There you go again with the trick questions.

Post #29,486 by Squidley 2/23/02 4:51:45 PM Reply	There you go again with the trick questions. That functionality these "components" need that is in no way related to browsing the World Wide Web That's funny, I see them all as being nearly the same thing. It's all about viewing structured information\ufffd- Web pages, documentation, administration settings, directory hierarchies, etc. The only thing that's different is the mechanism by which the information is retrieved. Once the raw data is in, the process of rendering and browsing it is pretty much the same for all the things I've mentioned, the differences being supeficial UI tweaks. Perhaps you're simply not very familiar with the way IE's functionality is partitioned and reused? Come on now, admit it. Remember, a web browser is used to... browse the web! [...] There's no efficiency in welding components that have nothing to do with browsing the web to a web browser. Get it? Think, man. The thing that makes that web browser different from a help viewer is the built-in HTTP client, which amounts to about 20K of code. The rest of it is just begging to be reused in about a zillion other places. Web browsers, help viewers, file managers, etc. all turn out to be special cases of a completely generic and reusable set of services for rendering and browsing information. Are you sure you're not just pissed off that Microsoft realized this first, and that now the Navigator, KDE, and GNOME teams are playing catch-up?
Post #29,604 by jb4 2/25/02 9:40:11 AM Reply	NTFS != HTML Web browsers, help viewers, file managers, etc. all turn out to be special cases of a completely generic and reusable set of services for rendering and browsing information. So here's your fallacy: You think that under the hood, all of Windows is a web page! That's a stitch. Now for today's lession. Micros~1's stated reason for bundling IE into the operating system (aside from the bullshit marketspeak about "convenience for the customer") is to centralize HTML rendering (or, more accurately, their specific, non-standard flavor of HTML rendering) into a single place so that their ISVs can have HTML rendering as a system service; sorta like reading a directory or getting the system time. (We pause while the rest of you regain your composure...) Now, I don't need HTML rendering (which is also about 20K of code) integrated into my file manager, or my file system, or into timer services, or into any one of the rediculous number of things that Micros~1 has "integrated" HTML rendering into. And I certainly don't need HTTP protocol handling, or FTP, or E-mail, or ActiveX activation, or viral back-doors, in any of those things. Now, if Micros~1 were, in truth, a tech company, they'd have created several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job (e.g. a Micros~1-flavor HTML renderer (Ghod knows we wouldn't want an IETF-compliant HTML renderer available on Windows!), an HTTP protocol handler, an FTP protocol handler, etc.) In fact, If you read the trial stuff, Micros~1's own engineers (you know, the guys who actually know something) complained on the record that piling all the crap into a single DLL was making their life more difficult, and causing yet another of Micros~1 constant, interminable schedule slips. But NOOOOOooooo... Engineering was overruled by Marketing, and the result, as they say, is history (and, of course, illegal). jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,827 by Squidley 2/26/02 2:23:49 PM Reply	Re: NTFS != HTML You think that under the hood, all of Windows is a web page! Umm, no I don't, but I have to admit, that's a nice strawman! Now for today's lession. Oh, for the love of... What kind of a smug posturing shithead talks like that? Now, I don't need HTML rendering (which is also about 20K of code) You really think HTML layout and rendering\ufffd- including CSS, tables, DOM, JavaScript, etc.\ufffd- is that simple? I wonder why it's taking the Mozilla team so long. integrated into my file manager, or my file system, or into timer services, or into any one of the rediculous number of things that Micros~1 has "integrated" HTML rendering into. Huh? Microsoft hasn't integrated HTML layout and rendering into any of that except the file manager, where they use it for... layout and rendering. What's wrong with that? And I certainly don't need HTTP protocol handling, or FTP, or E-mail, or ActiveX activation [...] in any of those things. Why not? Don't you think it's useful for an application to be able to download files by calling a simple API instead of implementing network protocols? Don't you think it's useful for an application to be able to integrate third-party components with ease? Why do you think open-source people are working so feverishly on things like KParts, Bonobo, Mono, etc.? Now, if Micros~1 were, in truth, a tech company, they'd have created several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job. But that's exactly what they did! Are you sure it isn't time to admit that you just don't know what you're talking about here? Micros~1's own engineers [..] complained on the record that piling all the crap into a single DLL was making their life more difficult, and causing yet another of Micros~1 constant, interminable schedule slips. I'd like you to show me where they mentioned a single DLL approach. They certainly didn't end up taking it, and I bet they never even considered it, given the stupidity of such a strategy. As far as I can tell, the engineers complained only about the schedule, not about the direction they were taking with the integration. the result, as they say, is history (and, of course, illegal). Then why was the tying claim remanded?
Post #29,909 by jb4 2/26/02 7:03:02 PM Reply	Don't bogart tht joint, my friend... Now, if Micros~1 were, in truth, a tech company, they'd have created several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job. But that's exactly what they did! Are you sure it isn't time to admit that you just don't know what you're talking about here? No, but it would be nice if you did. What they actually did was take those nice small DLLs, and cut their APIs into several, non-orthoganal parts, and pack them into a couple of system DLLs. This is not "several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job." (I assume you can read at the 6th grade level...if not, I'll dummy it down for you, if you'll promise you'll try to keep up....) jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!