undefined | Better HN

0 pointslproven7mo ago0 comments

You're right.

I would have liked the solution proposed by the Department of Justice's original judge in the 1990s anti-monopoly case, though: to split Microsoft into separate companies: one for apps, one for OSes (maybe with development tools). These days, maybe another for public cloud services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

The first judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, wanted them split up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Penfield_Jackson

He got booted out and replaced with the much more conciliatory Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly

Mostly forgotten now but the fact that this Brit can remember the names of 2 US judges over 28 years later shows how important this case was at the time.

It is why MS bundled Internet Explorer 4 into Windows 98, calling the result "Active Desktop". That flawed broken "Windows Explorer with built-in Web rendering" was the design that the KDE project copied when it created the KDE desktop – as opposed to the much simpler cleaner desktop of Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.

Lawrence Lessig demonstrated this in court: https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/22/who_the_heck_is_lawre...

He managed to remove IE, and show the result still worked fine, demonstrating that Win98 did not need IE.

That in turn let to the app 98Lite to remove it, which still exists.

https://www.litepc.com/98lite.html

It led to NLite, which works on Win10.

https://www.nliteos.com/

In other words the ripples have not died away. That court case affected the design and implementation of FOSS OSes today built by programmers who hadn't been born when the lawsuit happened.

0 comments

17186274407mo ago

I think I totally agree with you.

I don't know exactly why Microsoft chose to combine a browser and the file explorer. Maybe it was solely to keep their monopoly. However exposing the Internet as a file system is not so far fetched. Most protocols (e.g. HTTP, FTP) are about the transmission of files. To me it sounds totally sensible to implement HTTP as a file system driver and then have the "browser" only consist of rendering, without any network features. Honestly that sounds like a really cool idea. It results in a browser that transparently browses from websites hosted on servers to websites hosted on the disk. Saving websites could be really simple. Uploading also.

Passing parameters to a website could be the same, as executing a program. page?foo=bar&baz would be ./page --foo=bar --baz. su -c "systemctl enable --runtime" becomes path://root@/systemctl/enable?runtime . Of course you need a secure sandbox, otherwise you just built remote code execution as a service to anyone.

lprovenOP7mo ago

> I don't know exactly why Microsoft chose to combine a browser and the file explorer.

I can tell you. It was clear at the time but that time was 27-28 years back.

Microsoft didn't like it when anyone else made big money off the PC platform, and it got jealous when anyone started "making bank" from tools that MS didn't offer.

In the early to mid-1990s Netscape made hundreds of millions from its eponymous, industry-leading, rich-media-capable web browser (codenamed "Mozilla".)

Every PC and Mac had Netscape on it. It was proprietary, free for personal and non-commercial use -- but corporates had to pay to license it. And they did. In the early days of the WWW, Netscape was the browser.

Whereas when Windows NT (1993) and Windows 95 (1995) launched, they did not include a web browser at all. Bill Gates' circa 1995 book The Road Ahead barely even mentions the Internet at all.

Instead Win95 came with a client for the proprietary Microsoft Network, which extended the Win95 desktop, called "Explorer", and it also included clients for Microsoft Mail -- right on the desktop -- and Microsoft's proprietary chat protocol.

An optional extra, "Microsoft Plus!", included a fairly poor web browser, bought in from Spyglass and rebadged Internet Explorer.

This was a £40 add on to Win95.

Netscape made a killing. Microsoft got angry and wanted revenge. In one leaked quote it wanted "to knife Netscape in the back."

So it started offering IE as a free download for Windows 3.1, Windows NT, and Windows 95. It started a relatively rapid development programme to improve it. IE 1 was very poor, and IE 2 wasn't much better, but IE 3 was all right.

This angered a lot of people.

1. Competitor launches product

2. Product gets successful, makes lots of money.

3. Microsoft pours money and effort into making a rival product -- OK, fine.

4. MS makes it free, and offers it as a free upgrade for existing users. Not fine.

Then came IE 4. This was launched with a big splash. It was built into the shell.

Instead of simply showing folders, the Explorer now rendered their contents as HTML and used the IE engine to show them. The desktop backdrop was Web content and could change through the day. You could pin a Web bookmarks bar to the Taskbar, or have it floating. There was also a floating list of web thumbnails and shortcuts. The .HLP help file format was replaced with new HTML help. Optionally, icons became web links: name underlined, and opened with a single click.

This new "improved" desktop was offered as a free upgrade for Win95 and NT 4.

And a year or so later the new "Active Desktop" was bundled as part of the new Windows 98.

There is a single functional improvement in AD that was not connected with shoving everything possible through the browser engine: it was multithreaded.

In Win95 and NT4, if you start a file copy or move, the shell locks up until it's finished. You can't use other windows or start programs. In Active Desktop, you can: the file operation trundles along and you can keep working. That is the sole non-Web-related difference.

This kind of behaviour is illegal: it's called "restraint of trade". You can't just make a free rival to a competitor's paid one, bundle your rival app so everyone gets it like it or not, and simply get away with it. That's anti-competitive behaviour. So MS made its developers go out of the way to find ways to integrate IE4 deeply into the Win98 desktop so it could claim it was an OS component and not anti-competitive bundling.

Netscape complained to the US government. The US government acted.

But after years of fighting, MS got off Scot-free. Netscape collapsed and was split up and sold off. AOL got the browser (but used IE as it had a secret back-room deal with MS), Sun got the web server, and the unfinished unreleased next version of the browser was made FOSS and a new non-profit foundation set up and named after the browser's internal codename.

https://www.mozilla.org/

All those bolted-on shell extras to justify the presence of a web browser? That is the design KDE copied, not the original, much smaller and faster Explorer desktop.

17186274407mo ago

Thanks for the good explanation. I'm manifestly too young.

> That's anti-competitive behaviour.

Yes that is way more obvious illegal behaviour than the current iteration of the trend. I envy this previous decades legal system for that obviousity.

> the shell locks up until it's finished.

You can still have this. If you create a folder in an open dialog, and the Windows Defender kicks in or it's a network mount, the inner window of that dialog freezes. Same for searches sometimes in the Windows Explorer. If you press the Window close button several times, the whole shell (including the taskbar) crashes and restarts.

> the Explorer now rendered their contents as HTML and used the IE engine to show them. The desktop backdrop was Web content and could change through the day. You could pin a Web bookmarks bar to the Taskbar, or have it floating.

I think if it didn't happened as anti-competitive behaviour, but as a real OS-rewrite, it could have been a really good feature. People could write their blog post/social media posts like normal documents and then upload them by a simple drag-and-drop in the Windows Explorer. I think we would have quite a different web then with the walled gardens of today. (I know this is easily doable with a text editor, ssh/ftp and a bind mount, but the layman doesn't do this.)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointslproven7mo ago0 comments

You're right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

The first judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, wanted them split up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Penfield_Jackson

He got booted out and replaced with the much more conciliatory Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly

Mostly forgotten now but the fact that this Brit can remember the names of 2 US judges over 28 years later shows how important this case was at the time.

Lawrence Lessig demonstrated this in court: https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/22/who_the_heck_is_lawre...

He managed to remove IE, and show the result still worked fine, demonstrating that Win98 did not need IE.

That in turn let to the app 98Lite to remove it, which still exists.

https://www.litepc.com/98lite.html

It led to NLite, which works on Win10.

https://www.nliteos.com/

In other words the ripples have not died away. That court case affected the design and implementation of FOSS OSes today built by programmers who hadn't been born when the lawsuit happened.

0 comments

17186274407mo ago

I think I totally agree with you.

lprovenOP7mo ago

> I don't know exactly why Microsoft chose to combine a browser and the file explorer.

I can tell you. It was clear at the time but that time was 27-28 years back.

Microsoft didn't like it when anyone else made big money off the PC platform, and it got jealous when anyone started "making bank" from tools that MS didn't offer.

In the early to mid-1990s Netscape made hundreds of millions from its eponymous, industry-leading, rich-media-capable web browser (codenamed "Mozilla".)

Whereas when Windows NT (1993) and Windows 95 (1995) launched, they did not include a web browser at all. Bill Gates' circa 1995 book The Road Ahead barely even mentions the Internet at all.

An optional extra, "Microsoft Plus!", included a fairly poor web browser, bought in from Spyglass and rebadged Internet Explorer.

This was a £40 add on to Win95.

Netscape made a killing. Microsoft got angry and wanted revenge. In one leaked quote it wanted "to knife Netscape in the back."

This angered a lot of people.

1. Competitor launches product

2. Product gets successful, makes lots of money.

3. Microsoft pours money and effort into making a rival product -- OK, fine.

4. MS makes it free, and offers it as a free upgrade for existing users. Not fine.

Then came IE 4. This was launched with a big splash. It was built into the shell.

This new "improved" desktop was offered as a free upgrade for Win95 and NT 4.

And a year or so later the new "Active Desktop" was bundled as part of the new Windows 98.

There is a single functional improvement in AD that was not connected with shoving everything possible through the browser engine: it was multithreaded.

Netscape complained to the US government. The US government acted.

https://www.mozilla.org/

All those bolted-on shell extras to justify the presence of a web browser? That is the design KDE copied, not the original, much smaller and faster Explorer desktop.

17186274407mo ago

Thanks for the good explanation. I'm manifestly too young.

> That's anti-competitive behaviour.

Yes that is way more obvious illegal behaviour than the current iteration of the trend. I envy this previous decades legal system for that obviousity.

> the shell locks up until it's finished.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse