Andy C.(never #) said:
Right, but shouldn't the user that paid $200 for that bloatware have
the choice of saying what they want to install and not install?
No, because it is the few rare users that are expert enough to understand
all the interdependencies of the various technologies, protocol, or other
schema employed by all the various components within the OS or which ones
are expected by applications. The user would end up deleting all of IE,
including all its libraries (and its rendering engine) and then wonder why
Outlook won't display HTML-formatted e-mail, or why Norton won't display its
main window, or why (and the list goes on).
Personally, yeah, I would like a hierachical tree that kept track of all the
major interdependencies so that I could not deselect a feature that was
required by another (like having to install the ALG.exe service if I opted
to include the Windows-included firewall) but that still doesn't address the
dependencies by applications that assume that support will be in the OS. I
certainly don't want to go back to having every application install the same
duplicate functionality only to find one application installs an older
version and then screws up another application. Guess you forgot about the
DLL hell back under Windows 9x, or applications that would install an older
version of C runtime libraries whose DLLs didn't have the entry points
(functions) that another application thought would be there because it
expected or installed a later version that you then stepped on by installing
an earlier version.
Windows XP is an end-user OS. As such, its users are not intelligent enough
to know the dependencies or understand them (because they would then be
forced to be educated and expert users and most don't have the inclination,
time, or need to be proficient at that level). Just look at why users don't
bother with using Prevx Home (which is free) or ProcessGuard simply because
what they report to the user is often not understood by the user, so they
just blindly allow the process and thereby obviate the security afforded by
that product. Some firewalls have an option to prevent DLL injection (or
fireholing) but users haven't a clue as to what DLLs are supposed to be
called by an application to know if they should allow the process or any
other to call that DLL. The security option is there but most users won't
understand it (and often I have to do a lot more research than would a
typical user to figure out if I want to allow a process to make a change or
be allowed to start another process or make a connection - security is a
time-consuming operation that requires the initiative and desire to educate
oneself). Linux might come out-of-the-box with better security but the
assumption is that the user is more knowledgeable than a Windows user (i.e.,
a hotrod kit assumes the builder knows cars whereas the car dealer assumes
minimal expertise by their customers). Even mainframe OS'es require
expertise in setup, maintenance, and security. How much are you going to
require in expertise by the user to figure it all out rather than just using
it?
And why
does notepad and paint need access to the web? I've heard this all
before. I know what a dll is. I've written a few of them. And there's
no logical, good reason to incorporate the functionality of a web
browser in dlls that are required by desktop applications.
You're right about one thing; when I install most Linux distros, I have
the option to install everything. But I don't have to unless I make
that choice. How much choice does a windows user get?
And how much duplication in funcationality must those Linux applications
have if they cannot share a common library from where they could they call
that functionality? If there were no shared libraries, every application
would bloat due to duplication in functionality. For IE, you are only
talking about the front end UI whereas lots of applications use those
libraries. As seen with other browsers that provide no shared libraries or
other means for an application to use them, they have to duplicate that
functionality. yeah, you get independent and stand-alone browsers that will
let you completely remove them but that is because they are independent so
no other application can make use of their functionality. If you removed
the browser and an application was designed to use it for its own purpose,
you just broke that application. Are you going to require all users,
especially those that aren't interested in becoming OS experts, in
understanding and educating themselves regarding that dependence?
Linux users are not the same type of community as Windows users. Linux
users are typically smarter regarding the OS simply because they are forced
to be smarter. Windows users just want to run their applications and get
their work done. They want to use the washing machine, not figure out what
other timers they could shove into the front panel. The training curve for
newbies for Linux is far steeper than it is for Windows (yeah, it is getting
more level with the addition of better UIs and setup, but then it is
catering to the boobs which are the ones that won't know how to setup,
configure, and maintain their OS).
As for "my little wish" it seems like MS does that about every six
months or so. How many times have you had a program rendered unuseable
by a patch or a stealth upgrade. Again, why does a patch for Word alter
a dll that handles database access? That just shows that the whole idea
of bundling was bad and eventually a majority of even windows users
will admit that.
Some of that came from the lawsuits that forced the OS and application
divisions to be forced into independent development (i.e., anti-trust suits
forced one division to be ignorant of what another did). Just because it
says Microsoft doesn't mean one product knows about another (although there
would still be better communications within Microsoft than, say, between two
independent 3rd parties).
