What would you define an OS to include. If it includes utilities such as a defragmenter that is also sold separately by another vendor, is that really so bad? In essence, how much of Windows, the OS itself and packaging would you remove to make it not violate antitrust laws?
Packaging it is not the problem. It is the system integration that is the problem... Think about your favorite distro of Linux. It includes tons of software to do just about anything you _can_ do with a computer. But, they don't tie say... Netscape into the kernel core so that you can't get rid of it if it sucks to no end(no comments please, it's just an example). Windows has this sort of thing in it, which is what the punishment should include: the separation of products into a set of packages that work together or separately.
This solution is unworkable. The average/. reader would happily remove IE from Windows and replace it with Mozilla, but the average user will use what's given to them in the distribution. Net effect on MS? Zero: after all, the/. folks pirated Windows anyway:^)
The whole idea of unbundling stinks IMHO. Where do you draw the line? At various times in the lifecycle of Windows you've been able to buy web browsers, drive compression+defragment utilities, replacement GUIs and even replacement virtual memory systems. Should we force MS to unbundle everything but the kernel?
My Question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My Question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Question is... (Score:1)
Re:My Question is... (Score:2)
The whole idea of unbundling stinks IMHO. Where do you draw the line? At various times in the lifecycle of Windows you've been able to buy web browsers, drive compression+defragment utilities, replacement GUIs and even replacement virtual memory systems. Should we force MS to unbundle everything but the kernel?
Eric