From Newsforge: “This question is behind most of Microsoft’s recent antitrust problems. Microsoft’s defenders often point out that Linux distributions include not just Web browsers and multimedia software, but office suites, graphics packages, and many other programs that are not “part of the operating system.”
And they make a perfecly valid point. It is irrelevant where the extraneous software packages come from, be it a third party or your own in-house developers. If public demand calls for everything but the kitchen sink to be thrown into an operating system, you’d better believe the more canny developers will listen. Because Microsoft has, to date, offered a more coherent product does not necessarily mean they’re cutting out competition. I would argue that by neglecting KDE, Red Hat is creating a Gnome monopoly of sorts. If you’e foaming at the mouth with that comment, perhaps you’re not qualified to make a statement on any argument concerning Microsoft v. the Rest of the World.
(Note: I’m writing this in Fedora.)
You can and should include whatever software you want in an OS; integrated or standalone – – it doesn’t matter.
However, if you should achieve a monopoly status: thats when you have to be careful.
Since all the products are open source and free, I don’t why not include it, if is free.
The DIFFERENCE is that you are free to choose, which “brand” of web browser, office suite, update utility, etc., that you use. On the Windows side they are trying to do everything they can to limit what you can use.
THAT, is the difference.
It is unfortunate to hear this argument spouted like a reflex. Just a cursory glance here, but distributions like Xandros, Lycoris, TurboLinux, and Lindows all offer a cropped set of packages representing what they feel to be the only thing a consumer might need. I appreciate your need for seven text editors, and I respect your desire to keep that choice. The problem with your argument is that it requires a polar stance. If you dismiss the above Linux distributions for their actions, you position yourself as an elitist, trying to draw some line in the sand in the world of Linux. Nothing could destroy Linux faster. If, however, you feel that these distributions are justified in their actions since they’re only catering to a particular type of consumer (usually the same type of consumer Microsoft seeks), you expose yourself as ultimately biased, and not worth the time to respond to.
Sabon hit the nail on the head. When you provide ONE browser and then integrate so tightly that your lawyers can viably argue that it is inseparable, then you have created a monopoly.
Sure, Red Hat (Fedora) comes with GNOME as the default, but you can freely and easily change it to the desktop of your choice. You cannot remove IE without significant impediment to your system.
Red Hat does not keep shoving GNOME down your throat, either, when you choose to use KDE.
I couldn’t care less about the religious wars, but I want full choice on what goes on the hardware that I buy. I choose to run Slackware with any number of browsers I desire, each with full functionality, each able to be fully removed from the system, each able to be hacked and recompiled to remove what I do not want.
linux is free. as simple as that and so the other programs.
i am a mac user and i hate everytime i am going to buy a new mac os that it doesn’t come with free-packages like
other linux distros. would make sense now to pay $130 for a new os? i don’t think so.
i giving my mac to my wife and i will get a laptop running slackware 9.1 .
just help them out buying the official release.
– 2501
Microsoft is the only company that shouldn’t be integrating smaller applications like a browser and media player etc. Look at it like this… Linux is open source… so its not infringing on anybody. Apple is creating a complete solution (they own the platform) so its not unlike any company (casette player bundling a speaker for example) providing a complete solution to an individual… but Microsoft is a component supplier. They should provide the OS and other software as seperate components.
Linux is AN operating system. You can download this on its own (or its source). What people call Linux is typically a distribution. There are many of those and, their contents differs.
When you look at the Windows operating system, Microsoft does include all kinds of applications: Media player, Internet Explorer, name them. The difference between a Linux distribution and a Windows operating system is that there is only one Windows OS and, there are MANY Linus distributions.
Microsoft extends what they call an operating system. There is no technical reason to include Media Player or Internet Explorer, that is done for marketing reasons and for reasons to ensure that their market stays captured.
Compare this with Linux, here you find in an operating system what you expect to be in an operating system. It is up to applications to cover the ground that Microsoft says belongs within its operating system.
Thanks,
Gerard
Based on Aaron’s comments, SuSe must be a monopoly because they shove KDE down our throats
Not easy and rarely clear. A basic OS is a piece of software that can control the PC’s hardware. With that in mind the Eurpoean Union suing Microsoft for including Windows Media Player in with Windows XP is total BS. If you want to read a data CD to load software … you expect the OS to give you commands to “copy” from that hardware to another piece of hardware (i.e. your hard drive). Why then if that same CD contains an audio or video file does the EU expect the OS to stop functioning and not know what to do with it? Media Player is performing a fuction that defines an OS … accessing data stored on a hardware componet of a PC.
First, try and *remove* Internet Explorer and Windows Media player from Windows2K/XP, and install another browser and media player in their place.
Then try and remove Mozilla and Mplayer (for example) from a Linux distro and install other apps instead.
The difference is that you cannot remove those apps from Windows, and if you manage somehow to do so, they will be quickly replaced! So you have no choice about it.
By restricting the term operating system to refer to a few particular computer functions, you gain the power to distinguish a class of problems that would remain obscured if the term encompassed more.
You may want to use your computer to do many things such as write documents, listen to music, browse the web, or control robotics. These computations are specific to each activity, and it’s fruitful to consider seperately the more abstract task of managing their interactions.
To say that you “put a browser into an operating system” is really to extend your definition, not to increase the capabilities of your computer. The capabilities may still decrease due to all the errors your less effective analysis is likely to introduce.
Microsoft tends to bundle an application into its operating systems by arbitrarily intertwining application library functions with system library code, and then using the specious arguments that (1) there was no other way for them to include the software in a meaningful manner, and (2) the removal of the particular application means that all of its related DLLs must also be removed.
Both #1 and #2 are false.
#1 is false because it’s still possible to include additional functionality which is used by other programs as a set of separate application libraries. Other OSes such as Linux and OS/2 use this method.
This is known as “compartmentalization”, and is a basic tenant of computer programming that many of us learned while getting our degrees in CompSci. Formal separation of software components in a complex project (be it an application or an OS) is a good thing for a number of reasons — having discrete components can make testing easier, it can make it easier to identify and address bugs (and test the fixes), and it generally makes for a more robust design.
#2 is false because even with Microsoft’s method of so-called “integration” of applications, it’s really only the end-user application interface that poses the main competitive risk to third-party applications.
Even though MSIE’s libraries might still be “integrated into the OS” Microsoft-style for use with the help system, the desktop, etc., the ability for PC vendors to remove the user-visible portion of the MSIE application and replace it with a copy of Mozilla or Opera (for example) would go a long way to removing the huge competetive advantage that MSIE currently has in the market, largely due to being bundled (or as MS would say, “integrated”) with the OS.
I’m also aware of the argument that Microsoft, being a legal monopoly, is obligated to behave under a different set of rules, and I agree with that assessment, but I think the above two points are also important. One of the reasons Microsoft has been able to get away with so much, in my opinion, is because of a serious lack of familiarity with software development on the part of the US judiciary.
the point is that “windows” has become a market with applications being programmed and marketed and then Microsoft comes along and includes application XY with the OS wiping out a good deal of competition. Noone in that case gives a damn about Linux given it’s (in)significance.
“Microsoft extends what they call an operating system. There is no technical reason to include Media Player or Internet Explorer, that is done for marketing reasons and for reasons to ensure that their market stays captured”
I think what you’re missing is that most of what Microsoft puts in their so-called operating system just wouldn’t sell if they tried to hawk it separately. It’s not well written. It doesn’t have the features other software has. And it’s just generally all sizzle and no steak. And with all this glop they leave out things like making DVD writers drag and drop.
The EU is not suing Microsoft for including Windows media Player in Windows XP. The EU is suing Microsoft for using its position in the desktop market and Windows Media Player to leverage its position in the server market.
“Linux is AN operating system. You can download this on its own (or its source). What people call Linux is typically a distribution. ”
No, Linux is the kernel. When combined with GNU or some other system, it becomes an Operating System. You can’t do anything with Linux if you don’t have some other components too. Try to boot a system with NOTHING but the Linux kernel, no bash, no nothing, and see how much work you get done.
I think there needs to be a differentiation between something being ‘part of the OS” and something that is bundled with it.
I have no problem with any OS maker shipping a browser, office suite, media player, etc WITH their OS.
The implication is that I have the option to not use it, but the fact that it is there may make me inclined to use it because that is easiest.
So, I can use OpenOffice or Mozilla because it comes with my distribution, and I likely will because that is easiest, but I am not stuck with it.
When MS integrated the browser INTO the OS, so that, even if I hide the icons and install Mozilla and make it my default everywhere I can, the IE engine is still being used in many places where I can’t make that change (Explorer, Outlook, Help Files, etc (I think all of those use IE to render – you get my drift))
So I like Safari, but I’m not required to use it. I like Office but I’m not required to use it. I like iTunes, again I’m not required to use it. I dislike IE – on my Windows machine, I can’t help but use it and patch it, even if I switch to Opera.
That is a problem.
There is no technical reason to include Media Player or Internet Explorer, that is done for marketing reasons and for reasons to ensure that their market stays captured.
The embeddable IE rendering engine’s ActiveX component is used by many programs besides IE itself, including non-Microsoft applications such as Winamp. For example, the integrated Windows help system uses this component. Meanwhile, the integrated help system on Linux uses… oh wait, it doesn’t have one…
A Linux distributor can include whatever browser(s) and media player(s) it wishes with a distribution. All the EU is asking and it is not a lot, is that an OEM putting together a Windows box can do the same thing.
on the one hand, there is building something into your os, and on the other there is bundling something with our os.
ms often bundles (office + windows, etc.) but what everyone fears (what the courts inspected) was their integration. integration has the negative effect of making any other choice a second-class option.
i think linux does a lot less of the integration (as someone said above, they tend not to tie a single browser to their os) but they do a lot more bundling. why not, bundling in free software is a low-cost option.
so in future, i hope os news will contrast bundling vs. integration.
Can we get one thing straight?
Even if RedHat removed KDE and SuSE removed Gnome, neither are in the position to use their existing monopoly to leverage the market for a product, because don’t have a monopoly to leverage. If you have issue with that, go fight the Sherman act.
And, please stop pretending that WMP is part of the operating system – that’s just Microsoft spin. It is an application, pure an simple. It does not participate in the management of applications, therefore it is not part of the operating system.
Okay, that’s two things to get straight – so sue me 🙂
>> No, Linux is the kernel. When combined with GNU or some other system, it becomes an Operating System. You can’t do anything with Linux if you don’t have some other components too. Try to boot a system with NOTHING but the Linux kernel, no bash, no nothing, and see how much work you get done.<<
Yeah, whatever. Linux is an OS. NOBODY except internet kiddies who like to argue use the term “Linux” to exclusively mean “the kernel”. And NOBODY but but a few hundred Stallmanites says GNU/Linux – – probably because that would be redundant. You just say “Windows” – in most cases; not “Microsoft Windows XP” etc. et all.
I don’t give a ratsass what “Linux” originally meant, common usage dictates that it mean the whole OS.
A nazi swastika was originally a symbol of life and acceptance of life after death – – but popular usage during WWII has changed that. GET OVER IT, theres no going back.
So how about file managers? Windows Explorer is integrated into the OS. How about NTBackup? It is integrated into the OS through removable storage manager. How about the chkdsk that NTFS uses? What about the task scheduler. What about Active Directory? There are competing directory products.
No matter what file manager I choose to use, when I go to save a file Windows uses Windows Explorer. Why not rip that out? Why not rip it all out except for ntoskrnl.exe and hal.dll?
If the only way to compete with MS is to cripple thier products how does the consumer benefit from that? If you have lots of choice but all the choices are crappy compared to what you used to have, why is that good.
Wake up people this is about global economics and competition between nations. Not about what is fair.
And by the way who votes the EU parliment into power? Isn’t democracy about dead in Europe?
Who cares if IE or anything is integrated, at the end of the day IE is the best browser for me…for Me…period.
I like a simple life man, don’t give me a gazillion apps that do the same thing in a different way, too much stress…
I like to just smoke the pipe and play the tune…peace y’all…
“The embeddable IE rendering engine’s ActiveX component is used by many programs besides IE itself, including non-Microsoft applications such as Winamp.”
Right! This exactly makes IE important for the Windows OS. However the question remains why this is possible in the first place and why an app binds itself to a proprietary browser instead of allowing choice. At the moment this possibility was made, the monopoly position was used for such, creating a self-fullfilling prophecy.
“Meanwhile, the integrated help system on Linux uses… oh wait, it doesn’t have one…”
No wait, you’re comparing cows with onions. You’re comparing an OS with a kernel. So which DE/WM and which GNU/Linux distribution are you complaining about?
For example, KDE has a help center (which depends on QT).
“Based on Aaron’s comments, SuSe must be a monopoly because they shove KDE down our throats”
Not exactly. While SuSE does support KDE financially and displays it as the default UI, RedHat is well known for crippling its KDE packages. SuSE has not been shown to do the same with Gnome.
Actually, you really can’t remove Konqueror from KDE, nor do I believe you can remove Galleon from Gnome. You simply stop using them for web browsing. Not only are they web browsers, they are file managers, FTP clients, etc. They are just as integrated into their respective UIs as IE is with Windows.
The real difference between Linux distros and MS Windows is that you no longer have a choice of a GUI. You get the NT kernel and Windows on top, period. (At least in the DOS days, there was Windows, GEM, PC GEOS, etc.) Linux does give you a choice of GUIs. But once you pick one, you can use which ever web browser you like. But good luck in trying to get rid of the file manager.
“Wake up people this is about global economics and competition between nations. Not about what is fair.”
And you’re calling Microsoft “fair”??? Most amusing. So how is the weather up in Redmond?
No actually, what would be fair would be splitting Microsoft in to two companies so that their apps can compete on their own merit and not just because they come with the Windows or because Windows has the biggest market share for now. Microsoft has played enough games with the law, it’s time to deal with them decisively.
Perhaps once day the U.S. will get the same choice people in advanced countries like India and Thailand already have…
We do have that choice, don’t we? Isn’t Wal-mart selling those those LindowsOS-based machines? Further, we also have here a heavily-promoted alternative (Apple) although it doesn’t cost significantly less than Windows. But I don’t think that’s the reason most people buy a Windows PC; as far as I can tell, they seem to buy it from the bandwagon effect.
“What about Active Directory? There are competing directory products.”
First of all Active Directory is not much more than a few open protocols hacked together in a proprietary Windows/x86 binary.
Second, how about allowing the user some kind of choice during the installation? How about indeed allowing the user to run a kernel only by default, chosing his/her own programs with that?
“And by the way who votes the EU parliment into power? Isn’t democracy about dead in Europe?”
I wouldn’t argue otherwise regarding Europe, however where you live it doesn’t seem much better.
* http://www.blackboxvoting.com
* http://why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
* http://wiki.volitant.net/diebold-cd
Click click click, knock knock, wake up Bill, you might be living in a dream world.
Oh, it gets better! The referenced article points out that the Linux-based PC’s are subsidized by the government of Thailand. Just what I want: my government “encouraging” me to buy a particular brand of computer!
“Actually, you really can’t remove Konqueror from KDE”
Wow! Can you explain me what my computer was doing when i typed: apt-get remove konqueror. I hate to burst your bubble, but one actually can remove konqueror easilly. KDE is also pretty much modulair, one can remove what s/he wants during compile time. In the case of a GNU/Linux distribution, it all depends on the package management. My Debian GNU/Linux could do it, but my Gentoo Linux couldn’t (at least emerge -s konqueror didn’t return the package).
Oh, and regarding GNOME, i’m quite sure this is possible. I’ve installed both Epiphany and Galeon as package on Debian GNU/Linux and Gentoo Linux (Epiphany will replace Galeon as default browser).
Acitve Directory as a practical matter is whol lot more than hacked together protocols. Are you familiar with group policies?
“Click click click, knock knock, wake up Bill, you might be living in a dream world.”
At least in my dream world we still have elections to fix. And as a matter of history they have basically always been fixed and the fact that everyone in the US realizes this may be a type of freedom of sorts. Freedom from illusion.
Freedom from illusion
Or illusion of freedom?
“Wow! Can you explain me what my computer was doing when i typed: apt-get remove konqueror? My Debian GNU/Linux could do it, but my Gentoo Linux couldn’t (at least emerge -s konqueror didn’t return the package).”
Wow, you just illustrated my point. It may be “possible”, but it’s a simple matter. For folks using RPM-based distros (and that’s a lot of people), Konqueror is part of another package (kdebase, I think), and it’s damn near impossible to do without. Compiling may be an option, but when faced with the choice of “do I blow several hours compiling the GUI, or do I take the RPMs and run?”, the more popular choice becomes that of least resistance (and work).
Besides, I wasn’t talking strictly about using these tools as web browsers…I was refering to the fact that they do so much more, including file management. Would you care to reveal what you used as a file manager instead? (Nevermind if it’s the CLI — that would be just too obvious.)
Of course we are all slaves in the US. Feel better now.
Lol,
if only this debate were to be resolved. What belongs in an operating system? Countless hours of my life have been spent in this dribble. And now add this to the mix.
Is X part of the ‘linux operating system’ (whatever that is)? How about Windows media player?
The technical debate on what is an operating systme is largely pointless. Sure it could just be hardware abstraction layer with IPC and context switching, but who provides just that anymore.
As long as a company does not prevent you from including and is not bundling in packages (increase cost…like some cable companies), I really don’t have a problem with reasonable bundling. IE should be included with Windows. I mean, how else would I have gotten to download Firebird? And its perfectly reasonable for them to use IE as the default browser within ‘their’ applications like MSN messenger as they ‘know’ IE is installed and works for MSN messenger’s purpose.
A simple document editor is of course a good editor, and some simple games aren’t hurting anyone. Windows media player is good as well, as there’s lots of media available on that internet.
Anyone who tries to distinguish between linux bundling and windows bundling is just going to trip themselves up in their own contradictions IMHO. The only real difference is MS is big, linux distros are small. A decision by MS affects and influences lots of ordinary Joes. Which IMHO is sufficient grounds to ‘regulate’ it a bit. I’ve yet to see MS actually block a rival’s product from installing, so they’re not limiting choice. People simply choose not to choose.
Yamin
Next thing you know someone is going to ban the cigar ligher on my car because it’s too integrated into the dashboard.
They should be going after microsoft for other reasons like buying out the competition, bullying OEMs and inflating prices, not this crap.
BTW, i want the CLI out of GNU/Linux
, it’s too integrated and if i remove it, the OS becomes unusable.
The difference is hard drive space. If I don’t want IE, WMP or what ever than I shouldn’t have to have them taking up my hard drive space and also to have to patch them when I don’t want them in the first place. Using Linux I can either have a bloated or a lean os. It’s up to my decision, like it should be.
What you people forget is this all about abusing a monopoly. I don’t remember Suse, Apple, Red Hat had a monopoly and using it as a leverage to snuffed out any competition.
“Wow, you just illustrated my point. It may be “possible”, but it’s a simple matter. For folks using RPM-based distros (and that’s a lot of people), Konqueror is part of another package (kdebase, I think), and it’s damn near impossible to do without. Compiling may be an option, but when faced with the choice of “do I blow several hours compiling the GUI, or do I take the RPMs and run?”, the more popular choice becomes that of least resistance (and work).”
Then, i think that’s the fault of the distributor, because KDE itself is pretty modulair and allows one to remove certain programs by default. Ofcourse not regarding the libraries, although programs can be statically linked.
If distributors don’t do so, i think they give the user less choice. I don’t like it such way, but i’m also not using such distribution(s). I’d like it this way that there’s a way to install/remove/upgrade Konqueror (with needed libraries, to use with or without KDE but generally with KDE) and a way to do so using Konqueror-Embedded (without any libraries, and the point is to use the browser only or using a computer with limited resources, for example a PDA).
“Besides, I wasn’t talking strictly about using these tools as web browsers…I was refering to the fact that they do so much more, including file management. Would you care to reveal what you used as a file manager instead? (Nevermind if it’s the CLI — that would be just too obvious.)”
That’s true, however i think it’s bad from a designers point of view as well as a security and choice point of view. I’m using basic CLI tools. I’ve experimented with XFE last weekend, and i have to say, it worked very nice – but like MC it isn’t my cup of tea.
“Acitve Directory as a practical matter is whol lot more than hacked together protocols. Are you familiar with group policies?”
In Windows? No. What protocol/concept is it based it?
“So hang on, what do you do about Explorer? You gonna start using LiteStep instead? Sure, you can do that. You won’t have Control Panel though, or Recycle Bin, or the Taskbar, etc. You won’t even have explorer windows. Why? Because it’s all rendered using IE’s engine.”
..which all is less cool when there are important bugs in MSIE, being unfixed, or fixed after a lot of months. Using WinAmp minibrowser? Woops.
This page states 11 vulns
http://www.safecenter.net/UMBRELLAWEBV4/ie_unpatched/index.html
I’m not a professional coder but aren’t programs easier to debug and secure the smaller they are. When you cram everything into one huge program (Windows) the odds of getting it right are miniscule, ie all of these critical updates. Problems like these are only going to get worse in this coming behemoth called LONGHORN!
yes, but if microft has a monopoly it’s mostly because of the stupidity of their competitors (Apple, IBM, etc.) during the last two decades. Hell, they haven’t had any real competition since DRDOS.
Sagres said “yes, but if microft has a monopoly it’s mostly because of the stupidity of their competitors (Apple, IBM, etc.) during the last two decades. Hell, they haven’t had any real competition since DRDOS.”
There’s nothing wrong with being a monopoly it’s only bad when you abused it. How would you know if there wouldn’t be any competitors when MS told Dell, Compaq, HP and the world if they started to use other OSes MS would revoke their licenses.
The subject says it all.
First of all, Microsoft is a monopoly. If they weren’t it would be different.
Secondly, and more importantly, even if Red Hat (for instance) decided that they are going to standardize on Mozilla instead of Konqueror, it is not integrated. You still have the ability to install whatever browser you want to use and to remove the default one. There is a big difference between shipping with what you consider to be a good browser into your product and interweaving your browser so tightly in the OS that it cannot be removed. Especially when the reason you integrated the browser to that level was for the express purpose of putting somebody else out of business.
Linux distros vs. Microsoft is convenience and choice vs. lock-in and control; respectively.
I understand the question “What Belongs In an Operating System?” as: should an OS integrate apps like a web browser, a media player, a file manager, X, Y, Z, etc?
My answer is NO.
Should an OS ship with these apps? YES! They can ship with whatever they want.
… between windows as a monopoly software bundler, and a Linux distro as the same. The software included in a Linux distro can be obtained for free, with the exception of a few apps like Xandros’ file manager. Another point is, whatever app is installed for whatever purpose can be replaced with another, ie- 3 major web browsers.
Also, IE can be eradicated from 2000/xp. Check out http://www.litepc.com. I have the version for win98/Me running on winme, and I love it. I have only seen windows three times in the last month or so, but it is light, and I can uninstall any part of the windows bundling apps scheme I want…
“I understand the question “What Belongs In an Operating System?” as: should an OS integrate apps like a web browser, a media player, a file manager, X, Y, Z, etc?”
But what if I want my OS to have these things inegrated? Why should some one else decide what is integrated into my OS. If I don’t want to use Windows or Mac OS I can use Linux.
Is this the only way Linux can compete, by crippling windows?
like Sagres said, it’s not integrating browsers or media players that’s the real problem here! The real key to MS monopoly is their buying power…they take profits from monopoly and use them to “wreck” other markets. MS is always a step ahead…they buy up one of every “next big thing” wait for it to become popular then lowball the competition out of business.
The only successful remedy is to clip their buying power in the bum! Stop worrying about breaking them up, or how they bundle their product and go after the pocketbook. Frankly, a 5-year ban on purchasing IP, companies, patents, exclusive licenses…and the like… should be put in place. I believe that MS would still do just fine, but they’d have to play “with” other companies instead of dictating terms…they’ve made a lot of bad relations over the years…THAT is what would hurt them. Such a plan wouldn’t “give” anything to any of the competitors…except a chance to build a market that MS can’t buy-in and cut you out of! After time, the market will shift and MS will have to play ball with somebody equally vicious..who can flaunt the punishment in MS face and make MS beg for the next big thing…or leave windows in the dust.
While you people bitch here in this forum about MS they make money. Yeah, ca$h – dineros – the mighty buck! They are not using FUD only to scare/lead in the wrong direction/convince to buy the regular Joe, but also try to iritate the intelect of many more technically people. Microsoft could be the same way ignored, and on the other hand the people who care about the situation could start oppening the eyes of others by providing viable alternatives.
Windows has also a great deal of trouble to offer compared to other alternatives. Not to mention insecurity. We cannot let a company like this take our computing freedom away.
IF Microsoft is hurting other companies by simply including their own applications in with the OS (which NOBODY has EVER proven, btw), then something does need to be done.
HOWEVER, no one has put forth any sort of real solution to the problem. Not allowing Microsoft to add features to the OS will eventually kill them. That is not something you really want to do (you may think you do, as you are blinded by your hatred, but in reality it is NOT a good thing). A good solution has to satisfy both parties. You can not completely cripple Microsoft from introducing features simply because there are other pieces of software that do the same task. Microsoft would cease to exist, sooner or later, in such an environment.
The real problem is how to logically solve the issue, not what can we do to destroy the will which market has created.
You have to ask yourself, what is good for everyone, not just what is good for Microsoft’s competition.
Is it Microsoft’s fault that a majority of its users are either too lazy or ignorant to use another web browser or media player? I use Windows 2000 at work but I NEVER use Internet Explorer to surf the web. Imagine that, all I did was install Mozilla and set it as the default web browser… really hard. But having internet Explorer “bundled” with Windows does ensure that all MS and third-party applications written to use IE’s HTML rendering component will work. So looking at it that way, having the IE subsystems integrated into the OS is a good thing whether you wish to use the actual browser application that MS has created or not. All of the above applies to Windows Media Player as well. Give it a rest.
But what if I want my OS to have these things inegrated?
You want it, you have it: use Windows. While I think that an OS should not integrate these things, it’s just my opinion (and I don’t use Windows). I see absolutely no need for such integration and I consider it a premeditated act from MS to leverage the use of their “standards”, their protocols.
Why should some one else decide what is integrated into my OS?
Those who don’t want that integration can ask exactly the same question.
Is this the only way Linux can compete, by crippling windows?
What does Linux have to do with it?
I understand the user wants these apps, and the developper wants the development platforms. I don’t believe any of them ever asked MS to integrate them that way in the OS. It would be very strange that only MS’s users and developers would want such a “feature”.
That said, if MS wants to integrate, no problem. The only problem is when they use their position of dominance in one market to impose, by the way of their integrated client apps, the use of their products in another market. A lot of people say that MS’s competitors should stop whining and really compete, forgetting something very important: if competition is not fair , there is no competition. And it has been largely proven that MS is not a fair competitor.
I guess I should step up to the podium and point out the ignorance here.
“This question is behind most of Microsoft’s recent antitrust problems. Microsoft’s defenders often point out that Linux distributions include not just Web browsers and multimedia software, but office suites, graphics packages, and many other programs that are not “part of the operating system.”
Nobody said the entire operating system contains office suits, graphics software, etc. They said Linux distributions do. DISTRIBUTION. Meaning a package of software. Windows is advertised as an operating system. RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, and the gang are advertised as distributions. So no shit they have more software.
Please tell me exactly how Microsoft extending thier monopoly into the browser market by leveraging their already existing monopoly in the desktop OS market has made them any more money?
IE is still offered for free, there are still alternatives, and IE is still being developed (albiet, it’s not had much done to it in awhile, but work is being made).
What exactly are the monopolizing if there is really no market to monopolize?
What if? Three computers sitting on a store shelf. Computer one is an Apple iMac that has software already installed that I would use and I can either purchase or download other software. Computer two is a PC running Microsoft Windows. It has software already installed and I can purchase or download other software that I might want. The third computer is a PC running Linux. It has software installed that I will use and I can download or purchase other software.
What is the cost of each machine? What applications do I want to use and which of these platforms offer those applications?
Once I can walk into a store and pick the computer right for me then there is competition between the platforms. It will not matter to the end user to much whether the applications are part of the OS or seperated. One of the times it will matter is if I find an application that does what I want to do better than the current application. If I can’t delete the current application then I am forced to have something I do not want anymore.
If there are no applications I want to use on a certain platform, I will not buy into that platform. Apple and Linux need to persuade application developers to their platform. Microsoft has to keep the application developers it has.
Please tell me exactly how Microsoft extending thier monopoly into the browser market by leveraging their already existing monopoly in the desktop OS market has made them any more money?
IE is still offered for free, there are still alternatives, and IE is still being developed (albiet, it’s not had much done to it in awhile, but work is being made).
What exactly are the monopolizing if there is really no market to monopolize?
As we have a saying: look further than your nose length. If 95% of all web surfers use IE, then it is very easy for MS to add proprietary “extensions” to “the internet”. Extensions that will only work in an IIS-IE combination, and setting up a web service using IIS on Windows instead of Apache on *nix is definitely something MS wants you to do.
Even on user level: if a user feels “the internet doesn’t work in Linux” because most web sites can only be browsed with IE, then users will pick an OS with IE available instead of an OS without IE available.
You can see that this is already happening with email and people sending MS Word attachments for the simplest of texts. It won’t be long before the meme spreads that “you can’t read email on Linux”.
MS doesn’t want Netscape to develop a browser that can do everything in it – a platform on top of Windows, sort of like die hard emacs users never leave emacs.
Then, they don’t want a Java on top of Windows that make Windows irrelevent.
I don’t see anybody else in their position would do any differently, as it is a business, not a pet project.
Certain amount of monopoly doesn’t always mean a bad thing for consumer, especially when we are talking about products for a mass market. In the cellphone business, Europe and Asia for the most part settled on GSM, and in US, there are four competing standards – TDMA, CDMA, GSM, IDENT. The results ? The best cellphone handsets are almost always found in European/Asian market first.
Unix heads often touted choices, by programers, for programers. The problem is most computer users are NOT programers, so on the desktop, they mostly choose Windows, not something “by geeks, for geeks”.
if ms word is available, I don’t see why people shouldn’t use it to send simple text as a word attachment. If such kind of email attachment couldn’t be rendered on a linux box, that’s a linux/gnu’s problem, and most users sending out this sort of attachment would not care.
“If such kind of email attachment couldn’t be rendered on a linux box, that’s a linux/gnu’s problem”
It’s not just a linux/gnu problem.
The problem with proprietary file formats is not just that they force you to use the accompanying program to read it.
The real problem is that they block other uses of the format.
For example, word files can only be read by word. That means, you cannot scan the files to make a search index on your web site.
You cannot have a mailmerge program replace certain strings with name&addresses from your database.
You cannot generate word files from your accounting package.
The examples are numerous. Proprietary formats block innovative, new possibilities around a file format that the original vendor never tought about.
There is a desparate need for open file formats and open communication standards because that enables new innovative solutions to be developed and make our lives easier.
I can’t even begin to estimate the astronomical amounts of money that has been wasted worldwide on converting data from one file format to another, having secretaries entering the same data twice into different programs because closed file format did not permit data exchange between program A and B, etc etc.
Closed file formats are not just a Linux problem. They are a real pain in the *ss and cost all of us a lot of money, if only trough the amount of our tax money spent on data conversion.
Please tell my why a simple letter typed in Word 2000 cannot be read in an old version like Word 6?
I can understand that Word 6 cannot interpret all the wonderful new features in the newer word versions, but why oh why can’t it read a file containing nothing then the text “Hello, word!” in the default font?
This is because the proprietary format is such that it forfills the interests of the vendor, which is to sell as many copies as possible. This interest, however, is not the interest of the end-user. The interest of the end user is to exchange data as easy as possible.
It should not matter what version of the program another user uses in order to exchange simple data, nor should it matter if the other person choses to use a different program.
It’s just like using a telephone or fax. You don’t need to worry about the brand of fax or telephone the guy on the otber end of the line uses, because these things use open standards everyone adheres to.
So, why do we accept this proprietary nonsense with software? I mean, everybody can see that fair competition works in all kinds of markets.
Haven’t monopolies, including state monopolies so common in cold-war Eastern Europe, hurt enough by now?
If there are no applications I want to use on a certain platform, I will not buy into that platform. Apple and Linux need to persuade application developers to their platform.
Well, that’s a catch 22: developers won’t develop for a platform with few users and users won’t migrate to a platform with few developers. I’m not saying it’s impossible for them to get more supporters but you should stay realistic, especially when most innovations are absorbed by MS one way or another…
I don’t think that integrated components are really an issue. What is really an issue is how they use them. They are used to annihilate the competition without giving it any chance.
Microsoft knows that users won’t bother to download or install supplementary programs on their OS and they are using that well-known fact at their advantage. People are watching video/listening music? Bundle WMP. People are surfing the Internet? Bundle IE. People are reading e-mails? Bundle OE. People are loving IM? Bundle Windows Messenger. People are burning CDs? Add support for burning CDs. People need an Office suite? Force OEMs to bundle Office. People need anti-viruses? Guess what will be bundled next (they bought a small anti-virus company earlier this year).
They don’t give any chance to a 3rd party. I know that business is business but they’re shooting a fish in a barrel with a sawed double-cannon shotgun… I wouldn’t mind if they weren’t using their monopoly fairly. Microsoft should know that “with great power come great responsabilities”.
Err, I wouldn’t mind if they weren’t using their monopoly fairly should be I wouldn’t mind if they were using their monopoly fairly.
“There is a desparate need for open file formats and open communication standards because that enables new innovative solutions to be developed and make our lives easier.”
“Closed file formats are not just a Linux problem. They are a real pain in the *ss and cost all of us a lot of money, if only trough the amount of our tax money spent on data conversion”
That is so true, however, that’s also how job opportunities are lost. Easy job doesn’t make people’s life easier, it only pays a monkey salary.
“however, that’s also how job opportunities are lost.”
I don’t agree with that. I know that it is often tought that jobs are lost because of new technologies.
Nothing is further from the truth. If it wasn’t for new technologies, we would all be hunter/gatherers like in the stone age.
One of the most basic fundaments of our society, even more basic then wether we have a communist or a market economy, is the mechanism of saving labour trough specialisation and technology.
Yes, at first this leads to lost jobs and if these people without a job would keep on doing nothing, you would be right.
But, that’s not the end of it. Along with the people losing jobs comes the opportunity of having them produce something else.
Look at what happened in the past century. Millions of people lost their jobs in agriculture due to the arrival of machines. But this opened the way for people to do things like develop computers, fly to the moon, make telecommunication networks, etc., etc.
Without agriculture machines freeing up time, this would not have been possible.
So, jobs are _not_ lost trough the arrival of new, more efficient technologies. It’s the other way around.
Technologies create new jobs, because they free up time for people to do new things.
“Well, that’s a catch 22: developers won’t develop for a platform with few users and users won’t migrate to a platform with few developers.”
There’s one but.
If nobody is developing for Linux/Mac, there’s also no competition there!
Everybody is fishing in the big ocean with it’s fierce competition. So, why not develop cross-platform with for example Qt and fish in the ocean _and_ the lake?
Look for example at staroffice. They _did_ develop for OS/2, Linux, etc. and survived for years until Sun bought them.
That’s where you want to be as a developer. OS independent, eating from both worlds.
Sander: So Microsoft shouldn’t add extra features to their client/server software to make it more desireable?
If Microsoft adds something that would make someone choose IIS over Apache then Apache needs to come up with a feature to challenge it. You still have a choice in this market. Just because IE/IIS can do something that another client/server combonation can’t does not force people to go with IE/IIS.
Your argument makes NO sense.
warwrat: So because users are using thses features Microsoft can’t put software into the OS that can do these things?
CD burning has been available for some time now yet Roxio is still alive and kicking, as well as Ahead (the company who makes Nero). WMP has been available in Windows since Windows 3, yet other media player apps continue to thrive: Music Match, WinAMP, iTunes, Real Player, Quicktime, and others.
Now you remove Konqueror from KDE desktop that is without removing the whole KDE desktop, easy?
MS can basically go on adding features to bundle with Windows until there’s no need for anymore software companies other than those that make games. Word processing, spreadsheets, databases, financial, multimedia, graphics, movie/music editing, web servers, etc, etc. They could theoretically just keep slapping it all in there until nobody would buy any other software but games. And they could do all this because they have the 90% plus market share. Is it fair to have multiple software companies run out of business just because MS has a monopoly on the OS? Why does this have to be explained over and over and over again to Microsoft loyalists?