|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
"JW" <JW@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Regarding items 1 & 2, I'd suggest you try reading the FAQ link I
> previously posted instead of continuing to spread misinformation:
> http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/default.htm
OK, I've gone to look there, and what I see so far is absolute
rubbish.
The site, in its first few paragraphs, claims that Microsoft provided
an invaluable service by integrating important functionality such as
networking & TCP/IP services into IE, and thereby (because of IE's
indelible fusion with Windows) into the OS. Without this
"componentized" implementation of IE, MS claims, developers would
have to duplicate network functionality in every application.
That's utter hogwash. It's true only in the inbred world of
Microsoft, which has never understood that an OPERATING SYSTEM is
supposed to provide basic functionality like this to ALL
applications. DOS was never a real "OS," in spite of its name. It
never provided even the most basic device and other resource
management, forcing applications to implement it themselves. That
naturally resulted in a bewildering maze of incompatible device
drivers &etc as all the application providers tried to deal with this
fundamental flaw.
Windows finally addressed a lot of those problems, making it easier
for developers to create compatible applications. But there were
other areas (e.g. networking) where Windows propagated the
incompetent DOS design (or lack thereof), and did not provide basic
functionality to applications.
Absolutely, Microsoft should provide substrate functionality like
this in Windows. Any operating system should provide it. But does
it have to be provided via a web browser that is inseparably bolted
into the OS? Absolutely not. That's a tortured perversion of the
way an OS is supposed to be designed. The OS provides services to
the applications, not the other way around! The story is a complete
fabrication generated by the MS propaganda machine to support the "IE
is an inseparable part of Windows" claim. I don't understand why
Devlin was willing to parrot it for them.
The whole argument just highlights MSFT's incompetence in product and
operating system design. It's not Netscape's fault that they didn't
"componentize" their browser -- it's MSFT's fault that they didn't
provide basic functionality in the OS and its support libraries. And
by withholding that functionality from Netscape, MSFT just further
demonstrated their abuse of their monopoly powers.
Gary
|