Re: No Microsoft Breakup -- MIDRANGE-NONTECH

On Friday 07 September 2001 03:37 pm, Jim Damato wrote:
> 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

I disagree, there are a lot of people who know quite well what is an
operating system. It would be ridiculous to let Microsoft marketing decide
what an OS is! Or any other vendor.

> 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

So Unix isn't an OS? Machines with Unix don't have an OS installed?

> 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.

I quite disagree, but I really am not interested in discussing all that.

> >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.

I disagree here. As you have stated, you have been ambiguous about what you
feel an OS is. You stated that you felt the software bundled with the AS/400
is "part of the OS." If that includes SEU, RPG, UDB, whatever, it's all the
OS to you. That is what you said.

More specifically, I stated that I felt you believed whatever the OS vendor
bundled with the OS was part of the OS and refered to a monitor and boots.
You responded with "We're talking about software, remember?" It seemed from
that that you were saying whatever software was bundled was part of the OS.

If you are not goiing to clarify and more than that, then you will have to
accept the conclusion led to.

> 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

Wrong. A false statement about my behaviour.

Jim,
        Your statement was that you don't think bundling IE was such a bad 
thing. I
stated I felt it was. We don't get around really to discussing that because
of the vaguery of what is defined as an OS and what is an application.

        To me, the OS is the layer which provides command and application level
access to the underlying hardware. That's what it always has been. Okay, you
will disagree with that (me putting words in your mouth, right?".  Everything
else would make up the application layer, just to "over simplify."
        But with IE, we could simply define the application layer of IE to be 
all
the parts which are implemented on the Mac as well, okay? After all, those
parts run without having the Windows OS below them, right?
        So, without even needing to flesh out our definition of what an OS is, 
I am
saying that the bundling of IE (as defined above) with Windows in order to
eliminate Netscape because they were a threat to the Windows OS monopoly was
a "dubious business practice."
        I understand that you feel Judge Jackson was incorrect in his decision.
However, he did have the advantage of having experts provided by Microsoft
and the Department of Justice. He studied the point to reach his conclusion.
And, there are a lot of people who agree with him (myself included).

> 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.

Then try sticking ot the point. Honestly, I don't care. Judge Jackson reached
his conclusions and I agree with him. The DOJ isn't going to pursue a breakup
and will probably not do much of anything. But don't go wandering off track
talking about other subjects and then get annoyed with me when I respond to
them. If you don't want the subject of IBM's bundling to come into play,
don't bring it up. If you don't want to discuss IE being/not being integrated
with the OS, don't bring it up. Fair enough?

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

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.