What is Digg?55 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+73Modular Operating System? With "modules" you say?
That's called Linux. - st00p1d, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27The real question is: will the Pirate Bay offer similar functionality?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22They are basically saying that they will eventually release a cheap OS that is customizable.
You want the games - add 10 dollars
You want media center - add 30 dollars
You want drive encryption - add 5 dollars
and so on.
As for now its used for people who buy the cheap version of the OS and want to upgrade in the future. Its a very nice feature. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Not only is it Linux, it's any OS with a microkernel or hybrid kernel.
From TFA, It seems like what the patent describes is an OS that uses kernel modules which can be upgraded or installed via a package manager with DRM.
IMHO, Microsoft should Dump the NT Kernel Family in the Blackcomb/Vienna release of windows and write their own Unix kernel. But Alas, Redmond is too proud to admit that their product is inferior. - lava, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I don't know anything about OS X, but it sounds a lot like apt-get.
- Shananra, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Modular operating system... you mean like Linux?
- jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Prior Art.
Modular: Linux.
Even more: GNU/Hurd - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Can't wait for Microsoft Linux
- smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I was just thinking about this the other day... imagine if you had Windows, but since their security module is a piece of crap, you could just replace it. Now that would be sweet! Then people would begin replacing Windows, module by module, until they were Linux.
- tofagerl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I guess you would select the features that you need/want, and pay only for those, and not for the ones you don't need.
So no, not at all like OS X update, which is just an update service. - Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The article makes it (rightly) sound like this is the latest way for them to generate revenue from a product they have already sold, rather than about a new technology (which it isn't, see any UNIX like OS).
If there is a kernel module to manage installation of other modules, how long do they think it could be before the "3v1l h4x0rz" find a way to disable the keymaster module?
If MS put as much effort into making good, solid, interoperable, user-oriented products as they did into screwing their customers in the long term to maintain their monopoly by force, then Linux, Apple, Adobe, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and countless other "threats" would be dramatically reduced.
Microsoft's biggest threat is themselves. - threepio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12This isn't similar to OS X at all. There is one version of OS X per release. There are many versions of Windows. The idea here is the same type that drug dealers have been using for years - give 'em a taste, then charge 'em through the nose.
Got Home Basic? Upgrade to Home Premium!
Got Vista for Business? Go hardcore and get Ultimate! Do it all online, do it easy, swipe your card - it's okay, it's just a microtransaction! It's not going to be $5 for encryption or $20 for the games - think $49 per.
Frankly, I'd rather buy one box at one price and have all of the features of the software. Windows as crippleware isn't a strategy, it's a roadmap to a very dark place indeed. - Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When they say "Modular Operating System", they aren't referring to the architecture of the OS. That sort of architectural modularity is found in many operating systems and is much more pervasive in UNIX-based environments, and even more so in Linux. Windows, not as much.
No, what this patent covers is a business method for selling and activating functionality in the OS piece-meal. The idea being that you'd download software or activation keys to enable features. For example, Windows Media Player might be installed on your system, but it'd be unavailable without the Media Player activation kit (an activation key and patches).
In fact, the only problem with the patent per se is that the business model they are patenting was one proposed to them by the EU parliament. It's not their invention at all. Worse, since the EU suggested the model as a model practice for OS vendors, one can argue that adopting this business method is a necessary condition for certain parties to enter the EU market. - HalBSure, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I don't think they are patenting apt-get, they are patenting CHARGING for apt-get.
- Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+52. Different user logins can have a different OS configurations (what's this for?)
It's so they can eventualy sell code on a per-user basis, rather than a less profitable per-CPU or per-seat basis. Your whole family wants media center capability? Well, you have to pony up for yourself, your wife, and each of your kids. - Madcowz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Does this mean they will write modular code for the OS?
Maybe now they won't stuff up one thing when fixing another. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Embrace
Yes it is nice, but I think the complaint that is being expressed here is that they are attempting to patent something that already exists elsewhere. Not to mention that software patents are a bad thing and shouldn't exist. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Microsoft Doesn't even know what a modular OS is.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Vista might well be the thing that makes me buy a Mac. £220 for home premium?? they can shove it up their ass.
- d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That works for me as long as I can SELL OS components that I don't need back to Microsoft.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This just has bad mojo written all over it.
Instead of getting the full OS for $200-300 they'll market the basic OS for $150 with $50 add-ons. Of course, those add-ons will only operate at full functionality if you pay $50 for another add-on. So on and so forth. In the end, a power user will shell out $600 or more for features we used to get bundled together.
The features are all ready developed. It's not like it costs them more money bundle it. - je12u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Somehow I think it will end up not working as expected and being more of a pain int eh ass for users...yet still make pull in more revenue for Microsoft. I don't mean to come off bashing the company, after reading the last part of the article this is how it came off to me. Like it was more of an afterthought so they could charge for ***** they would normally give away for free in the past.
- redhatcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Vista's Anytime Upgrade—a new service which will allow users to upgrade Vista on the fly and unlock additional functionality."
Upgrading will often consist of removing intentional crippling, such as that to the amount of open applications/windows open at once.
"10. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on module corresponds to a number of concurrent windows.
11. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on module corresponds to a number of concurrent applications active at a time." - donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If there is a kernel module to manage installation of other modules, how long do they think it could be before the "3v1l h4x0rz" find a way to disable the keymaster module?"
--
They are probably going to integrate the module authorization mechanism into the core micro kernel, and not have it be a separate module. It is going to be pretty hard to defeat something like that, especially since all the exchanges are going to happen in protected address spaces. - eponymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@deadlinegrunt,
Oh, I am totally against patenting the concept. As I said, I don't believe it is new and I certainly don't think its an original Microsoft idea. If they do manage to ram the patent throught I think it should immediately be challenged by Apogee (now 3D Realms), unless someone else came up with their episodic software distribution model first. It's not a one to one match by a long shot, what Microsoft is doing is demonstrably different, however it might raise enough questions and bring others to the table in the prior art arena.
Or something like that... my brain is fried from sleep deprivation... move along... nothing to see here... - mogydy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks like M$ is so eager to patent anything that comes up their way.
Monkey boy!!! first come up with a new idea THEN patent it.
they even tried to patent virtual desktops, and to demonstrate their idea, they used print screens from kde an gnome
http://www.fabriziotarizzo.org/images/patent-virtualdesktop-page2.png - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Microsoft Doesn't even know what a modular OS is."
Sure they do. I mean, they run FreeBSD on their hotmail servers... - saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In my personal opinion, you're correct -- this is exactly the unintended consequence of demanding that built-in functionality be removed from an operating system and added back piece by piece.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with your assessment but to patent the idea seems silly. The first thing that came to my mind was the same thing that Linspire* was doing with their distribution of Linux. In fact, other than prior art, I don't see a difference...Which I believe is what most people, or in the very least - me, find ridiculous.
*[ http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_categories.php?sort=7&dosort.x=7&dosort.y=15&dosort=submit ] - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Patent abstracts can be deceptively simple sometimes. If you read the actual claims: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060282899%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060282899&RS=DN/20060282899
it sounds like the claimed improvements over something like Linux packages or loadable kernel modules are:
1. there's various DRM+certificate features to keep people from upgrading when they haven't paid for it, and to help enforce the Secure Path and other DRM stuff
2. Different user logins can have a different OS configurations (what's this for?)
Okay, so it's just a combination of loadable kernel modules with DRM and the idea of a trusted computing base, which has existed in computer security circles for some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing_base - eponymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As many people are pointing out the use of the words "modular" and "module" here have nothing to do with the kernel or the OS architecture. Put simply, if I understand this correctly, this is their method of selling the same exact media (CD, DVD, whatever) with the same content to different consumers at different price points. In theory you can cruise over to your local Buy 'n' Fly, pick up the most basic version of Vista, run home, install it, whip out your credit card and through one or more online transactions your system will have all of the features of the super-uber-Vista version because it's all there (or at least significant bits of it) on your media anyway, you just don't have the licenses and activations for all of it. The model also allows them to use the net as the distribution media for future upgrades and add-ons that plug in to the same licensing and activation scheme (no, I am not -- necessarily -- implying a scam... use the dictionary definition). As the article and other comments have pointed out this could be a move towards an episodic or serial model for OS and, dare I say it, sub-OS releases. Heck, it's almost the "Download and play Episode 1 of `ElectroFluffyNerfHerder II' for $19.99 and get free updates forever. Want more content? Episodes 2 and 3 will be out soon and you can download them for $9.99 each or get *both* for just $19.98!! Episodes 4 through ten billion are planned and we'll keep you updated on availability and pricing!" model. It's not really that new and it has almost nothing to do with the actual OS design. Just package management...
- COMCON4US, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Is it me, or is Microsoft seeming more like a girlfriend everyday? Theres like this disk sitting around in your apartment/house with a hole in the center, teasing you by showing off all the goodies you can't have unless you give it some more cash. :-)
Anyone got the crack for "female human" yet? ;-) - ugopk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1did they just file a patent for micro kernel OS?
- ear1grey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Back in 1989 the company that invented the ARM CPU also created a pre-emptive multi tasking operating system for it called RISC OS. It was heavily UNIX influenced and modular. So modular that it even had the OS CLI directive "modules" which listed the available/running OS modules. It's always had modular OS updates and is still available for embedded systems today. There's lots of prior art, so I doubt the patent should be interpreted as it is.
- newbill123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, it's more like Apple charging $1.99 for a network card upgrade, $30 for a bootcamp upgrade, and (forgotten by many) $50 for a Filemaker upgrade (to add a web view to layouts). Of course, all of this makes it sound like Microsoft is just blatantly copying Apple again (I guess you could also say that these Mac updates are prior art though)
- gmallard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MS will probably get the patent.
On ideas that have been around since the 1950's.
What a ***** up country this is......sad. - donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's so they can eventualy sell code on a per-user basis, rather than a less profitable per-CPU or per-seat basis. Your whole family wants media center capability? Well, you have to pony up for yourself, your wife, and each of your kids."
I seriously doubt that.
I think that a user with root/administrative privileges can configure, from all the components he owns, what features each other user has access to. - mogydy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1here is a direct link from google's patent search page
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7010755&id=jBt4AAAAEBAJ&dq=0189597 - calvmari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lovely monopoly tactics microsoft snuck in there if they can snuff out all other American OS companies in europe.
- azurepalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought wallpapers are distracting. :D
Those pretty girls. *sigh*. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@saska
you seem to be confusing an OS with Applications that run on an OS. - saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ray901:
In the same way Apple and most Linux distribution producers confuse them, yes. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If I could get a basic Vista with nothing but the drivers and code to run games - (a PC gaming console if you will) then that would be the only Windows I would buy. Based on MS's reputation and my experience with cable companies, I would probably have to buy a bunch of drivers and modules that I would never use just to get the gaming stuff.
- Fridrik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure they're just anxious to offer a chilled return policy.
- annoia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3First thing I thought was HURD (or any other microkernel O/S)... From this it seems like it's more some sort of business practice they're patenting. Doesn't sound very innovative, but I guess, that as long as you're willing to take your time to fill in the patent application, you get the patent.
- moronpatrol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Microsoft admits you can't keep throwing everything in the toilet and expect it to still flush
- xjqcf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't recall using a scheme like this for the OS, but haven't there been applications that were distributed on a CD which provided basic functionality but had additional functionality code of some sorts ("module"?) on the CD that could be activated after paying a fee to the publisher, who would then send a key to unlock the added functionality?
Neither the specification, nor the Information Disclosure Document (That only references two MS copending patent applications) seem to even any incremental functionality for pay type scheme. It seems such systems, even if not considered as precluding what MS is claiming here, would be relevant background information in considering the question of obviousness. - DeRien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sure sounds like a micro-kernel. We may wait forever for GNU Hurd, but there have been other micro-kernel systems made available (Mach comes to mind - course the director of that project, Rick Rashid, is now at Microsoft).
- glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6FTA: "The company hopes that modular updates will help to create more sales opportunities "
So you get to pay a bunch of money... then they get to sell you the rest of your OS in pieces... Is this a pattent for blackmail or extortion ? - Citruspers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3This basically means you first buy Home basic because it's cheap, then Home Premium for extra functionality, then Ultimate because it has some neat features you will allmost never use, like the moving desktop that distracts you like hell.
Great plan to get even more money out of Vista, considering the wonderfull Windows Genuine "Advantage" -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 