“XP Embedded is designed to identify dependencies, not remove them. What if a binary you remove is depended upon by other parts of the system? During Bill Gates’ recent testimony in the antitrust lawsuit being pursued by nine U.S. states, he insisted that Windows could not be easily split into modular pieces. On the other hand, during cross-examination government lawyers pointed out that Windows XP Embedded seems to consist precisely of Windows split into modular pieces. So, who is right?” Read the editorial at OSOpinion. Update: ZDNews also features an editorial on the subject.
XP Embedded: The One That They Want?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Anyone that writes code knows that Windows can be written to be modular. To say differently is a lie.
Maybe they should just be honest and say why they can’t do it:
“Well, we ‘can’ do it, but… We’d have to spend years rewriting the whole OS to make it modular, because we’ve spent years piling crap on top of crap and never really considering the overall mess we’ve been making. Making a modular OS would be a great idea, but we’d screw ourselves on the whole 20-year backwards-compatibility thing and people might take the opportunity to see what else is out there.”
Microsoft is serious when they claim they are afriad of competitors taking market-share from them. It’s why they put all their effort into maintaining the status-quo and encouraging customers not to look at alternatives.
Have you seen the MS source code or something that you can honestly make this assumption?? Sounds like just another MS bash…..when will it stop. If you don’t like Windoze use somthing else….if you like it stick with it….can’t people make their own decisions anymore or do we need courts to do this for us.
can’t people make their own decisions anymore
Apparently not. From what I’ve been reading, Dell and Gateway have a hardtime making a decision about using an OS other than Windows on their computers. Seems MS has a strong influence on them. Go figure…
Or, they simply like Windows, because this is what 99% of their customers want and they like the kind of support they have from Microsoft, instead of having Ms trying to support different (and possibly incompatible) versions of Windows for them, Gateway, HP/compaq etc. which can generate lots of problems overall support-wise.
I am sure Microsoft has tied some companies with their special NDAs, but on the other hand, if these companies did not like this “status quo” and all it offers for them, they would have never signed up.
I sincerely believe that Dell stopped selling their Linux workstation machines because simply did not sell, not because Microsoft asked them to. Linux has less than 1% of the desktop market, and it creates LOTS of support issues for Dell, which is what REALLY cost them. So, stopping their Linux box line, and go again fully with Windows was a wise decision for them. If I was an investor at Dell, I would be happy with that decision, no matter if I like the alternative OSes flourish more and that I also recognize that we get into the chicken and egg problem (Linux is small in the desktop because big companies do not support it, while big companies do not support it because Linux is small). What matters at the end for these big companies, is money, NOT ideology.
My 2 Greek drachmas.
So just bcause their money hungry capitalist bastards it makes it ok then?
Did anyone follow the MIT prof’s testimony–it was hilarious. His strongest argument is that Windows is a “House of Cards” that will collapse if 3rd parties can add/remove modules. Besides being the same sort of hyperbole as Gates has been spouting, I think it’s hilarious they find this a proactive and positive defense. Nevermind the fact that this is exactly the point–if such control was allowed, it would be revealed what a shoddy product Windows is–and that it’s success is dependent on keeping full control and complete obscurity to what’s underneeth. Hilarious!
“I sincerely believe that Dell stopped selling their Linux workstation machines because simply did not sell, not because Microsoft asked them to.”
I don’t think MS asked Dell not to sell GNU/Linux workstations (as distinct from servers). What I think they did, however, was pressure Dell (with threats or otherwise) so that they would not publicise the fact that they were selling them. I read GNU/Linux news all the time, but the first I heard of Dell selling GNU/Linux workstations was when they announced that they would stop doing so. Now Microsoft can say “nobody wants Linux on the desktop, just look at Dell’s sales figures”.
Modularity?
Of course, every program can (also later) be changed to be modular. Its just some (or a lot, that depends) of work to do.
But!
The point is, that there’s no reason to do so, its their OS. Every “OS” is shipped with a Browser (BeOS, Linux Distros, MacOS, AtheOS and MS Windoze TOO) so why should they remove their Browser Engine from the OS, when they’re using it for the help system too.
I would do it the same way as OS Manufacturer, because
HTML/CSS … is a great thing to get information visualized.
BeOS did the same, I thing.
Thats it.
Software market is a hard business!
And shure MS, gets other Software manufacturer to sign a contract with them. MS just rulez. They have *the* OS everybody (okay 90% or so / on Desktop) uses, so they can rule.
Thats business. And nobody can really control business. Thats a proven thing.
And that will not change.
MS will rule the world, till people stop using windoze.
But that will only happen, if another OS is better (and cheaper) for end-user.
Fortunatly we have some aspirants – OpenBeOS & Linux – whereas linux will definatly need more time till its fits the endusers needs.
“I am sure Microsoft has tied some companies with their special NDAs, but on the other hand, if these companies did not like this “status quo” and all it offers for them, they would have never signed up.”
I don’t think its that simple. Many of these companies have evolved with the industry over years. They’ve invested hundreds of millions and even billions. Meanwhile, the terms of MS’ contracts have arguably become worse.
that aside, this argument ignores that MS is doing something wrong. I’ll rephrase it. If you don’t like the fact that you work for a murderer then quit. Ok so you quit does that make murder OK? no it does not.
Just the same If you choose to walk away from MS’s restrictive contracts it still won’t make seattle’s abuse of its monopoly power in the market OK.
What is being questioned is the legality of abusing a monopoly. It has been proven in a court of law. The purpose of antitrust laws is to stimulate competition because someone obviously actually believed in a true free market economy.
Modular Windows can be done with the NT based versions, right? I mean, can’t you shut off certain services that you don’t want?. And besides, they could always superficially do it by leaving in all the code to make it work, and then “activating” it when someone installs the right MS software (like Internet Explorer). Then again, the Internet Explorer HTML engine is pretty tied in to the user’s EXPERIENCE of Windows (being that it’s used by the Windows Explorer and the Windows Help engine), but it certainly does not require, say, Windows Media Player 7/8/9.
I think a good remedy is to force Microsoft to default to including stripped down versions of its current offerings, including only enough not to detract from the Windows eXPerience (ugh, did I just WRITE that? I feel dirty). Then, the OEMs and consumers have options to include the full, feature rich offerings or choose other solutions for added features. Yes, there would still be “bloat” but less of it, since you wouldn’t have ALL of Windows Media Player and IE sitting on your hard drive, just the core components.
Then everything would still work.
–JM
PS: Not awake yet. please forgive rambling.
Or, they simply like Windows, because this is what 99% of their customers want and they like the kind of support they have from Microsoft
No. Remember, that out of all the computer users, only, and this is a guess, 1-5% of that 99% you mentioned know that they really don’t need Windows. I always tell my friends to get a Mac, and I’m not a Mac user. But, the get Windows, because that’s what everyone else has, and then they call me because they are having problems with it. At which point, I tell them to install BeOS
People use Windows because it’s what they see on TV, it’s what they use in the office, because Dell pre-installed it, it’s what their friends use. If it breaks, they don’t know how to fix it. The majority of computer users are computer illiterate, and have problems using Word. People are afraid of linux, because they think it will be hard to use. But anymore, most distros install nicely out of the box, and, if something goes wrong, they are in no different of a place than when something goes wrong in windows.
So don’t give me this choice crap. Yes, people have choice, they don’t HAVE to use Windows, but, they don’t know that.
So, aroughtopher, you are saying that it is MS’s job to educate users that their are alternatives out there? I don’t think so, last time I checked, that’s what a companies marketing department is for, not what your competitor is for.
People use Windoze becuase its easy and there is tons of applications for it….not because they don’t know any better. People…the average joe….have always had the choice of a mac or even OS/2…..Windows still prevals because anyone can sit behind a windows machine a figure things out. So don’t give this bs about people thinking the “HAVE” to use windows.