From: "Paul H. Merrill" <paulmerrill@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:33:44 +0800
To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Subject: Re: Proof IE4 not an OS, was Re: Bill Gates, the Bully Savior
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971024133418.361A-100000@is-chief>
Message-ID: <34512A71.7D2F@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Burnes wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Paul H. Merrill wrote:
> 
> > one million monkeys typing under the pseudonym James Love wrote:
> > >
> > > Nifty comment by Michael McMain on JavaLobbyCafe@iceworld.org
> > > list:
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > 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?".
> >  The MS assertion is not that IE only works within the OS.  Just that it
> > is a part.
> >
> 
> This is a non-sequitor.  Any piece of the operating system that runs
> idependently of the operating system is, by definition, not part of
> the operating sytem.
> 
> By that definition Word and Powerpoint are part of the operating system
> in lieu of their providing word-processing and presentation services to
> the graphic user interface.
> 
> Operating Systems are software systems that manage local (and sometimes)
> network resources.  In the case of a browser it generally just presents
> network content provided by some other entity.  By this definition
> microsoft could argue that the networked version of Duke Nukem is simply
> an OS extension.
> 
> To argue that IE is part of the OS is seriously twisting the definition
> of OS.  When in doubt, consider "browsing" a good book on operating
> systems.
> 
> I was giving M$ the benefit of the doubt, because I don't want the
> government determining what is and isn't part of the OS (and I'm
> not a big fan of Janet "The buck stops here" Reno.)  But when M$
> starts threatening PC manufacturers with canceled 95 licenses if
> they don't make the IE icon standard -- well -- thats beyond the pale.
> 
> What is the difference between that and Al Capone threatening owners
> of speak-easys with knee-capitation if they sell any beer but
> his?
> 
> Jim

First, I invite ayone who cares to to take IE off a Mac and run it on a
PC.  Same name does not mean same product.

Second, MS is moving (and well along the way) to IE as the directory
display portion of the OS.  In my book that makes it part of the OS.

Third, I have not heard of exclusive contracts, just complete package
contracts. 

Fourth, What exactly do you mean by "run independently" of the OS?  Is
IE now available so I don't have to load the slime Win 95?

Fifth, When it comes to contracts, one should only sign what one is
willing to live with.  If the poor computer companies don't want to
supply IE then let them run over to Cupertino and license Mac OS
instead.

PHM