Re: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling

From: Ross A. Finlayson (
Date: Thu Apr 06 2000 - 22:35:30 MDT

Billy Brown wrote:

> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Removing the Internet Explorer "E" icon is not feasible. It is scary for
> > neophyte users.
> Anyone who is that much of a neophyte isn't going to have an opinion about
> what browser they want to use, either. I mean, come on, all you have to do
> is click on it and hit the delete key.

This action does not remove "Internet Explorer", only the desktop shortcut to

> And for people who really are that ignorant of computers, the fact that they
> don't have to worry about choosing a browser unless they want to is a big
> benefit.
> > As aWindows user, what I want is the ability to add and remove all
> components of
> > the operating system and rebuild the kernel fine-tuned to my
> specifications.
> > Also, as I am paranoid, I want to verify system security which is not
> feasible
> > otherwise.
> Cool. I want world peace, a billion dollars and <obscene comments deleted>.
> Does that mean I can reasonably complain if I don't get what I want?

If you paid some place claiming to provide world peace, an investment stake, or
whatever, then you would expect the ability to do with it as you please after it
is in your possession, or in the case of world peace, to get some world peace.
So, I am aware that the license agreement is not agreed to by the general user
because by the time they purchase the PC it is already installed, so that they
are receiving on their PC software for which they have paid money and it is then
in their possession.

The point here is that Microsoft has received money for the privilege of having
the operating system installed already.

So, in terms of cars, if I buy some automobile and want to replace parts of the
engine, this is possible, although I'm not an expert mechanic so would not
attempt that. In the frame of reference of computers, though, say I want to
chop out 95% of the network stack, everything except the driver code for my
hardware peripheral configuration, user interface libs and kernel32 and msgsrv32
and perhaps a very few other things, and those basic system processes having
been fine-tuned to eliminate bloat, then that is a good thing to want for what I
have paid for it. For the car I can get the specifications.

> Making Windows highly configurable is actually a fairly big priority with
> Microsoft, but there are limits to what is practical. Customers also have
> lots of other things they want, like perfect stability, an infinite number
> of new features, and smaller/faster software. You can't have all of those
> things at once, no matter how much money you spend.

I think it is not so difficult, not to say I think I could have it done in a
week, to have a list of the dependencies of each software module and a simple
program to remove a bunch of them.

In the terms of the OS kernel, along similar lines options could be built into
the source code and any sophisticated user could roll their own.

This separate, it seems that stability is with smaller/faster software against
new features.

> > Well, as a user of this software for which money was indirectly tendered
> to
> > Microsoft, I am the customer, and thus always right, and so want the
> source code
> > to build my own compiler and kernel, and basic operating system services,
> and to
> > be able to then pick and choose what operating system enhancements I find
> > relevant, and then to pick and choose application software that best fits
> my own
> > personal requirements.
> If you want Linux, use Linux. Most people emphatically do NOT want to be
> able to do such things, and that's the market MS is targeting. Their
> approach is to give users and administrators nice GUI interfaces for
> everything they say they want to be able to manipulate, and then bury
> everything else under a layer of automation so that no one has to worry
> about it.
> Billy Brown

Linux illustrates that a complete operating system can be built on stock
machines from source code with the luxury of optional operating system
components, this from a group of volunteers.

I guess the point here is that Microsoft has received money for this operating
system from any user of it, so that the user should have the option to modify it
upon installation or after this operating system is running on the hardware.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:07 MDT