• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Microsoft, Internet Explorer, and the EU court decision

Molinaro said:
You are not the only computer scientist in the room. I've been programming since the early 80s.

I did not say THE prime function. I said one of the prime functions.

Yes the kernel and hardware abstraction layer is original prime function of an OS. However, since the introduction of graphical user interfaces, that is no longer the only prime function.

People rightly expect an OS to also provide a level of utility on top of the base functionality.
Click to expand...

The GUI stuff is handled by the windows server and the desktop. Those are (supposed to be) built on top of the OS, not into it.
 
Mitchell314 said:
The GUI stuff is handled by the windows server and the desktop. Those are (supposed to be) built on top of the OS, not into it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.
 
Molinaro said:
Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.
Click to expand...

I'm talking issues of principle. Microsoft can build Windows however they want. However, it doesn't give them exemption from a "You put the batteries in backwards."
 
The definition of OS is not some biblical statement carved in stone. You may want to drop anchor and insist on restricting it to the original functionality provided by OS's, but reality has moved on.
Click to expand...

Er no. Even if I took the ancient Unics system then what I'd say would still apply. There isn't really anything fundamental about OS design that has moved on in this space that would justify such a change in semantics - your arguments are based on marketing nonsense.

There's been nothing paradigm changing in the OS or windowing space for many, many years that could possibly justify this argument.

Molinaro said:
Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.
Click to expand...

No it really isn't - laws apply to software developers just as well as producers of more concrete items.

For example: in the US where software patents apply you certainly can't just go around implementing your product however you want because you may infringe on a patent by doing so. Is this absurd? You may think so but this is the case anyway.
 
cyborg said:
No it really isn't - laws apply to software developers just as well as producers of more concrete items.

For example: in the US where software patents apply you certainly can't just go around implementing your product however you want because you may infringe on a patent by doing so. Is this absurd? You may think so but this is the case anyway.
Click to expand...

Try taking my comment in the context of what I was replying to, and you will see that what you just said has nothing to do with my comment.

Saying that the GUI is suposed to be built on top of the OS and not into it is a baseless assertion. That is what I was replying to.

That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.
 
Molinaro said:
Nonsense. It is patently absurd to think that anyone other than the software producer gets to decide how they implement their product.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you told me. I'll just chuck away all those SOX-compliance forms, disability compliance checklists, etc and just tell them some random wingnut on the internet told me they were patently absurd.
 
Molinaro said:
That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.
Click to expand...

A producer of power-sockets could decide to make his out of 100% pure gold without any shielding to all other metal parts.

Or he could make them wholly out of wood.

So, agreed, 100% his own decision.

But then he would not pass the laws of the market he wants to participate in and he can not sell those variants of his products.

The courts are just there to judge the product against the laws pertaining to that market.

If the product does not comply, there are but two choices;

- Modify the product.

- Stay out of the market.
 
Molinaro said:
Try taking my comment in the context of what I was replying to, and you will see that what you just said has nothing to do with my comment.

Saying that the GUI is suposed to be built on top of the OS and not into it is a baseless assertion. That is what I was replying to.

That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.
Click to expand...

And if that argument had been allowed some years back when the consent decree was laid on IBM then we would not have the computer industry we do today. IBM made very similar arguments about how it designed its storage controllers and channel paths which kept the independent equipment manufacturers locked out.
 
Molinaro said:
Your desktop is an instance of IE, regardless of having Active Desktop on or off.
Click to expand...
It is not. All the windowing and GUI elements are handled by the window manager/user in the kernel, while the actual desktop features like the file browser, icons, start menu, task bar, etc are handled by Windows Explorer.

Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are separate programs that do very different things. It is true that in older versions of Windows (XP and earlier) WE could morph into IE through the magic of COM (in the same fashion Firefox can host IE in a tab), but not even that is possible anymore. As for Active Desktop, it doesn't even exist anymore.

A few parts of Windows like the help system do use IE to render web content, but that doesn't make it IE anymore than Firefox is WE because its open/save file dialog is actually an embedded WE window.
 
You guys are twising my comments around to aply in ways that are childishly silly, in an effort to maintain your position.

My comment was directly at a particular quote with respect to how a particular system is implemented in code. It is a design decision and not a compliance issue.
 
Wudang said:
And if that argument had been allowed some years back when the consent decree was laid on IBM then we would not have the computer industry we do today. IBM made very similar arguments about how it designed its storage controllers and channel paths which kept the independent equipment manufacturers locked out.
Click to expand...

Nobody is locked out because Microsoft decided to make IE the program that serves up the desktop.

You can still install any other browser and use it to browse the internet.

What you can't do, is remove it completely and have another browser serve up the desktop. However, since when is it wrong to not allow other developers to replace core functionality of the OS? Because as implemented by Microsoft, the desktop is a core part of it's OS.
 
jsiv said:
It is not. All the windowing and GUI elements are handled by the window manager/user in the kernel, while the actual desktop features like the file browser, icons, start menu, task bar, etc are handled by Windows Explorer.

Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are separate programs that do very different things. It is true that in older versions of Windows (XP and earlier) WE could morph into IE through the magic of COM (in the same fashion Firefox can host IE in a tab), but not even that is possible anymore. As for Active Desktop, it doesn't even exist anymore.

A few parts of Windows like the help system do use IE to render web content, but that doesn't make it IE anymore than Firefox is WE because its open/save file dialog is actually an embedded WE window.
Click to expand...

Bolded part is 100% correct. Strange that I was seeing Windows Explorer in my head all through these posts, but I was typing IE. Sorry for the error.
 
Molinaro said:
You guys are twising my comments around to aply in ways that are childishly silly, in an effort to maintain your position.

My comment was directly at a particular quote with respect to how a particular system is implemented in code. It is a design decision and not a compliance issue.
Click to expand...

I don't care if they got it there by divination.

You started out by whining that the courts had no place in determining how MS should distribute Windows.

So, all the courts have done is make it clear how Windows *would* comply to the rules.

If MS says, well, we drop the iexplore.exe program but leave all the trident rendering stuff in, that would be an option.

The court clearly states it is the browser (the method by which people click and 'hey presto, Google appears' ;) ) that is at stake. Not the IE functionality.
 
Molinaro said:
Nobody is locked out because Microsoft decided to make IE the program that serves up the desktop.

You can still install any other browser and use it to browse the internet.

What you can't do, is remove it completely and have another browser serve up the desktop. However, since when is it wrong to not allow other developers to replace core functionality of the OS? Because as implemented by Microsoft, the desktop is a core part of it's OS.
Click to expand...

Read the verdict.

Nowhere does it say that IE functionality has to be removed.

It states that the browser has to be removed. The interface part of it.
 
That kind of decision is 100% up to the developer and no court should ever be allowed to touch those decisions.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion - others disagree for some of the reasons outlined above: the acknowledgement of the detremental effects of monopolies, protection of IP, application of audit standards etc...

Not that it is strictly true - the windows kernel is quite well designed by all accounts. It's everything atop of it that it either hobbled by backwards compatability concerns or by marketing imposed design choices et al. (With Microsoft occassionally managing to fix some of these issues right before introducing a whole load more - but that is another thread).
 
I personally find the EU ruling pretty bizarre and for the same reasons stated by others. However, I think the reason Microsoft gets away with bundling all those other programs is because they're pretty basic versions for their genre.

Paint is a basic image manipulation program, Wordpad is a basic word processor, etc...

However, Internet Explorer is a full-featured web browser.

I think Microsoft could save themselves a lot of grief by bundling a basic web browser and offer the full-blown Internet Explorer through Microsoft Update.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I personally find the EU ruling pretty bizarre and for the same reasons stated by others. However, I think the reason Microsoft gets away with bundling all those other programs is because they're pretty basic versions for their genre.

Paint is a basic image manipulation program, Wordpad is a basic word processor, etc...

However, Internet Explorer is a full-featured web browser.

I think Microsoft could save themselves a lot of grief by bundling a basic web browser and offer the full-blown Internet Explorer through Microsoft Update.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that IE is bundled with the OS for Windows, not just Windows. If the EU was charging the latter, then they really need to meet that clue bat. But their issue is with IE being built in to the system itself. Again, I think Microsoft should be allowed to do it if they want, even though it goes against some principles of design. I think the "it's a monopoly" argument would work if all machines ran Windows and couldn't run anything else. But that's false; there are free OSs that are arguably better, and there's nothing stopping anybody from installing and using them. Look Ma, no bundled IE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom