Peter wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:
Gary H wrote:
Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)
Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.
And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.
I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even grasp
the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better, assuming
there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to 'opinions' on
what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components and
how it 'should' be structured.
I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.
Judges don't have that problem.
An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers. And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.
But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining
whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't
Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not
work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case
dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was
NOT a necessary component.
Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and
still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s
claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that
and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more
complicated than that at the time.
It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark. 
You're pretty close but I don't think anyone managed to remove every bit
and piece of IE and if it there wasn't already some theory of what is not a
'part of the O.S.' then attempting to remove it would be moot. I mean, if
it *is* a 'part' then what's the point?
The problem with these kinds of things, though, is they're nebulous,
subject to opinion and interpretation, and you can 'prove' just about
anything, to your own satisfaction at least, depending on your underlying
assumptions and how you want it to come out.
Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it isn't
'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue they intentionally made it
break the O.S. when removed so failing to remove it proves nothing. They
'could' do it 'right' if forced to, or so you'd argue (and believe).
On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser? Would most
people? And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the
product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S.
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism,
hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than
whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product
schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a
necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?
But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you
just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine
if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball
(and you'd believe it).
And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because
there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S.
product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."
But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the
user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates,
who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?
You're quite right that it's more complicated.