Now that would be stupid.

Post #29,083 by Brandioch 2/20/02 1:44:40 PM Reply	Now that would be stupid. And if the states are GOING to be stupid, why worry about it? More to the point would be >IF< they can show that MS has setup un-needed dependencies or just cobbled together unrelated functions into bloated .dll's in order to leverage their OS monopoly (and control) to hinder Netscape (or advantage IE). This should be clear once the states get the source code. Well, more likely it will come down to OPINIONS as to whether one way is better than the other. Particularly if the states (and their experts) can correct some of the source code and produce a version of Windows with the .dll's split up into a more modular design. And a more easily replaced design. But this is just speculation until the states have the source code (the correct, complete source code). The only part that is NOT speculation is that MS has, previously, LIED in court and submitted FALSIFIED "evidence". Therefore, there is NO reason to believe ANYTHING MS says about the limitations of their code or design.
Post #29,094 by Squidley 2/20/02 2:33:41 PM Reply	Re: Now that would be stupid. And if the states are GOING to be stupid, why worry about it? Because the court may not recognize the stupidity of such an argument. Heck, even some smart technical people like Mr. Grygus don't recognize it ("That Windows XP Embedded thing is going to hurt, bad."). Particularly if the states (and their experts) can correct some of the source code and produce a version of Windows with the .dll's split up into a more modular design. And a more easily replaced design. Hmmm, perhaps you're right. As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products. And for what purpose? Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components? Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled?
Post #29,096 by drewk 2/20/02 2:40:04 PM Reply	Pick one Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? Either the OEM's are buying Windows or the end users are. Since Microsoft got a whole set of lawsuits dismissed on the grounds that the end users weren't the actual purchasers of their product, and thus had no standing to file a lawsuit, Microsoft has obviously taken the position that the OEM's are their customers. Once the OEM's have taken delivery of the product, they are free to modify it's specific configuration as much as an end user. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #29,104 by Steve Lowe 2/20/02 3:22:58 PM Reply	Purpose As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products. And for what purpose? Square one: The point is, the states and the DoJ say Microsoft abused its market power by illegally forcing Netscape out of the browser market; Microsoft is trying to say they didn't. The purpose is in trying to PROVE that. I don't the Judge, the Jury, the DoJ, the States, or most people here want to tell M$ how to design their software. It's how they do business that's gotten them in trouble. Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components? Maybe not, maybe so. If the Windows API were open, perhaps that could happen sanely. Heck, we have all kinds of hardware that interacts directly with the kernel with its own software... However, isn't it my problem if I do? Still, that's not the point. Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? Shouldn't I have the right to purchase a PC with or without whatever I damn well please on it? Hell, >I'M< the one >PAYING< for it! I don't particularly care how deeply M$ comingles stuff. Reusing IE code for things like explorer and help could be a good idea from both a programming perspective and UI perspective. However, in Microsoft's market position, INTENT matters. If the intent was to kill Netscape (I don't like it either, but again, that's not the point) then they are violating anti-trust laws. If the intent was to streamline the codebase and provide a more consistent UI over multiple applications, then there's probably not a problem. It's part of the game when your grow to Microsoft's size and power. The lawyers involved have to prove that either way. I believe it has been shown that M$ has internal documents that prove the intent to harm Nutscrape. This coupled with the asinine licensing to OEMs denying them the right to install anything else pretty much seals the intent to harm. M$ has claimed that it is a necessary part of the operating system, thereby begging the question of "how necessary?" Especially since M$ had viable products in the separate products of Win95 and IE3. All M$ needs to prove, in my mind, was this was done with the intent of streamlining code and enriching UI, nothing more, which I don't think they can. If Microsoft were actually competing, the issue of comingling the IE and WinX code would never be an issue. In fact, then this whole discussion about replace/remove/to DLL or not to DLL/comingle yadda yadda and whatever might actually MEAN something because then we'd be discussing the technical merits of one platform versus another. Again, this case is not about how Microsoft designs its software, its about how Microsoft does business. Oh, and the purpose of forcing M$ to turn over the source code to Windows is simply a legal act of disclosure, eg giving each side the same set information to prepare its case. Disclosure happens in every legal case in the land. ----- Steve
Post #29,113 by Brandioch 2/20/02 3:49:59 PM Reply	Bzzzzzt! Thanks for playing. >IF< the states are going to be that stupid -AND- >IF< the court doesn't realize how stupid it is....... Sorry, you're getting too far off on what-may-happen-if....... We can sit and discuss fairy tales all day. Well, you can. I won't. I'm going to limit myself to ONE "if" per subject. As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products. They don't have to be told what steps to take. All that has to be shown is that what MS was "impossible" is not only possible, but has been done. And for what purpose? Ummm, because MS is on trial for anti-competitive activities? Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components? You mean like allowing Netscape to have the same access as IE? Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? If MS is going to SELL to the end-users, then "yes". But MS doesn't sell to end-users in that manner. MS sells to Dell and then tells Dell that Dell cannot setup the ssytem the way the end-user wants that system setup. Again, since MS's original "defense" was based upon doing what the end-user wanted...... How do you get that to mesh with the end-user having to accept what MS wants them to have? I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled? You're damn straight you should have that right. And, with Red Hat, you DO!
Post #29,118 by drewk 2/20/02 4:34:00 PM Reply	And another thing ... I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled? I won't belabour my first point except to mention how ridiculous it is to describe "custom configuration" as "genarlly mess up the system." My real issue with this is that the legitimate point you actually have is with the vendor then making claims as to what is installed. Microsoft in fact got into this trouble by shipping a JVM that didn't actually conform to Sun's Java standards, and they were told they couldn't then claim it was Java(tm). Assuming you are right about vendors not being allowed to "mess up" the system and still make claims as to what is inside, all that would be required is accurate disclosure that the software installed has been configured/modified from it's default configuration. At most this would allow Microsoft to disclaim responsibility for tech support, but they generally do that anyway if you buy a system with Windows pre-installed. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]

Welcome to IWETHEY!