John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Peter wrote:


In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory to
a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to know
better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it in
fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes and what
were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just as the previously
popular cars with hand crank starters no longer are.

On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use the
computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an operating
system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that novel theory.

A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid to
have access to the ever increasing universe of information on the
Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored to
help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all preinstalled, or add one.

snipped the rest of David Maynard's Microsoft Speak

Which just proves that John Doe can't think of anything at all without knee
jerk labeling it Microsoft 'something' because I never mentioned Microsoft.

Not to mention the disingenuous snip and hack job distorting the context.