RE: No Microsoft Breakup

>Actually, this was part of the trial. Microsoft stated that IE could not be
>uninstalled without crippling the system. The DoJ had an "expert" run
>uninstall and remove it. As you know, that only takes a couple of minutes.
>Microsoft said that to really uninstall it would mean deleting all the
shared
>dlls. Jackson didn't buy that argument. He found that the computer and OS
>could run fine without IE. Thus he felt it was a seperate item.

In order to truly remove IE from the OS they would have to do more than just
run the uninstall.  By design portions of IE are left behind to support the
desktop and file manager.  Based on my understanding of Windows and IE I
feel that removing IE from Windows got dumbed down.  I think Jackson didn't
understand the technical nuances and was wrong.  Just because the computer
and the OS can run fine after the uninstall doesn't mean they really removed
all IE components.


>Then why are you saying that is limited to software? Why can't a monitor be
>part of the OS or comfy boots? If your criteria for making something "part
of
>the OS" is that the vendor charges for it as part, then why would you be
>offended if it included non-software. When IBM started including voice
>technology with OS/2, they started shipping a microphone with it so people
>could navigate the OS and the web with voice. Didn't that make the
microphone
>part of the OS by your standard?

>That and the rest of your post is pretty clear. It isn't that you have a
good
>idea what is or isn't an operating system.

No one has a good idea what is or isn't an operating system.  It's subject
to opinion.  Look at Leif's reply.  I agree that an operating system is a
vague entity.  I like to think that it's something more than the thin layer
Unix has to offer, but something less than middleware (and boots go somewhat
beyond middleware).  I've tried to be ambiguous about whether integrated
products were part of the OS or just integrated products.  All through this
thread I've been waiting for someone to challenge my OS/400 comparisons
(thank you Leif), and fairly willing to explore the middle ground.  I feel
that IE is much like RPG or UDB -- they're not "part of" their respective
OS's, but they're integrated in a way that makes alternatives impossible or
moot.


>You pretty much look at it as what
>software is bundled together to run your hardware. If that includes word
>processing it doesn't occur to you that really isn't part of the OS.

No, I don't.  You're selectively replying to my short answer and replying to
your own extreme extrapolations on my position.  I've given very specific
examples of how an operating system might evolve or expand.  I don't mind
the broad and silly examples you've provided as long as they're not
attributed to me.

If I propose that presentation can be integrated into a system I have to
accept the words you're going to put into my mouth -- that obviously the
only reasonable conclusion to my points is that an abortion clinic can be
bundled into an operating system (oops, who's being extreme now?).  There's
a reason I provided a short answer and a long answer.  Look at the last few
lines I've clipped from you above.  You've gotten pretty good at overstating
my opinion and countering it with your own.


>I accept that we disagree and respect your opinion.

Thank you -- me too.  I don't mean this to sound scathing, but I've defended
so many points that were so far beyond the scope of my original post that I
don't know if my opinion was heard.

-Jim

James P. Damato
Manager - Technical Administration
Dollar General Corporation
<mailto:jdamato@dollargeneral.com>