Whether IE4 is Application Rather than OS avoids the deeper question of component competition

[Hans Reiser <reiser@ricochet.net>]

  I feel that this is the wrong place to draw the line.  We should not ask
  what is an OS component, what is not.  We should ask for what components is
  there a competitor desiring to supply a competing component.  Then we should
  recognize that modern software technology affords a flexibility that makes
  it feasible to at installation time compile in the configured components (or
  demand compile them as they are used if you want to be sophisticated), and
  charge a credit card over the internet (or any of innumerable other
  reasonable compensation schemes) for the selected components.
  
  Then we should consider it a restraint of trade for an OS vendor to not
  perform due diligence in cooperating with those who want their OS components
  to integrate effectively, and resolve the inevitable technical disputes that
  arise through a binding arbitration policy.
  
  I know that some of you will feel that this is extreme, but I feel it is
  more that the technology has changed and our societal mechanisms have not
  yet caught up.
  
  James Love wrote:
  
  > In a discussion on  JavaLobbyCafe@iceworld.org, Michael McMain made this
  > point:
  >
  > --------------------------
  >
  > A friend at work made an interesting point about MS's claim that IE4 is
  > simply an OS extension and not an application.  All the DA has to do is
  > turn
  > on a Power Mac, start IE4, turn to MS and say "So what other parts of
  > your
  > OS run on the Macintosh exactly?".
  
  There is in principle nothing to prevent Apple from also licensing and using
  the NTFS file system.