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?

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....)

Welcome to IWETHEY!