Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jul 2006 21:08 UTC
Microsoft In a Q&A, Neelie Kroes, who fined MS for not complying with the EC's antitrust ruling, said: "I regret that the Commission has had to take such a step today, but given Microsoft's continued non-compliance to date, I have been left with no alternative. Today's decision reflects my determination to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations.Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterisation - Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then."
Permalink for comment 143225
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Outrageous
by MollyC on Sat 15th Jul 2006 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Outrageous"
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

You clearly have no idea what the EU case is about. It's not about "fully documenting public APIs ... to allow all develoopers to be on the same level playing field when it comes to software development for Windows." It's about allowing Windows clients to communicate with non-Windows servers as if they were in fact Windows servers. That's it. Don't try to broaden the case to fit your own agenda.

The Windows public APIs are documented just fine. Much better than Apple's documentation, I might add (particularly the horrible Cocoa documentation; well, even the Carbon documention is lacking; you have to go to the header file to get real info on the Carbon Event Manager, as the actual documentation is vague and shallow).

It's amusing that there's all this Windows software being developed, and you guys maintain that the APIs are documented.

As for Wine, no it does not stand to reason that the reason that Wine isn't fully working is due to the public APIs not being fully documented. What I mean by that is that the documentation is sufficient for apps making calls on it; whether it's suffucient for reimplementing the APIs inmdependently is a different matter, and expecting such documentation is unreasonable and naieve.

For example, maybe a particular public function causes a series of Windows messages to be sent to the caller, but those messages are side-effects of the implementation that might not be directly related to the call itself (maybe the public function called a series of internal functions that happen to send those messages). You would demand that every message generated, and the order in which they are generated, be provided as part of the documentation of that public function. The documentation would become so bloated as to be unusable. Also, Microsoft couldn't change the implementation in the future, since so much of the internals would be documented for public use.

Let's take Apple as an example (just to move this away from Microsoft). They have the AppleEvent Manager, and it's documented. Do you really think that one could just independently implement the AppleEvent manager just based on the APis such that one could rip out Apple's implementation and replace it with your own, without any hiccups? And if not, then you'd say that the API isn't fully documented, right? Yet thousands of apps use the AppleEvent Manager. They don't need to know how it's implemented.

Reply Parent Score: -1