Slashdot Mirror
New IE Disables Netscape-style Plug-ins
Snibor Eoj writes: "In his latest column, Robert Cringely takes a look at Microsoft's motivation for disabling Netscape API plug-ins in IE. As always with Cringely, it's an interesting take on things. We'll see how this one turns out..." Among other things, this will disable Quicktime plugins.
Because a lot of people want to run executable code on their web pages. To do that, you have two options: a Netscape-style plugin, or an ActiveX control. ActiveX controls are an IE-only monstrosity, but Netscape-style plugins (used to) work in both, so if you used a plugin, you got IE and Netscape support with a single implementation.
We had planned to do this very thing with a project I'm working on. Looks like we'll have to revisit it. Moan.
It's perfect! MS will be slapped down by their ignorance, and the mass of netizens will flock back to Netscape because they can't be without the ability to load web pages!
Alright, we know from the article that Quicktime is out for sure.
:)
But won't removing also kill Flash, one of the few Internet-wide plugins that I can be pretty sure these days that the majority of the visitors to my website can see? If that happens, a whole lot of site designers will sure be peeved.
Course, that will include every media company and such.
However, it would help me get away from those cutesy webpages I see sometimes that keep on playing annoying loops of midi quality music and disable the controls too (and which takes it's own pleasant time to load on my 56k)
ActiveX controls run as the user on the system - there's no "sandbox" and the only security is that it'll only run digitally signed controls. And on the default permissions, it'll ask you first. That's it.
As a plugin framework, ActiveX - well, works. I personally do not enjoy trying to write ActiveX controls, but I've never really tried to other than a simple one that didn't work. It seems to work about as well as the Netscape plugin API for simple plugins. It's just as secure - both involve running native code as the user - and it's actually much easier to install new plugins with.
MS's entire browser technology is much more extensible than Netscape's ever will be, and ActiveX controls as plugins are one part of that. ActiveX controls as downloaded content are a security nightmare, but as plugins, it's just as secure as any Netscape plugin.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
I'm afraid it is you who are wrong about a great many things...
In particular, it's finally time to lay to rest the false notion that Sun controlls Java. It is controlled by a standards body called the Java Community Process, plain and simple. IBM has a major VM as do other companies, and they are not letting Sun alone hold the reigns on Java. There are far too many corperations from all sides that have gone with Java to let Sun alone control things.
Furthermore, I would argue that not only is Java controlled by other groups besides Sun but in fact Java is the most open and interactive standard to ever come down the pike, and THAT is what has really made it popular with developers. All new aspects of Java (like generics support or new API's) come through the JCP, and along the way ANYONE can help shape the direction of things - I know as I've been on the KVM mailing list as well as the Java 2D mailing list before they were finished standards, and ideas from individuals were incorperated into final standards. That means everyone who wants to has a say in how the API works along with the giant corperations, who send reps to the ISO bodies you seem to think Java needs to be controlled by. I don't know about you but I like enhancements done out in the open with vigorous discussion from everyone rather than by some smoky-back-room process.
If Java really is closed, how can projects like Kaffe exists? (GNU JVM).
Ugh, this is getting so tired. XP CAN run Java. In fact, in can run the MS JVM if you download and install it. It can run any JVM you want that you download and install.
Well, that's great! So support then is on the same level as Perl, in that you can download and install that. What percentage of users do that again? I think right now I'd say that XP comes with better support for Code Red than Java.
I agreee though with the concept that XP really has shot itself in the foot by not including Java. This leaves the door open to say "well, they're going to have to download a VM anyway so we might as well use the Java plugin". Microsoft could have kept Applets mired in the old Java 1.1 world for quite some time, but now that the plugin is more of an ooption it can help further the use of Java. I know that discussion is happening right now at my own company, we're pretty sure to move on to using the Java Plugin for external applets to help provide a more standard applet environment.
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
Why do most posters here insist on furthering group-think that's patently wrong? Who knows.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I believe that Konqueror is getting support for ActiveX.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
Although Java is technically still under the Sun umbrella, Java has grown too big for Sun to dictate its direction alone.
Danese Cooper a.k.a. Sun Microsystems's "Open Source Diva" and Manager of Sun's Open Source Program Office, recently quoted in an interview about the Reaction to OSCON's Microsoft-Red Hat Debate as saying:
Sun doesn't want Java to be their proprietary code, but until companies such as Microsoft learn they can't taint Java for their own ends Java is better under the watchful eye of Sun.
Do you seriously think that Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with distorting Java without Sun there watchdogging them and suing them when they tried?
They can ditch whatever they want, period. Regardless of "monopoly" status, which can be debated here for ever, MS is still in control of thier product. MS has no monopoly in browsers, never has, and never will. Therefore they can create any browser any way they want forever, period. They can license it, give it away, kill off Netscape, DO ANYTHING they want to it. Its thier property, thier software, thier decision.
;)
Monopolies are regulated. Monopolies - regardless of your overwhelming adherance to capitalist-dogma - can occur with much less than %XY of marketshare. Any business with enough power to do as they will, with no effective opposition to check on technology, direction and price is a monopoly. Period. Corporations serve customers. When customers have no choice the corporation is a public service.
And btw, if MS ditched RFC 822 and did their own e-mail thing then yes, it would be their perrogative. They could do ANYTHING they want with THEIR software, and I will do ANYTHING I want with my computer.
Wrong, they would be doing exactly what it anti-monoply laws are meant to prevent (see above) - one major player cannot randomly force their clients to make a move - one that makes no sense, other than to cripple already limp competitiors - this is abuse of their monopoly position. If they *DIDNT* have a monopoly - would they arbitrarily switch to a non-open standard? NO, of course not, it would be suicide, unless their was a compelling reason (technology or price)... breaking the plugin API is almost the same as saying "we are a monopoly - watch us extinguish our only competitor and ram change down the throat of the plugin vendors.. try and stop us"... where do the vendors go? NOWHERE b/c m$ is a monopoly... see it coming round now?
Its important to remember that popularity and market share do not mean monopoly. Even if 99.99% of all computer users used IE it still wouldn't necessarily mean MS had a monopoly in browsers.
Most people, and the law disagree. It really matters how you define monopoly. In the US, if Microsoft isnt a monopoly - your laws need to be adjusted. M$ has been running rampant in the IS industry - UNCHALLENGED - for far too long.. the health of the IS industry is suffering, opportunity is non-existant, innovation has been stiffled.
If the DoJ dosnt win a reward with some teeth this wont be the end of Anti-Trust concerns for M$... there is always the EU
GO MICROSOFT! and everyone stop picking on them. (although this technique will expire in a month, when everyone decides to jump on MS again...)
Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
They should have had a popup message informing the user the functionality would be depricated in the near future. Instead, they caused it to break. I'm not sure if Microsoft is so competent at crushing the competition, or they do it like a bumbling giant stepping on the little people while looking for the light switch.
Obviously, we'll get a slew of complaints concerning anti-trust allegations and such. Yet here's my question: should intercompatibility and interoperability be mandatory in software when they aren't in the rest of market law?
Also, isn't this motivation for a new standard in web browsing? We have one for the languages of the web, and for the content. Yet we don't have one for the viewer or plugins. If there were a standard, such as in CD players or other infrastructure, then we would have a reason to be upset when someone deviates from the standard. As it is, the businesses devise their own standards, for good and bad.
Pax Digitalia
"what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser?"
1. Netscape 4.x did not magically stop working the day AOL bought Netscape.
2. WinME STILL runs Win3.1 apps.
3. It required time, money and effort on MS's part to actively REMOVE Netscape style plugin support. Why REMOVE a used feature when leaving the code doesn't actually hurt anything and supports your current user base?
Burn Hollywood Burn
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
When IE doesn't support NPIs, while being the majority browser, developers will have to decide if they want to write two plug-ins, one for IE, and one for the rest of all browsers, or just write one for IE.
I case you didn't get it yet, MS is trying to break a working defacto standard of a competitor (that benefits all users) by using their monopoly power. IOW nothing new to be seen here.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
welcome to the net...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm trying to code an online test that has an audio clip with questions about that audio. The desginers requested that I make it so that the audio can only be played twice.
My first thought was to have an embedded quicktime movie that used javascript to control when it was played, and how many times. Not only does IE not support the quicktime/javascript API, but now I read that they are doing away with completely.
Great. so what am I supposed to do? Insist that all students who take the exam use netscape? Learn activeX and write two completely different versions of the test? Create an interactive flash movie to do something as simple as control the playback of some audio?
Those are great options. Man, the web has become a shitty place to publish content....
I guess if your local phone company decides they're going to switch their signal to an encoded digital format, for which only they can supply compatible phones, that will be fine too.
Sun's Java plugin uses NS API.
Not as far as I can see. I've been running it on XP for a while now and just had a look in my plugins folder and nothing there. Nothing in the registry pointing at it as a NS plugin either. Looked at the exports of the DLL and there are both NS API and ActiveX exports so you'll find on IE it is loaded as ActiveX.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
1) If IE stops supporting external plug ins, how many plug-in publishers will go out of business?
.NET.
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
Well, it sorta is. You didn't see Netscape rushing out to support ActiveX when it came out. Come to think of it, who really uses Netscape on the Windows side, anyway? When I browse in Windows 2000, I tend to prefer IE. (When I browse in Linux, I try to use Konqueror/Netscape 6).
Just more of the same nonsense.
Let's face it, a cometitors' plugin interface is bound to be more stable and consistent than anything MS publishes, for reasons that have been beaten into the ground.
Having an IE plugin interface in Mozilla, for example, would be ludicrous. The lizards would spend far more time playing catchup with MS interfaces than doing anything else, thus killing the project. Duh.
Hopefully the courts will demand a few things from MS immediately:
1) Open MS Exchange to LDAP/POP3 access unconditionally.
2) Allow OEMs the right to add or remove components, software and icons unconditionally.
3) Allow OEMs the right to ship dual boot systems unconditionally.
If Ford shipped a car that only ran on Ford(tm) gasoline, or a GM dealer couldn't add accessories to a vehicle at the customer's request, or on their own initiative, there would be OUTRAGE expressed by the dealers, end buyers, and accessory shops.
These steps should have been taken years ago.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
RXC says:
Goodbye indeed. See ya. Don't let the door hit you in the marketing department on the way out.
I, for one, won't miss the EMBED tag. I'd also be willing to go without IFRAME, MARQUEE, and BLINK.
Microsoft's getting rid of EMBED? Bully for them. It's about time.
NO NO NO NO
These are not "Netscape style plugins"
They are <EMBED>, yes Netscape probably
was the major force getting them into HTML
but they are legal HTML (3.2 I believe)
Now IE has dropped support for this tag and is breaking HTML 3.2 support (surprise
surprise).
What people are calling "IE style plugins"
are <OBJECT>which are part of HTML 4.0.
PS> All those filters and still doesn't translate HTML enitites in text-mode, gret code Slash!
Were that I say, pancakes?
I always immediately leave any site that *requires* a plugin of any kind. If you can't take a picture of it, write some words about it or (in a rare case) make a video of it in a format everybody can read, I'm not interested.
And if you WERE interested in it -- what exactly could you do about it?
"And like that
... why people seem to think that IE and Netscape are the only choices for a decent browser out there when there's such wonderful browsers like Opera out there (not to mention Konqueror--but I digress). It's small (compared to MS and NS bloatware), fast, doesn't spy on you, and it's free (as in adware--oh well, three out of four ain't bad!). The ability to turn off images with the click of a button (or a single keystroke) does wonders for surfing sites with annoying graphics! Give it a whirl--you won't be sorry!
You can ditch MS and their crapware. All it takes it a little digging!
-- Shamus
Bleah!
use winamp for mp3s!! It's free and much better than Media Player... not to mention not Microsoft =)
If God gave us curiosity
They only took out the Quicktime plugin because it is a stable feature, and thus isn't compatible with any Microsoft products.
If Apple were willing to add some buggy code, I'm sure the Microsoft would be more than happy to allow the feature in Internet Explorer
Would we expect any less? This way, they get to screw Apple's video standard in favor of their own, *and* they get to get rid of a deprecated feature that almost nobody else uses.
Sure it is a hassle, but Windows or Microsoft per say has an API they're trying to get developers to follow. Netscape a few weeks ago if you don't remember basically said "We are out of the browser Business" so what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser? Especially one that is based on Mozilla which isn't even a 1.0 product yet?
Sure netscape 6.1 amd mozilla browsers are getting there, but not quite there yet and maybe in IE 6.01 ot 6.1 you will see it back in or an optional download
Finally Microsoft is trimming some bloat, and all we have to do is complain or bring up things that aren't even relevant (like monopolistic practices, what in the hell does that have to do with supporting a dead products plugins?)
Again, just my opinion.
Interestingly enough. I think what will make this difficult, is the large number of old I.E. browsers out there (not to mention the 5-10% of users who use other browsers). These browsers won't have the capability to do what I.E. 6 supports.
Huh? Are you under the impression that .NET has anything to do with web browsers? It doesn't, not at all.
Who I feel really bad for are designers of web pages who are caught in the middle.
Why would you feel bad for them? If they've been coding to the W3C standards, then Microsoft's been the leader in displaying their pages correctly for years now. I guess it would suck if they cared about Netscape 4.x and earlier users, but well, few people care about them anymore, and there aren't that many left anyway. And if they do care about 'em, they'd be better off complaining to Netscape about poor standards support than spending a single second bitching about Microsoft.
Not related to your post, but maybe someone else can tell me why Microsoft is supposed to keep Netscape's shoddy plug-in API? When did Netscape ever support any of Microsoft's APIs? Hell, just dropping the stubborness over supporting "document.all" would've done wonders for their own users.
Oh yeah, and my RealPlayer, Flash, and Shockwave plug-ins (controls) work just fine. It's Apple's fault that they're not properly coding to the API, and this isn't the first time that they've had this problem with QuickTime. Why do you think QuickTime has always had such a bad reputation for nasty installs on Windows? That's why they're working with Microsoft to get the problem solved.
Finally, I'm guessing that it must be Mac zealots who think that this is some big anti-competitive move against Apple, because the rest of the world knows otherwise: The company with which Microsoft is heavily engaged in a battle over media is called Real. Apple's QuickTime isn't even on the radar screen, so please, for the love of God, get over yourselves already.
Microsoft Suggestion Form
I have sent them a polite request and I suggest you do the same. I also placed instructions on the video page of my website for visitors to do the same.
Stand up for interoperability - it is always good.
"I'd love to sign up for this, but we're not close enough yet. To succeed, we must do what AMD does - be better and cheaper."
Although AMD is having problems, because they don't have that one other bit in place: They can't sell it. They couldn't sell water to a man with a bag of gold dying of thirst in the desert. And that's why Intel's still raping them in the OEM market.
Fortunately, this is not a problem Sun has -- otherwise, Java wouldn't be where it is today.
So, let me get this straight, ms is blaming sun for not letting ms distribute its own proprietary, non standard version of java and trying to control the future of java (and change it to ms-java)? That is not an argument. That is a pr spin.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
I'm talking about this.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
What I'd really like to know is, while thinking this shit up, is Bill Gates petting a white cat in his lap?
My microsoft fury isn't blind. It has been educated by 7-8 years of corperate abuse. When they change their ways maybe I'll cut them some slack. Declaring a vacuous development environment open and submitting it to ecma looks good on the surface but doesn't prove anything. At best it's a way to kill java with a monopoly-backed, but oh-so open, standard. At worst it's a bait and switch to get everyone on .NET, then woops we're all paying an MS tax on all our important transactions.
I may appear quixotic, but I think a good deal of skepticism is neded to battle this C#/.NET love-in. It's just plain unhealthy.
No, it's NOT the same. There's nothing to install, just a couple of radio buttons to click, AND they're already setup to prompt you before downloading signed controls and to NOT DOWNLOAD unsigned controls. This is the IE default setting.
Now, perhaps the prompt should be changed to "Do you want to download and run this bit of code on your machine? Are you sure? It could be dangerous, so you'd better have some idea who's sending it to you, even though its signed by CorporationX." Still, the current prompt isn't awful, but people just glance and click.
What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
I have IE, which does not crash at all when browsing. When running any "Netscape plug-in", it proceeds fine. Only when I run Quicktime movies, and the plug-in is being loaded, does the browser crash.
You're going to tell me it's the system, when nothing within the system is at fault here?
Why would a developer create a Netscape plugin on the Windows platform?
Simple -- because it makes porting their application to other platforms much easier.
"And like that
This was the first time I'd heard of the Eolas patent. Sounds like another company that's looking to get rich off of patents instead of, you know, creating any sort of useful product. (If you go to their web site, it seems to be little more than information about their lawsuit.) If I were Microsoft, I'd probably do the same thing, just to piss them off. But I'm petty and vindictive that way.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
Huh? I said "From where I sit, most coding development, be it Java, C++, or C# is written based on the context of where it will be used."
Where from that do you get the impression that I'm 'bent over to microsoft'? My argument is that whatever language is used, environment mandates technology. Some people actually use C#, so it applies. It would have applied just as well if I substituted Fortran or Assembler.
Sheesh. Don't let your blind Microsoft Fury force you to tilt at windmills.
Kevin Fox
Java is Proprietary until sun gets off there ass and standardizes it.
It is only helping, as anyone knows java 1.1.3 sucks and 1.2 and 1.3.1 are mucho better.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
I doubt Microsoft really gives Solitare and Hearts away to further their monopolistic evil plot to conquer the universe.
Geeze... I really hope they don't start putting a Solitare icon on the desktop!
What's a sig?
An activex Java applet engine is silly, but that's what MS wants, so they can co-opt part of the Java developer base. Sun's Java plugin uses NS API. Most of Java is open enough that you can run Java code and code in Java without using anything Sun. Cool high-profile things are happening with Java, and the only thing funny about that is how prejudiced programmers are language bigoting themselves out of jobs. Java is the best thing the open source movement has going for it, the only winner if Java loses is MS.
AC's cheerfully ignored
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Distribute OS with PC cheap. (Xenix was a choice for early PCs but was expensive)
Have people write software to OS standard.
Now their OS is only one with Applications
People buy only their OS.
Got Control of OS.
Change OS to break competitor's Applications.
Say competitors Applications are buggy.
Distribute MS Applications "Free" (come bundled with PC at purchase)
No More Application competition.
People try to break MS control of OS.
Company creates work alike DR DOS.
Change Windows 3.1 so that DR DOS is buggy.
No one buys DR DOS
Eventually combine DOS and Windows (Win 95) to shut out this possibility in future.
Not in control of Internet?
Distribute Browser Free with PC (like OS and applications before)
Comine Browser with OS to shut out competition (Like Windows with DOS)
Become dominant in Browser Market.
Others write software to use Browser (like OS before)
If anyone tries to make a competitor that is compatible change Browser (like OS). When user complains say competitor is buggy, just use IE.
Use control of browser to eliminate competitors plugins. Make competitors use Active X. Change Active X, OS, API at random to break Quicktime, RealPlayer, MP3 players, Netscape Browser, Office Apps etc.
Users complain? Competitors software is buggy not MS.
Once MS apps are standard change Media formats (say they are improved, innovated) now control Media formats, Internet Protocols, OS, Application and file formats. Charge media companies distribution fees and consumers playing fees.
MS rich. PC users poor. Internet Coporate playround. RMS crying in corner somewhere.
If Microsoft is =selectively= crippling IE, to force users down a specific upgrade path, then that is a very serious problem. So serious, it may well come up in the DOJ vs Microsoft trial, during the re-evaluation.
Using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
How is this relevent to plug-in technology? Actually, that's surprisingly simple. Dropping the API is not the important part. That's just the mechanism. The important part is that they are "conforming" to this patent only in part. That part being dropping compatiability, which is the entire point of a =world= wide web.
What is happening is that they are generating negative press for competitors, at the same time as making it difficult to impossible for users to use any products other than Microsoft's.
If it were a case of needing an API wrapper, to use Apple's, Netscape's or Sun's plug-ins, there would be no problem. No such wrapper exists, and I very much doubt that sufficient documentation exists for anybody to write such a wrapper.
If you remember, when Microsoft dropped Java support, people voiced the opinion that all people would have to do is download the Sun Java plug-in. It now turns out that Microsoft won't let you.
So. No 3rd-party plug-ins from ANY source Microsoft doesn't approve of. That's a monopoly. Or, to use "real english", that is a Feudal state. THIS is the "real issue", not whether the API is alive, dead, or both. Schrodinger's Cat it is not.
To sum up, the allegation reduces to this: Microsoft is running an operation bordering on the paramilitary, in an effort to conquer and plunder territory, in a manner that is more rememiscient of a feudal war-lord than a civilised corporation in the 21st century in a country based on freedoms and democratic principles.
I don't know about you, but I don't give a damn what runs in what. =I= don't want Napoleon Bonepart running the tech industry at gun-point.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
yeah... all that wonderful code development being done in C#... yeesh. You guys are already bent over to microsoft, and they haven't even asked it of you yet!
" Since Netscape 6.1 no longer supports the tag" uh....? what the screaming fuck are you talking about? You must have been smoking some really bad shit. Of course N6.1/Moz. 0.9.x support the select tag. Have you not been closing it or something? It'll be a cold day in Hell before Netscape/Mozilla stop supporting an HTML 3.0 standard tag. I'm a web developer. The vast majortity of stuff I do requires hefty form usage. The select tag works just fine. It even responds to CSS style commands just fine.
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
I seriously doubt this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The chance of IE being unbundled is about the same as Solitare or Notepad being unbundled - probably even less given the Windows shell depends on the rendering engine now to display folders and the like.
The fact is that HTML rendering engines *are* being built into just about every modern GUI shell (Windows, KDE, GNOME, OSX etc) and any unbundling would give that shell a significant disadvantage over the rest of the systems.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share.
Generalised Bulls**t. Monopolies are just companies with a significant market share. Many exist and behave as normal. It's only the ones that take advantage of the limited competition that cause the problems. In fact, by the definition of a monopoly they don't NEED to give stuff away to maintain market share (the legal definition says that they can arbitrarily set prices and maintain the same share).
There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share.
Again, you misunderstand what a monopoly is. By virtue of being a monopoly they aren't doing anything illegal - they have just achieved the elimination of any serious competition. This may be because of a better product, better marketing or just stupid competition. Your statements are so general that they just cannot possibly be true.
The rest of the paragraph just goes on to reiterate your misunderstanding of corporate practises. Basically what you are describing is the behavior of a highly competitive amoral company. The actions listed can be taken regardless of your monopoly situation and you'll find that non-monopolies actually care more about their market share than true monopolies (their share is guaranteed by definition).
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
This could go one of two ways:
The latter is the more likely situation, as marketers won't soon give up on their pretty animated crap.
Don't even get me started on all the ActiveX security holes we'll be able to exploit.
Here's the recipe to remedy this:
- Load a squadron of F/A-18s with cluster bombs and bunker busters.
- Set course for Redmond, WA
- Drop said munitions on the Micro$oft complex
- Repeat as necessary
Of course, we should make sure Gates and Ballmer are there."You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Hey, I offer it up with no editorial comment whatsoever. I'm not saying Sun did or didn't make them get rid of Java. I'm just saying that's their story, and they seem to be sticking to it. (Loudly.)
Breakfast served all day!
You cannot renew a patent.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard.
Actually, as a confirmed monopoly, they most definitely do not have the same rights as any other company. And until/unless the supreme court overturns the unanimous opinion of the circuit court, that's exactly what they are.
Nope, no sig
OK, the more I hear about XP, the less I like. I don't see myself buying XP anytime soon, and that's a shame because I was looking forward to continuing to use all my Windows apps on the latest and greatest hardware with the latest and greatest software.
This reminds me a lot of Netscape. Netscape peaked with 3.x of their browser. I seem to remember using it for what seemed like an eternity until IE 4.x, and the only reason I switched to IE was because OE was so much better than Eudora and Netscape Mail.
I think MS may have peaked with Windows98. From this point forward, it could be all down hill. The only question is what will replace Windows? Sorry guys, I just don't see Linux doing it for me. I could however, be easily persuaded to switch to OS-X if it were available for x86. I would even pay $200 for an x86 OS-X if I thought it had the staying power that Windows has had. Maybe Palm will keep going with Desktop Be, but that doesn't have the huge app base that a *NIX based OS does, and quite frankly I'm reluctant to go with any small market "alternative" OS.
I'm seeing a lot of disinformation here about the plugin API. It is currently possible to write a plugin DLL that will work with both Netscape Navigator and IE. There are a few places where the two browsers do things differently, but the intersection of functionality is sufficient to make writing compatable plugins a reasonable thing to do. So, at the very least it will still be possible to use most of your plugins with Netscape, and developers of IE plugins will just have to tweak their code a little bit, unless they were stupid enough to commit to features not supported by Netscape.
So, what will my solution be? Probably not to abandon Windows. I may actually haul out my old Netscape CD and install it. Who knows, the Mozilla project could actually get a big shot in the arm from this. I think MS is seriously shooting themselves in the foot with this... I mean, they've got me re-thinking Mozilla now, and if you had asked me about it yesterday I would have said something like "why would I want to run that? IE is so more stable".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You stated that MS owns part of Apple. This is incorrect.
MS bought some non-voting stock and promised to continue developing MS Office for Mac if Apple made OE and Exploder the default internet tools for Macintosh.
This settled the MS-Apple lawsuit and gave Apple some much need cash at the time. They aren't owned in any real sense by MS.
How is this not going to absolutely convince the judges deciding the penalty phase of the MS trial that the company must be broken up into at least two, if not three separate companies?
.NET in the form it is currently designed? I think the answer has to be 'no', since the function of a post break-up Windows operating system would serve nobody's apps except un-upgraded MS Office etc...
The alternative is that, for any other competing browser provider (btw, there is no telling how many other browser providing companies were scared off from competing when they saw what happened to Netscape) to achieve support for its product in the future, it also must develop its own operating system!
I'm convinced that the OS folks need to be broken off from the apps folks by dint of this action - which can only be considered 'smart' because it shows arrogance and confidence in MS political clout, unless I don't get all their strategy - now what does it take for judges to understand this?
Also, think of this: if there were a break-up, do you think that the OS side would continue to push
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Obviously site specific, but only 18% of people use a browser that admits to being non-IE for google
What I understand (which admittedly isn't much!) is that Msft licenses Java from Sun, and violates the agreement, doing something that wasn't in the contract, even if that something actually does improve the user experience by integrating it with Windows proprietary specialsauce, which already tantamount to proprietary 'embrace, extent, make incompatible, extinguish or appropriate'. The fact remains it's Sun's property, not Msft's. What seems belligerent to me is OTHER companies have to follow Msft's license agreements but Msft doesn't, and do whatever they want with other companies products??? Sure, Sun may have 'laid a trap' for Msft, but wtf has Msft been doing for the last 25 years that's any different?? It certainly hasn't been producing quality software!!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
But of course they're just INNOVATING.
No, no. Microsoft is just trying to improve security.
Of course, it's all the third party browser plug-ins that make their operating systems insecure. Outlook and buffer overflows have nothing to do with it.
[sigh]
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Maybe this will make IE more stable. Personally I wish they'd get rid of the ActiveX plugins too. I'm so damn sick of it opening Word and PDF document IN the browser when I'd rather download them or at least spawn the actual application they were meant for.
Actually, ActiveX is NOT a gaping security hole, assuming you're not setup to arbitrarily download and install code on your system WITHOUT knowing where it comes from and what it does. If your browser is downloading and installing controls and whatnot without your permission, change your browser settings in Tools->Internet Options->Security.
ActiveX is just a manner of encapsulating functionality with a user interface into a COM-based component. It's a whole LOT more functional than the silly Netscape Plugin API, and it's useful for more than just a browser extension (as you said). For instance, look at MSXML, do you see any XML functionality in a Netscape plugin that is usable in your own applications, merely by obeying a few binary standards and making some interface calls? Not unless you're interested in writing your own Netscape browser.
I'm not a Microsoft employee, nor do I think everything out of Redmond is gold, but as a programmer, I have to admit COM rocks.
What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
Well, not that much of what MS is doing lately makes much sense to me either, but I certainly wouldn't underestimate Bill Gates' business sense and, as the SNL Presidential Bash put it, 'strategery'.
All questions of ethics and fair business practice aside, Bill Gates' is unquestionably a genius (To avoid invoking Godwin's Law, I'll refrain from comparing him to a certain other genius from history). He has had his share of "being in the right place at the right time", but building a multibillion dollar software empire and becoming the richest man on earth takes a little bit more than luck.
I don't claim to have any clue what Microsoft's plan is, and I can't predict whether it will backfire on them or not, but you can be assured that they DO have a plan that is VERY carefully thought out and reviewed. And honestly, I wouldn't be too shocked if whatever plan they have works.
Alan
Look and how Microsoft responded to the DoD's over the issue of POSIX. The DoD said that any OS they bought had to be Posix compatible. So Microsoft built Windows NT a (crappy, vestigal) POSIX subsystem.
Given that the military uses Java (one example, pdf file), they could easily put the kibosh on any plans to remove Java support from XP. And, being that the DoD is one of Microsoft's best customers (I can't find numbers, but that is a quote), Microsoft will listen to them. Given that Sun and (I believe) HP have JVM's ready for use, they have little room to back out.
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
I wonder if this means that the BackOrifice(tm) plugin won't work anymore?
-- Shamus
Bleah!
It's pretty simple. "Hooks" refer to API linkage. Not mindshare... At least on the planet I come from. Heh. I get your drift tho. Nice chatting with ya.
This change by Microsoft means that anyone who upgrades to Service Pack 2 for IE 5.5 breaks our product. And the best part is Microsoft's KB article describing the status as, "This behavior is by design."
It's already not free - it's tied to Windows. IE is used as a method to tie users into Windows and to force upgrades to the latest versions of Windows by discontinuing support of IE for previous OSes. Yeah, there's the Mac and the UNIX versions of IE, but they're not really the same product and they don't really work as well. (Sorta - comments about Mac IE's supperior standards compliance are basically irrelevent.)
Face it - when the web becomes unreadable without Internet Explorer, where do you go? You basically have to move to Windows. (Oops, Mac IE won't work with MacOS 10.4 because we went out of our way to find some way to make it rely on MacOS 9! UNIX IE discontinued due to lack of demand. You get the idea.) All the web-development stuff I do (except with a company that still uses a custom Netscape 4) has discontinued any Netscape support. Since Netscape 6.1 no longer supports the <SELECT> tag I've completely stopped supporting it.
It should be noted that "not supporting" in this case means that if it works under IE 5, it goes - if it doesn't, it's worked on until it does. Doesn't work in NS6? Tough. And a lot of other websites are moving that way too. Now while you're still allowed to try and view the content with NS4, it probably won't work. It may work in Moz and NS6, but I dunno, and I don't test it. In fact, Moz and NS6 are explicitly not supported in the application described above where NS4 is supported since although it'll work with NS4 and IE, it won't with Moz/NS6.
This is why IE will always be free - it's become Windows. And Windows is most decidely not free, so IE isn't really free after all, is it? It's just a method to tie you into MS platforms - when you can only experience the web via IE 7.0 running on Windows 2005, there's no reason to up the cost of IE - MS just increases the price of Windows.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
ok, maybe this isn't clear:
Netscape-style plugins are independent from the netscape web browser! Back in the day, long long ago, netscape developed a plugin API. It became a standard. When you've used a browser plugin, you used a netscape-style plugin. Plugins ARE netscape-style plugins.
Microsoft removed plugins entirely.
Microsoft's new way to expand browser functionality is Active X. It has its problems, and many companies stuck with the industry standard plugins. Microsoft wants to FORCE companies to use ActiveX instead. And netscape can't support activeX without liscensing it from microsoft.
It used to be possble to write a cross-browser-platform plugin. So if you have a new format, you could add support for it to ALL major browsers. Now, you'll need to write two peices of software to accomplish that. A lot of developers won't bother and will only write for the one with a larger installed base - active X. So, while RIGHT NOW explorer appears to have lost some functionality, in the long run it will end up being a more appealng browser to the desktop consumer. And, if you like the taste of bill gates' d*ck, their stock will be more appealing.
There is more going on here than i-cant-see-my-.mov-files.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says .Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure .Net won't violate the patent, either. Well, .Net may not violate it, but .Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e., .Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how .Net is supposed to get around this patent.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
So Microsoft owned a lot of apple but they also owed rather a lot of apple shares. Smart move.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
EVERYTHING that is happening in software engineering, everything new and bold and adventurous, is happening in Java
That is really funny.
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's
No it isn't. It's Sun's. They refuse to let it go, refuse to let it be an open standard, and they never will allow it.
By crippling XP so that it can't run Java
Ugh, this is getting so tired. XP CAN run Java. In fact, in can run the MS JVM if you download and install it. It can run any JVM you want that you download and install.
Why do people insist on writing long comments trying to look smart, without actually bothering to know what they are talking about?
This is not a Fugazi
It appears that the plug-in support has changed because Microsoft is wanting to use Active-X to handle content. In one way the change makes sense as they want IE to be more integrated with the desktop. In theory, with Active X any program can act as an embedded media viewer.
On the other hand wasn't active-x meant to be one of the gapping security holes in IE? I often find active-x allowing websites to install software on my computer without even asking me.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
How could C# have its place in the SE field? It doesn't even exist yet in any capable form.
Microsoft is getting sued by Eolas for patent infringment. Microsoft (while also litigating with Eolas) is also removing the infringing code from their product. It just happens to be (according to the article) support for the APPLET and EMBED tags. So it seems that Quicktime needs EMBED tags to function. I'm sure someone will find a way to write a plug-in to fix that.
Apparently most offending plugins can be rewritten to use ActiveX (which still violates the patent but remains supported?) For Java this means that not only is Java no longer included by default on Windows systems, but the plugin used for adding Java capabilities is (probably) no longer compatible with IE at all. Just as it appeared that most people would be happy having Sun's version of Java widely available as a plugin instead of MS's corrupted version, MS has thrown another wrench in the plans.
.NET and breaks compatibility with everyone else. We really do need a standard cheap way to make universally acceptable plugins/embedded code. The alternative is to code two or three times or see viable browsers and other software unable to compete because of patents on the means of compatibility. A standard could increase both productivity and competition.
It's really about time for W3C to step in and standardize APIs for embeddable web content. I know Eolas has the patent, but it's not unusual to see companies licensing at no or reduced cost for patents that are involved in standards on condition that the standard is properly followed. Eolas will get little or nothing if MS circumvents the patent with
I must say I like the quote from Cringely- "Almost the same thing happened during the anti-trust trial when Microsoft offered to create a deliberately retarded version of Windows without Internet Explorer, essentially threatening the court with really bad software if Redmond didn't get its way." You mean Windows hasn't always been "really bad software"?!? Hmm... and "deliberately retarded" too....
Besides MS has to make room for default hooks needed by .Net so it only makes sense that they jettisoned Java.
Hahahahha. You're not very familiar with computer science are you? Because what you said makes absolutely no sense.
"Foolish Windows user! Nevermind that you may be at work and given only a single choice of browser. Or that you might actually like IE better than Netscape. Or that you may be at someone else's computer. Or a whole host or reasons that one might be using IE rather than Netscape, et al. You are forbidden to post here because you are a Microsoft Lover! Yes, you betray your lust for the vile software maker via your choice of browser! You obviously hate Linux and all free software and thus we expell thee from our midst!"
I can only imagine what kind of uproar would be generated if Microsoft were to block all non-MS browsers from www.microsoft.com...
If you couldn't tell I thought so, it's a pretty dumb idea, Nicky. (Research project: Kant's Categorical Imperative)
PS: HIBT?
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
It's not like Microsoft was been bothered by Quicktime before and told Apple where they could stick it.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Microsoft's stated reason for no longer supporting Netscape format plugins is that they prefer using ActiveX components for that purpose. That's really nothing new. Some third-party companies are going that route already. For example, as I understand it, Macromedia's Flash plugin is available as both a Netscape plugin for Netscape, and as an ActiveX control for IE. Other plugin makers need only follow suit.
In other words: Big whoop.
Breakfast served all day!
IE and active-X use the object tag which works *exactly* the same way. Active-X as it's currently used would fall under this patent too, yet you don't see MS removing that tag. ;-)
I've brought issues up like this before, but you're going to be considered trolling anyway. Be prepared. :) (What's funny, is that no matter where you go, even the "rebel individuals" Open Source, there is still some measure of conformity).
This last sentence pretty much says it all.
The whole pissing match between Sun, MS, and every other fscking co. does nothing but insure that we all have software and hardware that sucks. Isn't about time that these a-holes start showing concern for their customers by working on making decent products instead of worrying about their stock prices, IP, and market dominance.
I digress....
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Not sure too many people would be interested in this, but the Kerberos authentication clients used by CMU to verify the ID of people also breaks with this update. We were provided with detailed instructions on how to remove the IE 5.5 update until modifications to the plugins (called KClient) were made.
Looking at Eolas, on the one hand, it's kind of funny to see the degree to which Eolas is beating Microsoft in Court, and the ridiculous hoops that Microsoft has jumped though in the process (Microsoft attempt to claim inventorship of Eolas invention-pdf). But on the other hand Eolas patent is sort of the worst kind of patent-squatting - thinking of something, patenting it, and then hoping others will pay you to license it, because you don't plan on developing it.
If you look at Eolas's website you don't get the impression that they're generating too many "algorithms that implement dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications," to quote Cringely. Granted they developed the first plugin - in 1993! - for Mosaic! but they don't seem to be doing much else these days, in the hey day of the interactive internet. In fact, as near as I can figure they don't generate anything except law suits (right now only against MS, but what's to stop them from going after Netscape, Mozilla, Sun, etc. should they decide to do so.)
You really have to wonder about how far this sort of thing will be taken in the future - that is how many people will patent ideas and not act on them until that fundamental idea has made many companies tremendously successful. After all what if Turing had pattened the idea of "stored information, which can be utilized to control an electronic machine in the preformance of actions determined by the information" - the stored program executable. Morris and Eckert would have had to pay him to write the code for the ENIAC and we'd be paying his heirs everytime we wrote an executable (assuming his heirs renewed the patent).
credo quia absurdum
Snagged from google's excellent cache "Netscape: We're in media, not browser business now By Reshma Kapadia NEW YORK, June 6 (Reuters) - AOL Time Warner Inc (NYSE:AOL - news) is remaking its pioneering Netscape software business into an Internet media hub brimming with Time Warner artists and publications, aimed at office workers and Web purists not already using AOL services. ``The browser is a crown jewel. However, six months from now, you won't consider Netscape to be a browser company,'' Netscape President Jim Bankoff told Reuters in an interview, referring to its early role in creating the first popular tool for surfing the Web. The shift recognises the overwhelming dominance of the Internet Explorer (IE) browser produced by arch-rival Microsoft Corp (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news), and frees AOL to focus on new media markets now taking shape on computers, phones and television. The revved-up Netscape media strategy signals that AOL Time Warner is stepping up the integration of its varied business units following the completion of AOL's $106.2 billion purchase of Time Warner Inc in January. Netscape, which plans to embark on a brand advertising campaign later this year, wants to act as a hub for the wide array of core Time Warner media properties -- such as Fortune and Time magazines and the 24-hour cable news network CNN. So far about 18 Time Warner publication and programming sites, including CNNfn financial news and CNN.com, have been embedded in the toolbar that runs along the top of the Netscape media site. NETSCAPE SOFTWARE TO ACT AS COMPONENTS FOR MEDIA SERVICES Netscape is by no means a rejection of its software legacy, as components of its browser technology will continue to power new features of Netscape's media services aimed at office workers, small businesses and sophisticated Web users. ``We have all been waiting to see if they stake the crown on the technology, on the name, or on the parent and it become more of an extension of a grander thing,'' said Lydia Loizides, analyst at Internet research firm Jupiter Media Metrix. ``It's not going to be Netscape, but rather Netscape.com,'' Loizides said. AOL Time Warner's retreat from creating distinct Netscape browsing software figures in the on-again, off-again talks the company is holding with Microsoft to renegotiate its licence to embed the Internet Explorer in its AOL service. The talks, which broke down last week but are said to have since resumed, would extend a five-year AOL-Microsoft browser deal that expired in January of this year, among other topics. But in an industry that does not know how to stand still, the rivalry has shifted to instant-messaging services that incorporate browser-like Web surfing features with the capacity to swap messages rapidly among friends and colleagues. Microsoft is incorporating an instant-message service it calls Windows Messenger into the next version of its operating system software known as Windows XP that offers audio and video conferencing, file transfers and text messaging. This change means customers of alternative instant messaging and Web browsers would have to go to extra effort to use such systems. The expired Microsoft pact had allowed AOL's software to feature on the desktops of many Windows PCs, helping fuel the growth of AOL services. AOL still relies on Internet Explorer as the built-in browser for its now 29 million subscribers. Bankoff said Netscape's strategy will not be altered regardless of which way the talks with Microsoft are resolved. He confirmed that AOL has been testing ``Komodo'' software, which would let AOL and CompuServe Internet services support multiple Web browsers, including Netscape, as well as perform various other functions. Netscape is also trying to increase the reach of its technology platform and has struck recent deals for its browser to be used in Sony Corp's PlayStation 2 and direct computer seller Gateway Inc's (NYSE:GTW - news) Touchpad. ``We are finding demand for more than the Internet browser in the marketplace,'' Bankoff said, contrasting Netscape's partnering moves to what he considers Microsoft's winner-take-all model. ``You will see more pacts like the one struck with PlayStation.'' NETSCAPE, THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA BRAND IN THE AOL STABLE The historic transformation of Netscape into media property has been underway since AOL bought Netscape in 1999 and Time Warner in 2000 to form the world's largest media company, with interests ranging from music to film and across the Internet. Netscape.com's base of registered users has grown 37 percent to more than 40 million worldwide from 15 million in February 2000, the company said. The Netscape target user typically surfs the Web at work, often on high-speed connections, and resists the packaged online experience AOL creates to draw mainstream audiences who find wide-open Web surfing confusing or overly complex. ``We call them the 'a la carte' crowd. (Netscape users) have a perceived interest in finding their own things,'' Bankoff said. Bruce Kasrel, a Forrester Research analyst who had yet to be briefed on the new Netscape plans, said ahead of the announcement last week that Netscape needed to pursue a hybrid media and software akin to that of Microsoft's MSN Explorer. MSN allows users to custom design the mix of Web searching, news updates, communication features and other services using Internet Explorer technology. Similarly, he predicted AOL Time Warner would fold Netscape software into its media properties. The media hub strategy gives Netscape a chance to sell advertising across its many properties -- something AOL Time Warner is well known for doing -- and to test the waters for subscriptions rather than just free services, Loizides said. ``Because they are repositioning themselves, they are a bit freer to experiment than Yahoo! or other services,'' she added. ``Things they could test include subscriptions services'' for unique Time Warner programming or special Web software. The formula of using Netscape to create a central Internet meeting place for Time Warner magazine readers and broadcast viewers echoes in certain respects the push by Time Warner in the first half of the 1990s to draw users to a single site. That site, known as Pathfinder, failed to keep Time Warner readers within the site and eventually closed. Netscape can tap an unprecedented wealth of exclusive media content ranging from music pop star Madonna to the hit crime-family drama ``The Sopranos'' now running on U.S. cable television, Loizides said. Email this story - Most-emailed articles - Most-viewed articles "
I have noticed that this Service Pack must break more then that! My MIME types are all fouled up and don't at ALL match what is in the OS (Folder Options, File Types tab). I do notice a HUGE amount of so what replies in here. Maybe this is because Apple has yet to release a Quicktime player for Linux?? :) Can we say Sorenson Codec? :) I personally think Microsoft is at fault here. They may have the market,but they have no right to foul things up. My bet is in ten years you will see a book by titled "How to Drive a Monopoly Into the Ground!", by Bill Gates! :)
Gorkman
What would be really ironic is if Netscape, in order to avoid any Eolas patent infringement lawsuits, switched to .NET technology. Given that MS is interested in getting .NET as widely used as possible, I bet it'd be a much cheaper route for AOL/TW.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
According to an article I read recently (if anyone has the link please post) Microsoft is working with Apple to make Quicktime work with IE6, probably as an ActiveX component. So the line about it "disabling Quicktime" is not entirely accurate.
My take on things:
If Microsoft is "forced" to drop EMBED/APPLET style plug-in support for IE 5.5 SP2, and IE6, it's not "their" fault that Java can't be shipped...
As I stated to cringely in an email... ActiveX is probably untainted by that patent... ActiveX is only a marketing blurb for COM, which was a
re-name from OLE, and we all remember the acronym "object linking & embedding"....
I'm sure Microsoft can prove OLE working in software such as Word, with live Excel document embedding prior to 1993... If the linked sub-components resided on differing network shares...booom, isn't that by definition a
"hypermedia" document? ActiveX support in IE relies on (correct me if I'm wrong), the OBJECT tag, which is Microsoft's own...
By being "forced" to drop Netscape plug-in style support, not only can Microsoft claim "plausible deniability" for java removal, but they can
strike blows against other competing technologies:
- QuickTime, RealAudio/Video (use Windows Media formats instead)
- PDF (use Microsoft Reader w/eBooks instead)
- SVG (Even though it's on it's way to recomended status by the W3C, we have
yet to see any rumblings from Redmond on native support within IE... so...
the Adobe plug-in stops working? use Microsoft's Vector Markup Language
(VML) instead, we support it right in the browser....)
I'm sure there are more than a few "cheshire cat" style grins in Redmond in the last little bit....
Much of Cringeley's argument seems to be that Microsoft will soon issue a "real" rationale why they are removing support for the JVM and Netscape plugins. This seems unlikely to me, given the following release from Wagged PR, Microsoft's agency, recently distributed to some industry media outlets. I'm blanking out the names because I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a general-public release or not. But it states pretty plainly their reasons for dropping Java -- and in direct opposition to Cringely's theory, it pretty much amounts to "Sun made us do it":
.NET, where we have submitted the underlying specifications to
.NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties
.NET
-------[cut here]-------
To: xxxxxx
From: xxxxxx@Wagged.com
Date: 08/16/2001 01:50 PM
Dear xxxxxx,
There is a considerable amount of confusion surrounding Microsoft position
regarding the virtual machine in Windows XP. Wanted to make sure you have
the most accurate information from Microsoft as to the events leading to and
the consequences resulting from this decision. From Microsoft's perspective,
Sun Microsystems has turned its marketing machine into high gear about
Windows XP, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, Java and customers by not
including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
It's time to set the facts straight.
First, this is unparalleled hypocrisy on Sun's part. Sun has taken every
step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping its award winning Java
virtual machine. They spent several years suing to stop Microsoft from
shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took advantage of
Windows. Rather than pursue a new licensing arrangement, Sun settled its
lawsuit with Microsoft by offering a phase out of Microsoft's Java
implementation. Since the settlement a Federal Appeals Courts has upheld
Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual
machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
Moreover, when Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year,
Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said,
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The
community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great
platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the
authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said
they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license and an agreement
that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine. Now they are
either unhappy with what they got or simply being disingenuous. Analysts
such as Bob Sutherland with Technology Business Research say: "Sun can't
have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control,
but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what
Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Sun is also being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has
taken multiple steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP
customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows
users from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual
machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the
product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of
Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing
virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean
installation of Windows XP can automatically do a one-time download of the
virtual machine the first time they browse a web page containing a Java
applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a user
may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to
any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems so as to save
customers even the one-time download.
The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming other
virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual
machine. It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated
applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. But if desired, Windows
XP also runs other third party virtual machines.
Sun wraps itself in a mantle of openness and choice. The idea that Java is
open is laughable, particularly after Sun submitted Java to a standards body
and then broke its promise not just once but twice. Contrast this to
Microsoft
ECMA and are following through on our commitment. Moreover, Sun's idea of
choice is you can have any language you want, as long as it is Java.
Microsoft
and Java too will be supported as a full-fledged language for the
platform.
Breakfast served all day!
Last week I tried to look at the "Microsoft Bra" ad on adcritic. Even though I already have Quicktime installed, it wanted me to install it, again. I figured maybe my Quicktime was downlevel, so I got another.
Restarted Netscape, went back. Wants me to get Quicktime installed.
One of these days I'll look for the ad in mpeg, if I have spare time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Scary shit!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Even if you ignore arguments about how it's killing competition, etc., you still have to pay actual money for Internet Explorer. Obviously Internet Explorer's dev team needs to be paid, since they don't work for free. So where do you think Microsoft gets the money -- the sky?
That's right -- the prices for all those other Microsoft products subsidizes the development for Internet Explorer. So when I buy Windows, I'm paying for Internet Explorer, even though I'll never use it. Real fair, huh? It's like those "extras" that most people never use that the car manufacturers tack on cars to drive up the price (like cruise control), except (unlike with cars) you can't special order a copy of Windows without IE, much less without paying for it.
Even if you go the alternate OS route, unless you're getting a Mac or building your own computer, you're paying the Windows tax for the copy of Windows you're not going to use, and probably countless other Microsoft products like Office and Money. So when you buy a PC, even if you never touch Internet Explorer in your lifetime, you're paying for it.
If that's not anti-competitive, I'm not sure what is.
Then why do ActiveX controls still work?
Or Outlook?
Sarcasm.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Of course part of the reason for that is that it's been so easy to just write your own plugin if you wanted to do anything fancy. But if the "standard" way of attaching plugins suddenly goes away, I expect people to move to Java or ActiveX pretty quickly.
If someone other than Microsoft can get the marketing going to convince average users to install a decent JVM, Java has a chance on the desktop. If not, I expect to see ActiveX-based attacks more virulent and more destructive than anything yet within three months after XP ships.
Nope, no sig
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect....It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I'm having a vision...
VezziniMicrosoft sits laughing at the Dread Pirate Roberts Java developers:
"That's what's so funny! I switched glasses plugin technologies while your back was turned! [...] Never go in against a SicilianMonopoly when DEATHMARKET SHARE is on the line! HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA...(Microsoft keels over...)
Yah, I know, wishful thinking. I've been staring at this computer screen for too long...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
A company called nCompass did that a few years ago. Guess what? Microsoft bought them, and buried the product.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Why is there free software or a free mozilla or a free netscape? They aren't monopolies are they?
Here's my favorite quote:
But earlier in the article (cnet one)
You mean that MS own's REAL, Adobe and Macromedia? So it disables quicktime, BFD... MS doesn't disable Quicktime on *nix so who cares! (yes I know that there is no IE for linux, but still.. IE for whatever flavor of *nux that it runs on doesn't support quicktime does it?) furthermore:
So before all of you anti-ms fsckers get all up in arms, read the damn story first. Apple is working WITH MS to fix it.
Its like when microsoft is mentioned on slashdot everyone goes nuts saying that MS is anti-(fill in the blank for whatever your supporting this week).
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
I guess it's a good thing you didn't pay a lot of money for MSIE, did you?
The reason IE was free all along was that it always was a tool to help cement Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
By giving away a browser on a monopoly platform, you make that browser the standard. Once that browser is the predominant standard, then you begin changing things so that everything else is incompatible, and therefore "non-standard". (i.e. Konqueror wants to use these "non-standard" netscape plugins to view Real Video.)
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
Too bad MS probably never really expected the legal route to go so far as a breakup. Even if you are found guilty and pay a stiff fine -- you're still a monopoly!
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
You mean I won't be able to watch QuickTime videos with IE on Linux anymore?
Of course I'm kidding: I always immediately leave any site that *requires* a plugin of any kind. If you can't take a picture of it, write some words about it or (in a rare case) make a video of it in a format everybody can read, I'm not interested.
324006
Face it - Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away from being a Bond villain. -- Dennis Miller
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Java is Sun's?
That's funny, I dont need Sun licensed software or IP to compile this here java program with GCJ. True I dont know of any unencumbered virtual machines, but last I heard, GNU was working on a reverse engineered one (them not even being able to look at SUN's java headers for fear of conamination). *checks gnu pages for java activity*
obviously if you're running java on a server or a database you're gonna want one of the beastly VMs from IBM or SUN.
I hope they don't soon. I am debugging my sircamelissacodered/trojan/worm/virus totebag and DVD player.
photosMy Photostream
Microsoft leaving Java out of XP doesn't hurt Java.
;)
It hurts Microsoft.
EVERYTHING that is happening in software engineering, everything new and bold and adventurous, is happening in Java. From where I sit here in San Diego, Java is simply taking over. The problem is this: Java isn't just a web page scripting language any more. And because of its structure, it's very easy to write compiler tools for it. As a result, all kinds of nifty new extensions (such as AspectJ) are being applied to it. Even the hardware industry -- including the embedded hardware industry -- is going all over it.
The reason for the above craziness is simple -- Java has features people have been trying to put into languages for years, but unlike those languages, it actually had a marketing push behind it.
Java is no longer Sun's alone. Java is the industry's. And Microsoft's abandoning Java just means that Microsoft has further detached themselves from everything innovative happening in the industry.
Even Apple figured this out. Witness OS X.
By crippling XP so that it can't run Java, they're making the same mistake IBM made when they crippled the PS/2 so that it couldn't use ISA cards, or when GM installed "planned obsolesence" and got waxed by the Japanese in the 80's, or when DEC's president decided he'd rather fly his plane than talk to IBM execs about an OS for their new "PC" dealy-bopper.
DEC is gone. GM is still suffering (although the new attitude at Cadillac shows hope). IBM had to reinvent themselves.
Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot, and in the same way others have done in the past. They've forgotten that they only succeed as long as they serve their customers, and that their customers do not exist to serve them.
It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia.
Since Robert Cringley seems to end up on /. often and his ideas often can be modded +1 insightful or intresting, why doesn't slashdot just try and pick up a cheap distribution license.
And to stir the flies...drop Katz.
Netscape's plugin API is their equivelent to ActiveX on Microsoft's side. Why does anyone complain about this? If Microsoft should be forced to support Netscape APIs, should Netscape be forced to support ActiveX? Seriously, the plugin API is losing support. Why would a developer create a Netscape plugin on the Windows platform? Sure, it would make sense to develop as plugin for other platforms, but on Windows, it simply makes more sense to create an ActiveX control because not only could the object be used in a web page, but in any activeX container (very common on teh windows platform). And if you even mention security issues in regards to what I just discussed, you don't know what you are talking about: they are both running native code and have the same vulnerabilities, therefore you don't run either one from untrusted sources. I'm not trolling, I would like intelligent discussion on this, really!
Of course, there is a huge difference between plug-ins (that need some user interaction for installation) and 'implicitly embedded code' (read activeX) that may not need any interaction, depending on security settings. Also, plugins only need to be installed once, and hopefully from thereon that particular content type can be displayed without further problems (security or otherwise)
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
The point the above guy was making is that most novice computer users will not take the initiative to download a 5 meg file to get another player. They will just use what is already on their system, causing the other formats to slowly die out.
It helps. Honest.
Netscape couldn't support ActiveX, even if they wanted to.
Microsoft didn't develop ActiveX, it was developed by NCompass Labs (www.ncompass.com) and licensed to Microsoft.
NCompass Labs reserved the right to license ActiveX support for Netscape as a separate product. This product was apparently aimed at corporate intranets and was therefore so outrageously priced that it died.
Since then, Microsoft has bought NCompass Labs and the documentation about NCompass Labs developing ActiveX has vanished.
Oh wait, Microsoft makes one.....go figure.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
They are not. Cringely filters his entire world view through the lens of Microsoft hatred. It is like asking one of the people throwing bombs or shooting protesters in the middle east for an accurate assesment of the 'peace' process.
The Eolas patent is utterly bogus. There is racks of prior art for using embedded applets in the Web. There were embedded applets before NCSA even began work on Mosaic.
Since the Eolas case has been in the discovery stage for years it is difficult to see how an outside observer could make any accurate statement on the proceedings. The only rullings that would be heard to date would be the standard motions to dismiss that are always filled.
Fact is that Eolas probably don't want to allow the case to go to court because if they lose they lose big, their patent is busted to smithereens.
Another fact is that with the Republicans keeping Clinton's 'liberal' judges off the bench and the Democrats giving the GOP a taste of its own medicine in return the number of patent cases heard each year is actually declining slightly even though the number filled is exploding. At the rate things are going patent law will be moot because by the time a case is heard the patent will have expired. Hooray!
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
So instead of opening my media in quicktime, which sucks horribly, it'll now open it in MediaPlayer, which sucks just as bad? There's no way to win! Couldn't it just put up a picture saying 'imagine movie here'? Or maybe just poke my eyes out while they're at it. Better than having to deal with either of them.
The upshot of this change is that Apple, Real, and everyone else will *have* to package their technologies in ActiveX form in order to be compatible with Internet Explorer under Windows XP. If Apple and Real and everyone else do this, maybe they won't bother to continue providing a Netscape-style plugin, and maybe Netscape 4.x users will be screwed out of access to any modern media formats, and maybe Netscape 6.x will have to have a lot of engineering work put in in order to support ActiveX.
This is absolutely textbook Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. This is simply the Extinguish phase, and shouldn't we have all seen this coming?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
The feeling I'm getting from Microsoft is something along the lines of "doesn't work or play well with others."
I mean, sure, "It's their product and they can limit it as much as they want... they can choose to not include Java support... ad nauseum" But if you view the Microsoft present in combination with their past, it's easy to make the conclusion that their purpose for dropping support for various APIs and languages (Java and more) is more motivated to damaging the ubiquity of the market than anything else.
So first, they earn market share by embracing the standards in a way that makes the consumer comfortable. Next, they kill the competition. finally, they drop the "standards" they used to attract people with in the first place! Now since they own the market (effectively removed consumer choice) they can drop support for the things people wanted most.
Following the time line from beginning to end shows the pattern clearly. So while it is "their choice" to support this feature or that, especially when it isn't theirs to begin with, I have to question the motivation behind it. Further, it would seem like a clear example of further monopoly power abuse. The move seems rather deliberate and further, it also feels as if Microsoft's "true" goals are coming to fruition.
"Microsoft Conspiracy?" Well, yeah, maybe...
What else proves it better that Microsoft is holding a monopoly than removing features users depend on? How comes that they can do some many anti-consumer steps without an eyebrow raised of the regulatory organizations?
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Extinguish. 1. 2. 3.
Textbook.
Perfect.
HEY! DoJ - PAY ATTENTION! Fucking Amazing.
Last I knew, Outlook wasn't part of IE. Of course, the way MS has been "integrating" things, who knows how long that'll remain true.
Well, beyond that, I was suggesting that this might be another PR move so that people feel like M$ is attempting to fill all their security holes. Of course, that's what they'll claim and get good press for, though of course the underlying reason to kill Netscape plug-ins is to move towards the seeming Microsoft goal of preventing any code that they didn't write from running on your machine.
Carrying along with the M$ line that IE is a core and inextricable part of the operating system, then they can even claim that they're promoting operating system security. And, in fact, they probably are; however, the problem is that their code always seems to have more holes than third-party developers.
Since Outlook is included with every edition of Windows since Windows 95, I'd also argue that because it's burned to the CD, it's also a part of the operating system. Not a core part, but since it's part of the default install, it's fair game when we're making fun of M$ security track record.
And we all know that the only thing with more security holes than IIS is Outlook.
Ergo, if they really cared about security, Outlook would be gone, or substantially re-written. But by disabling third-party Netscape-style browser plug-ins, they get to control the market even more, claim that it's in the interests of security, and keep the Evil Empire looking shiny and nice.
It's kinda like a Roto-Rooter truck in fresh clean orange paint. No matter how pretty it may be, you still know it's full of shit.
(Moderators: Pardon the cussword, but I think it had a place here...)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
OTOH - I am not a big fan of embeddable executable content.. Somehow I do not like when web pages I visit start doing something on my computer...
Thats what ActiveX is all about though! A few apple plugins aren't going to hurt my computer, but every schmuck and his mom writing active X exploits are. Has anyone ever heard of an exploit in the netscape plugin API? No? How about active X? Ah yes!
Obviously, the motivation behind removing plugin support is to force developers (such as Apple) to adopt ActiveX despite its flaws. This further demonstates how the user's experince is lower down on the priority list than M$ strategic objectives. What kind of self-respecting software giant would remove functionality? The microsoft kind.
It also demonstrates how microsoft can get use it's position to get technologies adopted. Imagine if I invented active X and my silicon valley startup were trying to get it adopted. Even if it didn't have the flaws that the real-world active X does, and even if it had more features, it still wouldn't be as big a success because I can't force people to use it. But since almost every new PC has Internet Explorer on it, web content providers have no choice but to support the only expansion option it supports - active X.
I bet that one day, after the fall of the microsoft empire, there will be a paragraph in a history book about this service pack.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Yup. Guilty as charged.
Since sites like, CNN, eBay, Yahoo, my Credit Union have invested capital into building their sites, which run on great-freaking-huge Un*x servers, it's rather unlikely they'd switch to a Windows XP server model and eat all the cost because Microsoft doesn't want to play Java anymore. Since Microsofts party lines are so often "We give the customers value" or "We give people the technology they want", it's contradictory to deny the access to significant sites on the internet. If it were my choice, I'd stay away from XP based upon that feature, or lack thereof, alone.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't consider myself a Microsoftie, but I do appreciate open opinions and non-rampant zealotness.
I haven't seen this mentioned in the replies so far, so I'll bring it up:
Later versions of Konqueror run Netscape plugins
pretty damn well, let you choose your own jvm, and a whole host of other nifty features that are lacking in other browsers.
So it's a linux application, so it needs at least the KDE base system to run, so you'd better have a reasonable amount of disk and memory to run it. It's great and wonderful nonetheless. But "nobody" seems to know about
it. And even those that DO know about it don't
seem to realize the huge improvements that have been made just since 2.1, like, in the last 2 weeks.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
That is true, I got to karma cap in 50 posts and I am a veteran member of the MIT AI lab UNIX-Haters list. And that ran long before Windows NT 3.5 came out.
Actually it is hilarious to see items from the Unix haters list getting recycled as anti-Microsoft items. Security in particular, Richie and co barely had a clue and as for Eric Allman (author of Sendmail) his software still holds the all time record for CERT advisories of any application.
There is actually a significant difference between active-x and plug ins. The default security settings for the browsers are to require active-x code to be signed. Plug-ins are just another executable to download off the net and install, most are unsigned and because there is no built in download proceedure there is nothing to guide the user to require them to be signed.
Both active-x and a Netscape plug-in have unlimited ability to screw up your machine to the full extent of your user privs - which on a Windows 98 box is root. A signed active-x control does at least come with an assurance that the signer has been authenticated and has undertaken not to include malicious code and that the control has not been modified since. That is not perfect security, but it is a lot better than you get without the signature. If the signer does screw you up you have evidence that proves what he did and a contractual undertaking from him to wave about in court.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The plugin developers need only rewrite their API code for XPCOM and (yes, unfortunately) COM. Competent programmers will not find that an unreasonable burden.
I don't think Cringely is aware of this.
Don't get me wrong, I love NS/Mozilla, hate IE.
It's really a nail in Apple's coffin.
This hardly hurts apple. They'll have the ActiveX version of quicktime ready in a few days, I'm sure.
This is a nail in the coffin of any non-M$ browser. As more content becomes active X dependant, microsoft's hold on the browser market gets that much stronger.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
I had an experience with the "I'll protect you from bad drivers!" syndrome in Windows ME. A dialog box showed up on startup and said something in the line of "This device driver is not certified by Microsoft and will not be installed." There were 2 buttons: "OK" and "Advanced...", clicking Advanced opened a dialog box that had an option of allowing the driver to be installed anyway. And they couldn't put the option in the main dialog box? I was glad I still had that choice, I have a feeling they are going to remove it in Windows XP. I read once that the "official" device drivers for CD-Writers are going to be crippled to prevent "backup copies" of some CDs, and cracked DivX drivers are going to break too.
Great, upgrade to XP and lose some ability to copy CDs and watch (pirated, I admit) movies.
Along with Microsoft's strategy comes this removal of QT support. And I just upgraded to SP2 yesterday, damn I shouldn't have. I haven't upgraded Outlook 2000 with the patch that prevents the opening of executable attachment (no, they don't open itself automatically, you have to double-click it).
I don't see Microsoft software moving anywhere but downhill from here in terms of flexibility. They're making it more idiot friendly and only idiots would want to use it. And yes, I'm a Windows user, but I think I'll stop upgrading to anything "better" from Microsoft now, and slowly move myself to Linux.
I wonder though if Microsoft can get away with this. It maybe walling itself in limited usability, but it seems most users are willing to follow them into that "jail". One can only hope people stop using their products because they got too proprietary, look at Apple dammit. On the browser-side, Mozilla might be able to emerge as the saviour in this problem.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Language is a fragile adaptation that arose in kin-based societies. Any attempt to create large-scale civilizations in which the lawful appeal of last resort is a contest of words will result in the destruction of language's communicative utility, followed by the downfall of such civilizations as are built up. By mining this precious genetic legacy of man for short term gains, those more capable of abusing non-kin via word-abuse than others can displace those who use words to build things rather than manipulate and confuse others.
Seastead this.
One of the things that had been keeping me using Windows at all was IE - It really was so far ahead of Netscape on Linux. At least the default install of Netscape 4.73 that seemed to ship with every version that I installed.
Over at Linux World Tokyo, I picked up a copy of Mozilla 0.7 from a little table of geeks called the "Mojira Gumi" (In Japan, Godzilla is called Gojira - Gumi means syndicate.)
Mozilla is fantastic. In most ways it's as good as IE - in some ways better.
The most important part for me was that it made browsing the web on Linux just as good as on Windows. It got rid of that feeling that I was missing out when I browsed - No more ugly fonts and trashy CSS rendering.
I also trusted it more. Better control of cookies.
Sylpheed for email is very Outlook Express-ish, without all of the scripting dangers. I never liked having HTML rendered in my mail anyway.
My recommendation - Set up a spare partition for Linux - Get the Latest Mandrake or RedHat from LinuxISO.org. Try Mozilla. Try Sylpheed. Get VMWare for the Windows stuff.
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
Actually you can. Ever wondered why Neutrasweet is still under patent after all these years? Their lawyers bought enough congressmen to get a bill passed to extend the life of their patent.
The drug companies bought a similar extension while the GOP had the Senate. They might not have sold anything as wicked as pardons to tax dodgers but they certainly sold legislation.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
(I jotted down this filk a couple weeks ago, waiting for the right "Microsoft and Browser Plugins" thread for it.)
Drag Me Drop Me
--to the tune of Savage Garden's "Break Me Shake Me"
I never thought I'd change my browser again,
To play movies in a format I've never known.
To play movies in a format I've never known.
But straight away you dominate the market again,
You abused me in a way that I've never known.
You abused me in a way that I've never known.
So drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
With a mouse click here, you will start to load.
Just drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
With a mouse click here, you will start to load.
So here's the file that deals with the games on the web,
But it's compressing in a way that I've never known,
It's compressing in a way that I've never known.
So drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
With a mouse click here, you will start to load.
Won't you drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
With a mouse click here, you will start to load.
"Support... I can help you, but what do you say?
Oh, it's not free baby, you'll have to pay."
You just keep me registering, watching upgrade costs recurring,
God, don't you make more than our national debt?
'Cause I used to copy in a way that you've never known,
So then you accuse to the feds that you've never known,
Watching profits grow in a way that I've never known.
So drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
With a mouse click here, you will start to load.
Just drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
With a mouse click here, you will start to load.
Loading, baby, leave me, leave me alone...
Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object,
Make me, shake me, charge me for a late fee,
Update me.
[
Not that Netscape ever played the standards game honestly. Their idea of a standards submission was to fax a copy of the spec to MIT a few hours before they released the code (yes it was a fax, not even an email!).
Netscape spent a lot of PR bucks claiming that Marc Andressen was the inventor of the Web, they even had a PR flack write a book 'Archotects of the Web' that gave Tim Berners-Lee (the true inventor) less than four paragraphs. W3C and MIT set up Microsoft to screw Netscape in return.
By the way Sun did not 'win' the Java suit, they accepted Microsoft's offer of a settlement. Clearly Microsoft understood the consequences of the settlement better than Sun. Like be carefull what you ask for, you might get it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Just like a buggy application program should never crash the operating system (and if it does it indicates something wrong with the OS), a buggy add-on for the browser shouldn't crash the browser, no matter how bad the add-on is. Quicktime bringing the browser down is akin to a fprintf(NULL, "hello") bringing the OS down.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
then that will never cause the OS itself to crash,
nor will it cause the shell that launched it to crash.
If *quicktime* itself is crashing, but the browser is chugging alone fine, then it's not the browser's fault. But if a quicktime error brings the browser down, then the browser is at fault for even letting it happen. But maybe I'm just spoiled by preferring the "run on the side" approach to trying to embed a foriegn app inside the page.
(Ideally, the plug-in shouldn't be occupying the same process space as the browser, such that it can crash without crashing the browser. If that's not how the design of plugins work (I really don't know how they are implemented), then that's a faulty design.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The chance of IE being unbundled is about the same as Solitare or Notepad being unbundled
Have you ever read the book "Big Blue: IBM's use and abuse of power?"
This book is an education on monopolies.
Why would IBM unbundle the disk drive from the CPU? They've always been bundled together (that is, since the days when IBM started bundling them to kill the disk drive competition -- just as MS kills browser competition). But in actual fact, there is no *technical* reason to have them bundled together in the first place. So eventually you see that the disk drive and CPU are "unbundled". (i.e. the browser and OS are unbundled) Of course, amid a bunch of marketing bullshit about lower prices, etc. The price of the CPU goes down. The price of disk drive seems reasonable. But the pair together cost even more! You can bet that when MS catches up with IBM's strategy, that Windows will be even cheaper!!!!! And IE will cost only $29.95. But combo will cost even more than you pay now. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
If you want to get that pendantic, then no client is good enough because you could always record the sound in an old fashioned analog way - through the air to a handheld tape recorder, or you could feed the output audio jack through some home stereo system and record it.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.