<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Laughing DM &#187; modular</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelaughingdm.com/wordpress/tag/modular/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelaughingdm.com/wordpress</link>
	<description>Behind the screen you hear the clatter of dice.  The Dungeon Master begins to laugh.  What do you do?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:18:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Modular Windows</title>
		<link>http://www.thelaughingdm.com/wordpress/2008/04/10/modular-windows/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelaughingdm.com/wordpress/2008/04/10/modular-windows/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DungeonMaster</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[windows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modular]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelaughingdm.com/wordpress/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is alot of speculation that the next version of Microsoft Windows will be &#8220;modular.&#8221;  ArsTechnica has a fantastic discussion here.  The article misses the point, though.  Microsoft certainly misses the point. I want a modular operating system.  What&#8217;s that mean?  To me it means an operating system that installs just what&#8217;s necessary to boot [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is alot of speculation that the next version of Microsoft Windows will be &#8220;modular.&#8221;  ArsTechnica has a fantastic discussion <a title="ArsTechnica on Modular Windows" href="http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/modular-windows-will-suck.ars/2" target="_blank">here</a>.  The article misses the point, though.  Microsoft certainly misses the point.</p>
<p>I want a modular operating system.  What&#8217;s that mean?  To me it means an operating system that installs just what&#8217;s necessary to boot the computer, enable support for all of my devices (like video cards, printers, keyboards, network cards, external drives, &#8230;), and provide a graphical framework for my applications to run on.  Graphical framework?  Well, strictly speaking that isn&#8217;t necessary to run a computer; but we are in the 21st century and that&#8217;s what users expect.  It should povide support for common communications protocols (via libraries) that my chosen applications can use.</p>
<p>Modular operating systems should allow me to install whatever web browser, email client, ftp client, picture software, office software, anti-virus/anti-spam software, or instant messaging client that I want.  An arbitrary piece of software like a web browser shouldn&#8217;t be wired deeply into the OS and then claimed as an essential part.  The operating system should provide a simple and well-documented method for any class of software to be installed and provide its services.</p>
<p>The OS shouldn&#8217;t come with any &#8220;helpful partner&#8221; applications to &#8220;make my experience better.&#8221;  At the very least if it going to recommend some &#8220;helpful partner&#8221; applications then the default option should <em>not</em> install anything the user didn&#8217;t explicitly give consent for (it should be opt-in, not opt-out).  My experience would be better if the OS just worked.</p>
<p>Ok, the part about a web browser being wired deeply into the operating system is an old complaint.  And taking it out isn&#8217;t what is being talked about when the term &#8220;modular Windows&#8221; is thrown about.  I&#8217;d like my &#8220;consumer&#8221; system to be as bare as possible (but with support for all the cool graphical interfaces that can be made).</p>
<p>I know, some of you are going to say &#8220;Just use Linux; all your desires for a modular OS will be met.&#8221;  Well, I have some installations of Linux floating around.  The problem is:  Linux never &#8220;just works&#8221; for me.  When Linux attempts to install and can&#8217;t figure out my nice, new LCD monitor then there is a problem.  I realize where the &#8220;fault&#8221; is, but Linux gets the blame because it didn&#8217;t &#8220;just work.&#8221;  I know I can take the Linux source and do whatever I want with it to make as modular as I want.  But, while I am a software developer, that&#8217;s just too much work for this consumer.</p>
<p>If Microsoft is really basing the idea of &#8220;modular Windows&#8221; on what users of their software really want, please, Microsoft, come talk to me.  I have some idea about what <em>real</em> consumers want.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelaughingdm.com/wordpress/2008/04/10/modular-windows/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
