customers blaming us for crashing their operating system or applications. My memory is that we had very few bugs in this code and they were all corrected during the beta test cycles. What often happened was that a customer would have a problem of some kind ... any kind, call in the hardware/OS vendor who would see that non-IBM code was linked into the supervisor and simply point the finger at it. The burden was on us to prove our innocence. This gives the support organization job security. Does Google really wish to assume support responsibility(blame) for malware hits, MS bugs, your bugs etc? All this for a non-revenue producing product? Why?