Re: Reiser Proves Bill Gates Is Right?

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 19:05:44 -0500 (EST), charles mueller wrote:

 [Snip]
 
>Charles, Reiser has made Microsoft's case against Justice for them. That
>is, he raises the issue I raised once before: if the browser has to be
>separate from the operating system, why shouldn't each component of the
>operating system be treated (be legally required to be treated) as a
>separate commodity? Antitrust as an approach to public policy presupposes
>that commodities are distinct identifiable items, distinguishable as
>potatos are distinguishable from tomatos. One can then define a market for
>a commodity and count up the number of competitors, and say unambiguously
>if buying one commodity is "tied" to buying another. But computer software
>consists of lists of lines of code. Why draw the boundaries between
>commodities at one place rather than another in the list of lines of code?
>Conversely, suppose the law should, as Reiser suggests, require that each
>"component" of an OS be separately available for use with complementary
>code produced by competitors. What would happen? The application software I
>buy to keep track of my postcard collection would require one set of
>"components," and the one I buy to scan and print the pictures would
>require another suite of "components," and one wouldn't work with a system
>that would support the other, and I would be out more money for less
>functionality. I think that would work in Microsoft's favor, when all is
>said and done -- since the only compatibility standard would be the brand
>name, and Microsoft has the brand name. Indeed, that's their strategy in a
>nutshell, and it would work even more splendidly in the legal world Reiser
>envisions.


     I think all of this is really missing the point.  M$'s integration
claim is bogus because all they've really done is change the channel of
distribution for what are in reality stealth OS upgrades.  M$ is famous
for distributing stealth OS upgrades and bug fixes inside applications,
and the case with IE is no different.  So what they've done is bundle
files needed by the OS with IE and then try to call it "integration",
it's nothing but pure BULL.

     Why do people think you almost always *MUST* close all running
applications when installing an application under windoze, doesn't
anyone question what basic OS upgrades are doing being distributed with
applications???  The reality is that M$ uses windoze developers to
distribute their upgrades, and if any running application is using a
file destine for upgrade during an installation it can't be replaced
because it's 'in use'.  M$ has done pretty much the same thing with IE,
the only difference is that in the later versions of win95 (those with
IE bundled) instead of having IE upgrade what's already part of the OS
several files essential to running the basic OS are only distributed
within the bundled IE distribution.

     In essence all M$ is doing is playing a 'shell game' with what are
none other than basic OS files.  They're removing essential files from
the basic OS and then including them with IE, and then they're trying
to call it integration.  Anyone with the slightest clue about
applications and OSs can see through this, and because of this M$ is
trying to label anyone involved in the case with any knowledge on the
subject as biased...it's really just more cheating and lying on the
part of M$.

 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *	
***********************************************