Proof IE4 not an OS, was Re: Bill Gates, the Bully Savior

[Jim Burnes]

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 at 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