Re: Browser integration
Originally posted by MacKid
TTwo, I'm not trying to be a b****, but can someone explain to me how a browser can be "integrated into an operating system"? I'm sure you're imagining me saying all this with a loud, cranky, voice, but I'm not trying to point out faults or call people stupid, just clearing a misconception and wondering how a browser can be integrated. Just a simple question 
.
Go to "Apple > About this Mac", click on "More Info
" and Apple System Profiler should come up. In that, click on the "Frameworks" tab.
These are libraries of software code that, because of the object orientation of Cocoa, are easy to use in any of your application. This is how, without AppleScript, software can be written in, say a small business accounting package or FAX system, that tightly integrates your personal address book (AddressBook.framework). If you scroll to the right, you'll notice that all these frameworks are located somewhere in /System/*.
There is a framework WebCore.framework(?) that is in Safari's app (it would appear as /Applications/Safari/..., if ASP showed it). The assumption of "tighter integration of Safari in Panther" would mean that this framework would be moved to /System/* and multiple applications would then take advantage of it for rendering HTML/CSS and handling XML DOM as well as other things (like integrating an internet browser inside a pane in your own application). Right now, for safety, Apple has to bundle the framework with any application that takes advantage of it (because Safari may or may not be installed in your computer). Also, right now, that framework's calls have not been documented or finalized.
I hope that explains what people are talking about: simply moving a set of files from one area to another.
Windows takes advantage of this heavily. This is why, if you look at Explorer.exe, you'll find that it's <200 kilobytes. Because all the real meat has been put directly into the operating system. Doing this makes it easy for programmers and reduces the total codebase (no duplicate copies of the same library need to be stored in hard drive or in memory when running) and eases a bit the upgrade process (no need to replace and re-release so much software if a bug is found). The price is security (single point of vulnerability, doing this too much makes the system homogeonous) and speed (library needs to be loaded).
Re: Microsoft's lawsuit. The problem wasn't just the integration of the browser into the OS. There was an added problem where Microsoft claimed removing the browser would break the OS, despite the obvious evidence that removing Explorer.exe and some associated icons doesn't interfere with the normal operation of the system at all.
This idea isn't new. Emacs started out as a text editor but became much more. Windows started out as a navigator on DOS and took that over. Netscape Communicator was targetted to do the same to Windows (and stupidly was their overt busines plan). It was that last thing, that caused Netscape stock to skyrocket and start the dotCom boom; it was the realization that this might work that cause Microsoft to react so swiftly by starting up an internet divison, purchasing Mosaic, introducing IE, and integrating it in the OS with Windows 98.
Now that the barn door is open, I see no reason to try and close it now. A little tighter integration is a good thing.
terry
