To be clear, they have to offer third parties the same access they enjoy themselves. If they provide a spell-checker that requires kernel implementation, they h

To be clear, they have to offer third parties the same access they enjoy themselves. If they provide a spell-checker that requires kernel implementation, they have to give all competing spell-checkers the same access. Obviously, it seems ludicrous to implement spell-checking in the kernel. Imagine if MS imposed the discipline upon themselves to provide enough API that their own security products didn't reach for the kernel crutch. Linux is different because it is open source. If a vendor wants to reach into the kernel, it's completely possible. If they want to provide patches to the kernel that allow their or any other product to do what it needs outside the kernel, they can. But even if the kernel provided all the necessary APIs, vendors could ignore those and insist on being inside the kernel. It is up to the user to use wisdom about what they install. And there is no unfair advantage to the OS vendor competing with third-party apps. It is silly to blame regulators instead of the app vendor in this case. I'm not sure why MS feels the need to deflect blame. I know that some are eager to point the finger at MS, but MS shouldn't be so defensive. It makes it look like they think there is some merit to those arguments that has to be deflected.