RE: No Microsoft Breakup

>So, basically, to you whatever the vendor says is part of the OS covers it.
>If they throw in a monitor and a pair of boots as "part of the OS," then
they
>are part of the OS?

Of course not.  This is silly.  We're talking about software, remember?


>But what is "integrating the browser with the OS?" Just because I compile
the
>dlls for the browser and include them with the OS doesn't make it any more
a
>part of the OS than if Netscape compiled those dlls and included them with
>the OS.

You're deliberately oversimplifying -- They made IE the default presentation
for the OS desktop and file/folder explorer.


>Their bundling practice was to force hardware vendors to put only the IE
icon
>in the install process so that if users wanted NS they would have to go
>download it.

I fully agree that sanctioning hardware vendors for shipping machines with
Netscape, OS/2, etc. is a practice worthy of an anti-trust suit.  It's
beside the point -- I've been talking all this time about technical design.


>To me, just because a vendor charges for something as part of the base OS
>doesn't make it "part of the OS."

My short answer is "Does too, Does too".

I could start a whole 'nuther thread on this.  There are thin OS's such as
DOS and Unix, and there are OS's of varying thickness such as VMS, OS/390,
OS/400, MPE.  Coming from an AS/400 environment I expect a lot from my
operating systems.  I think that Unix is an unfortunate anomaly -- it's
growth has been stunted by the standards that define and govern it.  VMS was
an example of what could happen if Unix were allowed to grow as a
proprietary OS.  It had better onboard disk management, process/job/work
management, etc.  I'd be interested to see where it could have gone.
Likewise, I'm interested in seeing where Windows will go as they add
features to their OS.  To me an operating system is a broad term.  If
Microsoft enhances Windows to include a database, performance monitoring,
print formatting, change management, or web security I'll be perfectly
willing to accept them as part of the OS.  If Unix standardized on a single
file system I'd be positively ecstatic, even if five third party file system
vendors went Chapter 11.


>...This will give you an idea of what the case was all about.
>There are an awful lot of exhibits, though, so you will need some time.

I already know all I care to know about the case, the conviction, the
current justice backpedaling.  The whole of my original post was:

>>I never thought that there was anything wrong with bundling the browser
with
>>the OS.  If Microsoft has any dubious business practices I don't believe
>>this is one of them.

I've since clarified that I'm impressed with the integration -- I find it to
be similar to what I like about the AS/400, and I don't think that
integration is unfair.  This is really my only point.  You keep inflating my
argument as if I'm saying that there shouldn't have been a suit against
Microsoft.  As a result you keep bringing up the entire case.  You're
arguing so many things that have nothing to do with my point.


>> I'm not confused about the purpose of anti-trust laws (as you've
>> dramatically stated twice).  The oppressed competitive vendors are
>
>Dramatically? Was it the flair of expression? Too much emphasis? Did I use
my
>hands too much or something? What a load.

Yeah, I'll give you this one.  I'm definitely being a jerk.  I'm obviously
just pushing buttons on this one.  I shouldn't have drawn from the drama
well more than once.


>A Mac is not a viable choice for
>all PC customers. If the Mac was, then there would be no problem. Because I
>would be typing on a Mac and so would everyone who just wanted a reprieve
>from MS. I don't want to argue the point here, but I will point out that
this
>is the very first issue that had to be resolved before any of the other
>charges could be looked at. If there was a viable alternative for consumers
>to the Windows platform, then the rest of the suit would not be valid. None
>of the rest applies if Windows is not a monopoly.

Here again you're talking about the rest of the case, not my original point.
The Windows monopoly was in full force by the time they integrated IE.  This
illustrates the dangers of the monopoly, not that IE was the cause of the
monopoly.  You're saying that Microsoft can't upgrade and improve their
operating system because people have no where else to go.  If there weren't
competition for the AS/400 system would it be unfair for them to
bundle/integrate DB2/400?  Since there's no competition for Windows systems
will it be unfair when they bundle/integrate SQL Server and try to put
Oracle out of business?


>Okay, from the above I can see that you have no idea of what really
happened.
>Please review the case at the url
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
>if you are interested.

You're right, I don't have a strong idea of the nuts and bolts of the case.
Still you've dragged the entire case and all the evils of Microsoft in
against my three line statement.  I think 90% of your argument is well
beyond the scope of mine.  The integration vs. bundling discussion is pretty
interesting, as are the pros and cons of an integrated presentation
environment.  The "what is an OS?" question logically follows.  I think the
foregone conclusion of "is Microsoft an evil, twisted monopoly?" just gets
in the way.


-Jim

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