Slashdot Mirror
Opera Files EU Complaint Against Microsoft
A number of readers have sent word about Opera Software ASA's antitrust complaint against Microsoft filed with the EU. Here is Opera's press release on the filing. The company wants the EU to "obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop" and to "require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities." The latter request makes this a case to watch. Will the Commissioner take the Acid2 test using IE7?
Why should Microsoft do that? It's not like you can't install another browser if you don't want. Unbundling it would mean the OS doesn't have a functioning browser (not to mention it's built-in to the OS, so removal would be only a cosmetic feat (removing the icon) not actually removing the browser). Including other browsers makes more sense, but won't it make Windows even more bloaty? Is this just a sandy vagina move, or do they have a point?
Since no publicity is bad publicity, this is a cheap way for them to shout from the rooftops "We exist, we're a better browser than IE, IE sucks!! "
Oh, and their lawsuit has merit, as well.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
From the article:
Wasn't this part of the settlement before? I often wonder why we have to see other countries doing the heavy lifting to throttle Microsoft. Microsoft lost, was set up for some pretty severe controls to be administered and lucked out with a changing of the guard and a Justice Department that lost any appetite to really control Microsoft.Also,
This one does get interesting. Maybe this is the avenue required to get Microsoft to move closer to compliance on the accepted standards. There certainly hasn't been any bending to pressures from developers.This seems like a rehash of the Netscape suit years ago. Didnt that jumpstart the initial monopoly case? Anyway I find it more interesting at this point that they want for force IE into compliance with a standard that is defined and regulated by an open assembly. I think that is more important as that will ensure that web 3.0 doesn't use mono/.net, Silverlight or some proprietary based framework that forces us back to the days when you can't go to a bank, school, work, website w/o IE.
Antitrust cases worked so well for getting WMP removed :)
Ceci n'est pas une
How am I going to download an Internet browser if my Operating System has no way of browsing the Internet?
IANAL, but I think Opera might win this war. Netscape lost a similar battle, but they couldn't leverage the power of EU like Opera can. The EU is also likely to be biased towards Opera because it's a European company (although it is Norwegian, and Norway is not a member of the EU).
On the other hand: the precedence from the media player debacle points to a possible "solution" (forcing Microsoft to release a special version without IE) which in practice means a loss to Opera. The potential buyer of such a product does not exist: He needs to be both knowledgeable about Opera and not knowledgeable enough to know how to install Opera himself.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Some people actually like the browser. If microsoft had the choice of including other browsers or just not bundeling I'm pretty sure they would go with the no including one. That way they can start selling IE as its own piece of software getting them a couple bucks here and there. Think about it in these terms a typical home user is most likely to use windows. If a browser wasn't included they would have no idea how to get some free version browser like firefox. Thier only option would be to go down to the store and pick up a copy of IE. Granted I'm sure some people wouldn't buy windows if they started doing something like that but people in general are not aware of the alternatives to windows and IE. Also I enjoy Windows enough to deal with some of the problems but if they were to do something like that it would probably give me enough of a reason to start dual booting and just using windows strictly for games.
...it's the OEM. That part of the suit should be tossed immediately. Now, if MS has some highly restrictive distribution contract that stops the OEM's from installing anything else, then fine. Otherwise, that's a pointless thing to try and make MS do, since MS doesn't control what the OEM does.
Ever since Adobe sued Microsoft for bundling a PDF writer in with Office 2007, Microsoft has been pushing out a series of patches that breaks Flash Player content in IE. I'd love to see someone smack them with the equivalent of a cast iron skillet just because of how miserable they make every web developer world over.
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
Isn't this a bit too late. IE was sold with new computers shipping with Windows since 1995. And now (more than ever) Windows and IE have what appears to be a necessary/symbiotic relationship. I think in Windows 95 you could *probably* remove IE and have a functional operating system. I think that it is no longer the case.
What would be the solution/ruling? Force Microsoft to remove IE, or install every other browser by default. I'm just speculating here; please feel free to correct me or offer an alternate viewpoint.
I simply cannot believe this. Does anyone have a link to anything which gives reliable evidence that this is the case?
I dislike MS's monopolistic practices as much as anyone. But really, there's not much harm in bundling an OS with a browser IF they don't prevent OEMs from including other browsers or from removing the IE icon from the desktop.
Even if MS were forced to include some other browser along with IE, that probably wouldn't help Opera. Unless, of course, their actual goal is to simply force MS to bundle *their* browser. And that would seem to be a fairly ridiculous demand.
Even at version 2.0, firefox does not handle the acid 2 test, so does it mean that it should not be bundled with lets say, ubuntu or otherwise?
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Not true if you are talking about front-end stuff like browsing web pages. Making things up?
If you are talking about back end stuff like Windows Update, that's not even done through a web page in Vista anyway. Maybe it uses some IE components in the background but I doubt the Firefox people want to make a module to update Windows anyway and updates to the OS is Microsoft's space anyway - a basic part of the OS. Not sure what else you could be referring to. Web based Help for Windows? Same idea.
They might want to specify that Microsoft should be compelled to follow published w3c standards, not just accepted standards. The "standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities" today are pretty much "Code everything for IE6. If there's free time after that's done and the pub isn't open yet, test in Firefox"...
0 1 - just my two bits
Are there any Linux distributions that have Opera pre-installed? Most of the distributions i've used of late come with Firefox. My Nokia 770 (Linux based) came with Opera. I assumed that was because Opera has a smaller footprint than Firefox (but none too small for my 64 MB RAM (and no swap) pocket computer). However, it might be that Opera was written with GTK, or had been optimized for a stylus based user interface, or something.
-- Stephen.
Only people on acid use IE so it does indeed pass the "ACID TEST"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There is a decent history and many good arguments for treating a company that holds a monopoly differently than others in its field.
Monopolies are not good for consumers and not good for an industry as a whole. Government regulation probably won't be perfect, but I'd at least prefer that they try.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
KDE is not a monopoly.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
But also require Apple to unbundle Safari from MacOSX and Redhat to unbundle Firefox from Fedora (I don't think Opera would mind either development at all). Once upon a time Microsoft killed the market for alternative commercial browsers by bundling free IE. But times have changed. These days a browser is a requirement rather than an optional add on. Unbundling it would mean that users will not be able to use their newly installed operating system at all, even to find out where to buy/download a browser.
However, OEMs should be permitted to bundle an alternative browser and de-emphasize IE by removing it from Start menu.
Apparently that has been fixed now? A change on the way Vista stores settings for default browser it seems.
[alk]
This is demonstrably false.
I have Vista and Opera, and Opera is set as default. If you click a link anywhere in Windows, it launches Opera. For example, if you get an error there is a link to an appropriate KB article on microsoft.com. Clicking this for me launches it in Opera.
The only programs I've found that don't honour the default are Yahoo Messenger and City of Heroes - apparently they prefer to hardcode to launch IE, which is their choice.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Well, I will tell you right now that this is not true. I have Firefox installed and set as my default browser right now. Any link I click on opens in Firefox, any time a program calls a default browser, Firefox opens.
There are a few rare cases when IE opens to display a website, but this is only when following a link from a really crappy program. I can only assume that this would be due to the programmer of said app hard coding the app to use IE (which is retarded, but has absolutly nothing to do with Vista). I can't even give an example of a program that acts like this, because it is so uncommon.
The complaint describes how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards. Opera has requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to give consumers a real choice and to support open Web standards in Internet Explorer.
Opera ASA is also suing M$ for "not following accepted web standards", which is not a part of an OS.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
The easy solution rather then removing IE - why not just include two browsers on your operating system? I seriously think most users would like for the 'e' on their desktop regardless. I think a pretty interesting question would be: If MS was forced into removing their browser for some reason - what do you think they would bundle with their OS?
So tell me then... Once the OS and the Internet start to become seamless (as if they aren't aleady getting there)... Are you going to ask Microsoft to unbundle its OS from itself? This is bullshit, and I like Opera, but fuck them. And fuck the EU for even considering this. This is Microsoft's OS, and they can ship it however the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or are you forgetting that there are actually other options, like OS X and Linux (of many flavors)?
You know what this is? It's jealousy, and it's greed. It's not ethical. It's not reasonable. And I am saying this despite the fact that I don't even like Microsoft all that much.
But people who support this bullshit, they are even worse than MS. I couldn't even begin to imagine what Microsoft would be like if it was run by people like this. You think Microsoft is bad now? ROFL.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I got a great recycle bin application but no one will use it because they get one for free. Now tell me, what's a "recycle bin" got to do with operating systems?
... get a life folks.
How do I file a complaint in the EU? Do I need to be a unemployed socialist to file?
Jeeeeez- Opera is a nice browser, but not nice enough for a business model
It doesn't matter what other OS makers do in this case. It's not about whether or not an OS should come bundled with a browser, a media player or several choices of each.
It's about a convicted monopolist leveraging their market dominence to force people to use their software. When a company does something that is good for their business (ship a browser with their OS) we can not compare it to what a monopolist in the market place does. By definition such actions by a monopolist cause harm to competing businesses and the marketplace in general.
We could argue the merits of whether or not MS deserve to be called a monopolist. But as it stands now the EU and the US have ruled that they are and therefore the typical regulations that apply to businesses don't necessarily apply to them. Earning this title has put them into a postion where they will be regulated differently, even uniquely, in an attempt to curb their absolute control over the desktop PC market.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Yeah, that's what we need, governments enforcing coding standards.
Interesting how the generally feel of the
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
Like the tax laws, you don't have to like it, but that's the law of the land.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I love Opera, and I use it for most of my browsing, but I think it's silly for them to try to get MS to unbundle IE or make IE conform to web standards. MS is winning the browser war only among people who don't really care that much about what browser they're using. Almost every single one of my tech-savvy friends (with a few exceptions) uses Firefox or some other alternative browser. If all of the casual internet users weren't tallied up, I'm sure Firefox and Opera would have a much greater percentage of users.
Seek and ye shall find.
Well, that's semantically weird. Why would I install another browser if I "don't want"? Or do you mean "don't want IE"?
Read TFS, at least? Here, look:
In other words, nothing to prevent them shipping Opera and/or Firefox with Windows, whether or not they unbundle IE.
And that is absolute bullshit. It is not now, and never was, "built-in to the OS".
There are quite a lot of programs that use the IE ActiveX plugin, but in almost all cases, that works perfectly well using other browser engines instead. For instance: Steam embeds IE, but I can run it on Linux and have Gecko (the Mozilla/Firefox engine) render those message-of-the-day windows.
Or maybe you're confusing Internet Explorer with Windows Explorer? Wouldn't be the first time.
I should also mention that, at least back in Windows 98, someone actually wrote some software which removes IE from the browser, which proves Microsoft was lying (and you believed them, you idiot) about Windows being so tied to IE.
If you're talking about RAM, you're a moron.
If you're talking about disk space, does that really matter, at this point? Manufacturers frequently sacrifice a few gigabytes for a "restore" partition, and Windows itself is a multi-gigabyte install. Both Firefox and Opera are about five megabytes. I imagine they spent more on Aero graphics.
Are you just an astroturfer, or do you have a point?
Microsoft should've lost the antitrust suit in the US, but then Bush got elected and the suit was "coincidentally" dropped. So give me one good reason why Opera shouldn't be doing this.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The rules change for monopoly corporations.
Ten years you might have made the argument that Microsoft was a monopoly (and you'd be wrong, but that's another tangent). Today the idea is absurd. There are numerous alternatives to Microsoft. Large marketshare does not make a monopoly.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
How many people who use IE actually know what a "web browser" is?
I imagine most of them, upon finding a browser wasn't included with their OS, would start asking each other and their geek friends what browser to use, rather than walking right down to the store and buying IE. The reason they assume IE == Internet is because it came with their OS. As soon as they have a choice between a free download and paying for an (arguably) inferior product, which will they choose?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No, they don't. However, KDE, Apple, and even Nintendo, do.
Why? Because Microsoft is a monopoly. Monopolies have to play by different rules.
Actually, it is, because I can actually uninstall Konqueror. Dolphin is the new default file manager, and nothing else requires Konqueror. I can then set Firefox or Opera as the default browser.
Now, I like Konqueror, so I keep it around, but that is fundamentally different than IE. If Dell wanted to ship Kubuntu machines with Firefox instead of Konqueror, they could do that. But Dell cannot ship Windows machines with Firefox instead of IE, because you cannot remove IE from Windows.
Isn't that a legitimate complaint?
More importantly, IE is the least standards-compliant of any browser, STILL. Isn't it damaging to the Web as a whole to have the most popular browser also be the least compliant? It's precisely because of these people you talk about that I can't simply design a page for standards -- I now have to design it once for the standards (tested in Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, and Opera), and then add in a ton of hacks to make it work in IE.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'll go right out and install a browser on my hundreds of servers that don't have them. I didn't know it was required! I'm amazed the systems even boot.
Operating systems also boot without TCP/IP stacks, time clocks, shells, and numerous other things -- and could still do useful work. What's your point?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It's not the size of the market share. The question is not if you have 100%, 90% or 80% of the market, but whether you control the market, to the exclusion of others, and can dictate the price of the product. Or in other words: Whether the price-finding mechanics of the free market have been destroyed.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If IE was not an overwhelming majority of the browser market, or if IE was forced to comply with standards, Opera would both have to spend less time dealing with web quirks (and just tell non-standard sites to fuck off), and web sites would more likely work with Opera, which increases Opera's value.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Microsoft has every right to create a web browser and integrate it into their other products. It is no fundamentally different than Konqueror being the default browser within the KDE environment.
It is fundamentally different for one very good reason:
Microsoft are a convicted monopolist, the vendors using KDE are not. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their market position to leverage other markets, which is exactly what they are doing.
Also, I should point out that I know of no Linux distribution which comes with only one browser.
If Dell and others feel comfortable distributing **Linux**, what makes you think they wouldn't distribute Opera and Firefox if there were a demand for that?
Because there is no financial incentive to do so. They have already paid for IE (since it is bundled as part of the cost of Windows), so shipping another browser instead doesn't save them any money. It is easier for them to just leave the Windows installation as-is rather than having to remove IE (which is easier said than done) and install another browser.
On the other hand, if IE wasn't bundled with the stock distribution the cost to Dell of installing any (free) browser would be the same, giving other browsers an equal footing.
The people that Opera is whining about not having access to, are largely the people who think that Internet Explorer is "The Internet."
By either not bundling IE, or bundling alternatives, these people's awareness would be raised and they might actually try alternatives (and find something that suits them better) rather than assuming IE is "the internet". I see no reason why peoples' ignorance should be used as a reason for perpetuating their ignorance.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
So where do you see those alternatives? In the operatingsystem-market or maybe in the Officeprogram market?
Correct, it is an application. It is not necessary for the functionality of the operating system.
People have mentioned KDE. It is not part of Linux. Nor is Firefox. Even GNU tools are not part of the operating system. Regardless, those applications are all from different developers and are not leveraging their position to maintain an illegal monopoly.
It used to be that you could specify what window manager you wanted to use with Windows. If you didn't like Explorer you had options open to you. Along came Disk Defragmenters. Then came Internet Explorer. Then Media Player. Next, a PDF knock-off. MS want's their Search and Anti-virus there, too. When each of these were initially bundled into the Windows Platform they were far from best-of-breed. But by bundling them, MS harmed competition. Soon many of their bundled applications were best-of-breed on the Windows platform, but it wasn't because of Microsoft's development efforts. It was because they had starved their competition.
The quality of software available for Windows would be much better if MS had never bundled and were instead forced to compete on an even playing field.
No, it really doesn't. (My Linux servers do just fine without a browser on them.)
Regarding your analogy, it's not as if Microsoft's TCP/IP stack violates major standards and makes everyone else in the world have to adjust their network hardware/software to be able to ping Windows. Nor is it like Notepad violates ASCII specs -- ok, CR/LF is kind of annoying, but also completely open, transparent, and easy to deal with. And the Windows clock does generally show you the right time. Are you seeing a pattern?
I can see more than just clock companies suing MS if the Windows clock was randomly an hour fast or an hour slow, but your boss would always require you to show up on "Windows time", not the real, reliable time.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Which is why all the corporate networks are so diversified with many different systems you can choose from when you start a job?
That's silly. Of course a particular company is going to tend to standardize on one platform, on the average. On the other hand, there are numerous companies that allow both PCs and Macs on their network, plus their IT department may be using some Unix-derivative. I'm sure many people use Linux in their corporate setup.
Large marketshare does not make a monopoly. [...] Both Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster disagree.
Er, the M-W link seems to agree with me. I don't see anything in that link that talks about large marketshare.
It's not the size of the market share.
And then you happily contradict yourself and agree with me! Easiest argument I've ever won. :D
The question is not if you have 100%, 90% or 80% of the market, but whether you control the market, to the exclusion of others, and can dictate the price of the product. Or in other words: Whether the price-finding mechanics of the free market have been destroyed.
Exactly my point. Microsoft has none of that. Put it this way: could Microsoft jack up the price of their basic Vista or XP to, say, $1000? And would people just eat it, because they have no choice? The answer is "no", because they do have alternatives.
The reason Microsoft has a large marketshare these days is because that's where the applications are. People use applications, not operating systems. Microsoft mostly has a monopoly because of the traditional incompetence of the competition, because they think the operating system matters. It doesn't. The applications are everything.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This may be regarded as the Fundamental Flaw of Monopolies.
"But it's so Convenient/The Consumer is Smart Enough/1 Stop Shopping/Ma Bell Loves You"
When a company gets too big, it sits like a Blob on top of would-be innovative companies, and except for a fluke, will never go away.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Microsoft mostly has a monopoly because of the traditional incompetence of the competition, because they think the operating system matters.
LOL. Oops, freudian slip. Of course, I meant "Microsoft mostly has a large marketshare", not monopoloy in the legal sense we've been discussing.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Your entire comment is verifiably false. Stop bullshitting, and shame on the mods who upmodded this without checking their facts.
Do we really want the courts to decide which web standards to use? The web dev community can't even decide this. Wouldn't it be best to leave this question to the community?
Regarding your analogy, it's not as if Microsoft's TCP/IP stack violates major standards and makes everyone else in the world have to adjust their network hardware/software to be able to ping Windows. Nor is it like Notepad violates ASCII specs -- ok, CR/LF is kind of annoying, but also completely open, transparent, and easy to deal with. And the Windows clock does generally show you the right time. Are you seeing a pattern?
Actually, I believe in the past MS's TCP/IP stack did have some annoying traits, but I'm too lazy to chase down a link. :) CRLF is actually the older standard (think teletype).
But anyway, the difference between the above and IE is that IE is about 1,000 times more complex that those applications. Do I wish IE was more strict about rendering HTML? Of course. But I think that's more traditional Microsoft mediocrity than malice.
If Opera wants to sue Microsoft into following established web standards (not that anyone has any true authority, but anyway...), that would be an interesting lawsuit. But a lawsuit to force Microsoft to not bundle a browser is anticonsumer and stupid.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Firefox 3 will pass the acid 2 test. You can try a nightly build if your curious and flame me later if it's currently broken. I believe Firefox 1.0 through 2.0 used the same Gecko branch (1.8?) which was why there weren't very many display changes between the browser versions. Firefox 3 will use Gecko 1.9.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Just out of curiosity, what rock have you been living under? To begin with, Microsoft has been found both in the U.S. and EU courts to have a legally defined monopoly for OS and office productivity suite software. In both cases, having such a monopoly in and of itself is not considered to be illegal. However, once such a legal finding has been upheld, the company holding such a monopoly finds itself under _very_ different rules regarding its behavior. For example, it is certainly illegal in the U.S. to leverage one's monopoly position to seize control of another market. Merging the browser into the OS is /exactly/ what the original court case in the U.S. accused them of doing. You might remember that they lost that case.
In addition, anyone who has worked in IT for more than 5 years has seen the kind of crap that Microsoft has pulled routinely. I've watched them since they first released MS Basic (which some contend was developed at least partially on stolen computer time at Harvard). You want to talk about unethical, immoral, illegal behavior? Microsoft is the current, repeating, and undisputed champ! They've lost so many egregious court cases that simply cataloging them all takes far more time than I have to devote to this post.
It's gotten to the point that I automatically assume Microsoft's guilt whenever I hear of another court case. It's a very rare day when they win any other way than wearing down their opponent.
I'm probably just an aging geek, but an *operating system* should not depend on an *application* that runs on it being available.
Users do expect a fully featured environment, and a browser is definitely required these days. Bundling useful apps certainly isn't any kind of crime.
As a user or system integrator, you do expect to be able to unbundle any app you don't want, and replace it with one that you do. You can't unbundle IE from windows.
Slight correction: Apparently Firefox 1.0 used Gecko 1.0. I finally found a page that lists Firefox versions against Gecko versions.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
What, Windows doesn't have a package manager? Surely you're joking...
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Recall the victory Sun had with its case against Microsoft's implementation of Java. I understand the argument was that Microsoft's incompatible changes in their implementation of Java damaged the purpose and intent of Sun's Java.
Microsoft's incompatible implementation of W3C standards has caused enormous harm to the web community at large and individually damages other players in the web client market. Their monopoly position gives them an unfair advantage in that even though they choose not to adhere to standards, the general public does not understand this fact and often has no choice in that fact.
So this isn't merely a case where "cry-baby web developers" have to do more work. This represents damage to the progress of the public internet's development where ultimately, Microsoft is once again abusing their monopoly position to strip power away from the various international bodies that create and set standards for the public internet by using their defacto standard [monopoly] position to over-ride all of the decisions made by the standards bodies.
It's also a way to point out to the uninformed masses that Opera is the only browser for Windows right now that passes the Acid2 test.
And apart from a relatively small number of people who develop web sites, no-one cares, because many of the technicalities in Acid2 are more about what your browser does with bad data it should never get in the first place from a well-designed web site. However, many people care that right now IE displays, say, their bank's web site properly while $SOME_ALTERNATIVE_BROWSER does not.
I would be very disturbed if the standards element of the lawsuit (assuming the summary given is accurate) gets anywhere. That would imply that the recommendation of a group of unelected people in a self-appointed standards body can legally compel an organisation with 80+% market share to change anything about how its wildly successful product works to benefit inferior (according to the market) competitors. What legal or ethical basis is there for such compulsion?
Challenging potential monopoly abuse and market distortion is reasonable. Complaining about a successful business not choosing to follow the recommendations of anyone much less successful's document for anything is a very dangerous path to tread.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They might want to specify that Microsoft should be compelled to follow published w3c standards, not just accepted standards. The "standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities" today are pretty much "Code everything for IE6. If there's free time after that's done and the pub isn't open yet, test in Firefox"...
There are usually loopholes in such specs such that if MS is forced to follow a written standard, they might retaliate using creative interpretations of the standard that will clog up courts for many years. MS is a master at that.
I remember the long messy debates over the meaning of "integrated", one word. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of such problems.
Table-ized A.I.
Dell does ship firefox - with ubuntu - :)
I dislike Microsoft's monopolystic practices as much as anyone else, I think though that IE is far from being a front regarding antitrust now, a lot of battles were already done, and windows can now let you pick any browser. Regarding standards, IE7 is showing a lot of progress there. So, I am afraid opera has no case here.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The rules are different for monopolies.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
I'm probably just an aging geek, but an *operating system* should not depend on an *application* that runs on it being available. [...] As a user or system integrator, you do expect to be able to unbundle any app you don't want, and replace it with one that you do.
How about a shell? Typically Unix uses shell scripts for the standard boot procedure. You can install another (incompatible) shell if you want, but you can't delete the core shell that all the system scripts expect to be there. Or try and replace the command line tool set and see what happens. By your logic, Unix should use some core boot process that doesn't touch any tools outside the kernel.
I think in this age of gigabytes of disk space, it's silly to insist an operating system not use any standard tools.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I think I figured out how we code around this. First we need an algorithm to determine usefulness of stored files. It would categorize them by last modification date, whether an application exists to open them or not, and total amount of modification time. Using these guidelines, a special type of shortcut will be created in a folder on the desktop called, "Items candidate for deletion when required". The only way to get items out of the folder will be by pressing the delete key after selecting them. The OS will then make note of this in a special white list.
Then, when the magical time comes when your disk becomes full, windows can pop up a dialog along the lines of:
Your hard drive is running out of space which is needed for the next operation (copy). Windows has designated some files as being less important to you. Do you mind if DX10 setup.exe is deleted? This operation is not reversable.
[Yes][No][Cancel]
Repeat the previous dialog on the next file in "Items candidate for deletion when required" until there is enough space or the user cancels.
So....anyone else have any bright ideas?Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Actually, it is fundamentally different.
Different rules (should) apply to monopolies. Therefor you should not compare Microsoft and KDE, but for example: Microsoft and the US telephone company Bell (from the olden days).
You would never allow a monopolistic phone company to only hook you up to the phonesystem if you were using their (free) phone? Would you?(Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the whole Bell history. But the comparison still works, IMHO.)
First of all, even Firefox 2 can't handle the Acid 2 test, so I have to wonder exactly how significant is this test? At the same time, Firefox comes close. Second, I want to report that IE 6 can indeed properly display the reference image.
Why can't they bundle the Lynx browser? They are afraid of Lynx becoming the de facto browser for thousands of graphically challenged computers that's why!
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
IE provides an HTML Rendering COM Server to be embedded by any application on Windows. To remove IE (the part that does all the actual HTML Rendering) would break hundreds, if not thousands of applications. Internet Explorer also provides support for asynchronus pluggable protocols, which would break a whole slew of other applications if it was just ripped out.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
you might give it a try since 9.x has come out--the rendering engine is substantially better. I've used it since 7.5 or so. 8.x was a big improvement, and the 9 series is even better. I still occasionally have problems, but the greatest problem I have has everything to do with incompetent web programming...a site I use several times a week doesn't work in Opera or FF. IE, only. ugh.
First of all, complain to the OEMS. They are the ones that can unbundle IE from the OS and install your browser if you can strike a deal with them. Microsoft is under no obligation to include competitor software on a CD they publish and distribute (unless Opera wants to pay them to do so).
Secondly, the EU is in no position to try to enforce MS to using international standards. That's Microsoft's choice. If they want to go propietary, let them and compete on your own merits.
They're complaining to the wrong people about the wrong items. Christ, this ticks me off enough that I'm actually thinking of sending a nastygram to Opera.
Back in the days of Netscape, the inclusion of a browser in the OS was a big deal. Browsers were still a commercial product then, and including one with the operating system at no extra charge effectively destroyed Netscape's business model. That battle was lost and is largely irrelevant to today's "browser war". Today, all browsers are given away for free and are simply expected to be there at all times because we cannot effectively use a computer without one.
The only request to the EU that makes any sense at all is to require Internet Explorer to become standards-compliant. A web browser should be interchangeable as any web browser should be able to read any website because they should all comply to the same standard. If IE were standards-compliant, I don't think we would even be having this discussion. It is IE's non-compliance and certain websites' reliance on it that is damaging the web.
Perhaps if Microsoft is simply unable to fix IE, then we can start discussing alternatives (such as including a different browser). Maybe that is what's going on here, because MS has already been asked repeatedly to fix IE and still have not done so. I think if they were legally coerced, however, then they would suddenly figure out how to do it. IMHO, this is the angle we should be pursuing.
They'll just have to design their OS so that the browser can be switched. Almost all other OSes can do this so it cannot be that hard to do. And as long as Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems in EU, they do need to be very careful when bundling software to Windows (and probably Office too). If Microsoft doesn't like the laws in the EU, they don't have to do business there. There are other countries to do business with.
- Raynet --> .
From the Opera press release:
Unbundling IE doesn't necessarily mean shipping an OS without a browser. If IE is an optional component, OEMs could still preinstall one browser or another. Even Opera is taking into account the fact that removing IE entirely might not be feasible, and suggesting that the system come with at least one alternative.
I agree that an OS needs to ship with a web browser. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific browser except for company policy. Witness Apple replacing IE with Safari, or Red Hat replacing Mozilla with Firefox, etc.
Linux is more linux-like than Microsoft could ever be... There's a reason Microsoft is the dominant OS : that's what customers want.
Is Microsoft superior to Linux? Nope. Is Microsoft answering the basic needs of millions of customers better than Linux? Obviously.
Has anyone bothered asking customers whether they want IE bundled with Windows? I'm sure not because it's so painfully obvious they do. Alternatives do exist out there, but customers are massively choosing Windows and IE. Respect this.
You dont need to have 100% of the market to be consider a monopoly. Microsoft (with Windows and Office) is very much an effective monopoly in many countries.
- Raynet --> .
Slight correction to the slight correction: Firefox 1.0 used Gecko 1.7.
(I assume it was a typo, but in case anyone's reading this and doesn't click on the link...)
To sum up:
Firefox 1 used Gecko 1.7
Firefox 1.5 and 2 used Gecko 1.8
Firefox 3 uses Gecko 1.9
Tinyme, a lite version of PCLinuxOS, has Opera pre-installed.
That's a fair point.
I would say that things that are *necessarily* part of an operating system (like booting the machine), have a greater claim on being part of the operating system than document viewers used by the human users of it. Same thing goes for the command-line tool set - if they aren't *needed* to run (not administrate) the machine, they aren't part of the O/S, even if they form part of a standard distribution of it.
I'm not claiming the line isn't arbitrary - but equally, I do think there is a useful distinction to be made, if only to promote modularity and flexibility.
That "would be" an interesting lawsuit? That is part of this one. Re-read the summary. Then go read the press release:
Disclaimer: I'm an Opera fan. I'm currently using Opera 9.5 build 9665.
Opera is absolutely faster than anything else in Javascript and rendering speed.
However its CSS support is not perfect. The ACID2 test is not really useful to test CSS completeness.
If you see the list here: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20061011/index.xht
try this test:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20061011/html4/t040103-ident-03-c.htm
or this:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20061011/html4/t040105-import-01-b.htm
or this:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20061011/html4/t040302-c61-ex-len-00-b-a.htm
or this:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20061011/html4/t040302-c61-rel-len-00-b-ag.htm
My point is: The ACID2 test is meaningless. Opera should strive for total completeness of the standard. I demand nothing less from my chosen browser.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Although one might note, it is a choice facilitated by the fact that those developers can count on IE being installed on every copy of Windows, and cannot count on other browsers. I suspect if OEMs had a choice and shipped with different, default browsers installed, developers would stop hard coding the browser and use the proper method, pretty quickly.
If you include no browser in the OS, how does the average user download a browser? As for having a list of browsers to choose from when installing, how many people actually install windows on their computer (rather than the OEM, who will "choose" IE)? Also, won't if be difficult saying MS is unfairly bundling IE/restricting competition when IE is actually losing market share (a lot of "average Joes/Janes" are using firefox/mozilla these days)?
There are two parts to this, not just the bundling, which to me seems secondary to Microsoft's standards compliance (or lack of such).
Clever signature text goes here.
FF3 beta does. But you're right, no browser is 100% bug-free. It's not like FF and Opera are 100% compliant browsers, they're just a lot better than IE. And you can't exactly have a court ruling saying that IE has to be "at least as compliant as Opera". It's not something that can be measured, except artificially by things like Acid2 and "how many css selectors does this browser understand". But then you still get things like float bugs.
"Web pages that don't work with IE are thus by definition broken, as they don't comply with the de facto standard, whereas those that do work with IE aren't broken."
The good thing these days, and the reason you're wrong, is that www standards are not being widely ignored. Yes, people will make any exception the get it working with IE, but those are going in the "<!-- IE Workaraound" section now. The "IE standard" truly is deprecated, and only the monopoly props it up. It's been a long time since I haven't had a web page work in FF. Apparently the new de facto standard is one that you didn't see coming.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Your point makes no sense, by the next year most workstations will support cursor positioning anyway.
That "would be" an interesting lawsuit? That is part of this one. Re-read the summary. Then go read the press release:
They threw that in, but it's complete B.S. If that was their motivation, then that would be the lawsuit. That they also put in the "unbundling" nonsense means that's the real motivation.
Well, the REAL real motivation is a publicity stunt, but forcing MS to maintain standards ain't the motivation.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
So, did Opera also file a complaint so that Apple would unbundle Safari from OSX, or so Teh Lunix would unbundle Mozilla (or whatever the shit they use) from Teh Lunix?
No, because neither of those have a 95% effective monopoly of the desktop market, nor have they been judged to abuse their monopoly since they don't have one.
If not, Opera's filing is without merit and blatantly hypocritical.
In case you have been sleeping under a rock lately: EU considers Microsoft's bundling of WMP to be illegal, this is just an extension of that.
There's absolutely no reason a modern computer operating system should be shipping without a web browser.
But why does it need to ship with a buggy, non-copmpliant to standards, user-unfriendly mess full of security holes? If you bought a garage and it came with a Yugo or Edsel, would you blush with pride over your car or would you replace it with something GOOD? Same difference.
MSN Messenger does the same for some links, like user profiles.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
But other TCP/IP vendors aren't forced by monopoly-bent market to implement MSTCP/sortof-IP.
Opera would not complain if IE's brokenness didn't cause so many IE-only websites to be created (it's not even ActiveX issue, most of them don't use anything special, just rely on numerous IE bugs being present).
Because there are IE-only websites, Opera cannot compete by implementing open standards, but are forced to reverse-engineer and re-implement each and every IE bug. We'd probably have CSS4 by now, if other browser vendors didn't have to disassemble and implement "MSCSS" in the meantime.
Actually, I believe in the past MS's TCP/IP stack did have some annoying traits, but I'm too lazy to chase down a link.
Back in the day, they added some undocumented calls in their 32-bit implementation of Winsock 1.1 that made Powerpoint and an Outlook beta crash if you used, say, FTP Software's implementation, because those two applications used those calls. Microsoft were forced to relent (Winsock standard was managed by some other entity) and removed the calls in patches to the calling applications. They might have removed the functions from the library as well, I don't remember any longer.
Windows+R
cmd
ftp ftp.uninett.no
anonymous
whatever@wherever.com
cd pub/network/www/opera/win/924/int/
ls
get Opera_9.24_International_Setup.exe
You can substitute some other FTP mirror for the one I used here.
It's called "File Transfer Protocol".
ftp.
sheesh!
So the part that you said would be interesting doesn't count because it's not the entirety of the complaint?
9.x is better? Maybe I should give it another look, it's been awhile...
BTW I wasn't "trolling."
So the part that you said would be interesting doesn't count because it's not the entirety of the complaint?
Essentially, yes. It would interest me if someone sued Microsoft for not following standards, and that was the focus of the lawsuit. In this case, it's just spice around the main bundling complaint.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
yeah, I think it's incrementally better...not scads, but certainly an improvement.
You can still replace explorer if you want to. You can even set it in Group Policy to apply it to your whole domain at once. Kind of handy if you don't like what Explorer exposes to your users.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Sony and Panasonic/Matsushita should follow suit and take on GM and Toyota for "bundling" stereo systems with their cars and trucks.
One can't let their distaste for Microsoft to interfere with the realization that many of these "antitrust" cases are unwarranted, would be laughable in any industry other than tech, and risk setting dangerous precedents that will ultimately disadvantage consumers everywhere.
There isn't a worthwhile OS out there that doesn't come pre-bundled with a web browser or media player these days, just like there isn't a decent consumer-level camera produced today that doesn't come pre-bundled with a flash (before the EU was around to defend flash/accessory manufacturers and prevent this travesty). From a business perspective, Microsoft (and Apple, and the leading Linux distros) are delivering value by bundling useful products/features that go hand in hand with their core OS offering, and are ultimately innovating and improving on the concept of what constitutes a "complete" operating system solution. GM and Toyota aren't really doing much different when bundling stereo systems and air conditioners with their products.
Sure, the software business has standards that in an ideal world should be followed. But initiatives like the Mozilla Foundation (whose goal, along with making millions from Google, is to dominate enough of the browser market with a standards-focused offering that web designers have no choice but to accommodate such standards) will be far more effective and less damaging than serving token penalties dished out to the one software company everyone loves to hate. (Note: yes, I realize Firefox does not yet pass the Acid test, however in almost every realistic application it is a standards-based browser, hence my use of the term 'standards-focused').
Ultimately I don't think senior-aged EU regulators and lawyers that have trouble operating their televisions and cell phones have any business interfering with the tech industry.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
KDE comes with konqueror and that's great. Will opera also send them lawyers??? I used to be a opera fan, but I promise not to use it not a single time any more. you can't apply some laws to microsoft, and some others for other company, that's not democracy. Laws are the same for everybody, and it doesn't matter who it is. Opera wants to restrict our right of having Windows with IE installed, what if we continue in the same path? The only SO possible in the future will be console only and we would need to pay an expert to install all what we need to have it complete. Do you think that in the future OS will come without Internet Browsers????? Everything will come with a browser, from a TV to your refrigerator.
That is to say, "they all do it."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Obviously I and millions of others disagree with the current /. groupthink. IE doesn't seem broken to me. While I don't use it as my primary browser it does provide an adequate browsing experience for when I do use it.
I decided to put the 4 browsers I use to the acid2 test.
IE 7- failed
Firefox 2(both on WinXP and RHEL 5) - failed
Seamonkey 1.1.7 (RHEL 5 only) - failed
Konqueror 3.5.4 (RHEL 5) - passed
Now of the 4 (5 if you count browser & OS combos), the only one that passed the acid2 test is the only one I find to be woefully inadequate for daily web browsing.
These folks screaming that IE is "broken" frankly are coming off as a little insane to me. Since by their same logic, firefox and seamonkey are also broken. Only for some arcane definition of "broken" is that true.
As a web developer, I don't code for IE as it will handle almost anything. I do code for Firefox (and in the past I coded for Netscape) since it seems not to be able to handle code as well as IE. When I'm done making it look perfect in FF, I look at it in IE. At most I'll have a couple of minor tweaks to make. Maybe having to code specifically for FF means it is "broken," but I think it is more that it is just different. Broken implies it doesn't work and in the case of FF and Seamonkey they almost always provide a superior browsing experience.
So really the only thing that is broken is the Opera's folks view of reality.
standby for all the mod trolls .. atn: Rob Malda (Score:1, Offtopic)
davecb5620@gmail.com
IE not only has bugs, it even has bugs v2.0!
Beat that, Opera
The only thing that happens over time is that there are new standards to support. But just because you don't support the new standards doesn't mean you aren't compliant to supporting the standards you have currently.HTML4.1 came out in 1999. It is almost 2008, That means almost nine years have passed and Microsoft still hasn't got proper HTML4.1 support, despite having a very bad implementation of it.
How much time do we need to give them?A lot of things Microsoft has done and suggested became standards... This is not the case.True, but their reasoning for being unable to complete is honest. I believe if Microsoft were forced to make even their current implementations of specs compliant, it would allow browsers to actually, compete.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
It is part of an operating system's features to include basic functionality.
In mac this means quicktime, safari, ichat, text edit, activity monitor, ilife, etc.
in windows this means windows media player, internet explorer, windows messenger, task manager, note pad, etc.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, because I doubt ANYBODY likes the idea of having to download multiple gigs of their default OS piece by piece.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Windows Update is a separate program in Vista so it doesn't work with either.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Actually, if you read below, there is a way of uninstalling it.
.NET.
Like it or not, programs coded for Vista sometimes do use Internet Explorer or at least the Trident engine, thus keeping it up to date is just as critical as a program that uses DirectX or
So, just because you don't want to use it, doesn't mean you won't end up using it anyway.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
having one set of rules for Microsoft, and another for everything else in the universe.
Why are you constructing this straw man? Where did I say anything about "everything else in the Universe"? Are your arguments so bad you need to construct false statements like that?
Microsoft is in a position where their market dominance means different rules DO apply to them.
arbitrary and MS-hating standards which is user unfriendly and full of memory leaks and security holes
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. These standards are the same Microsoft have said thgey are backing.
As a security professional
You do not come off as "professional" in anything but Microsoft-shilling. Or trolling. You spread hate but show zero knowledge of anything related to software. You lose.
Why doesn't Opera show how "superior" they are by creating their own OS and bundling Opera with it. Maybe they could complain about Linux bundling Konqeror or Mac bundling Safari. Two quote a really lame song from Justin Timberlake "Cry me a river"
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Extending--as long as it doesn't break other things--isn't really a problem as much as not implementing part of the standard (or worse implementing it wrongly) is.
What do you mean by corporate browser?
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
I'll try to duck the spittle and bile and address the argument directly.
... what Microsoft would be like if it was run by people like this"
"It's jealousy, and it's greed."
Which is exactly the motivation to fight a competitor. If companies weren't jelous of and greedy for the money made by another, we wouldn't get better products and services.
"It's not ethical. It's not reasonable."; "fuck the EU for even considering this"
They appear to be following all the proper judicial procedures. Opera Software is not committing any illegal acts. They're pursuing legal recourse for a perceived grievance, not bombing Microsoft's offices. Looks like the paragon of ethics and reasonability.
"This is Microsoft's OS, and they can ship it however the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or are you forgetting that there are actually other options..."
This is exactly the situation that is different for a monopoly, explaining why many bodies that govern economic action, like the EU, have laws to appeal to. This means that Microsoft cannot do whatever "the hell they want" any more than the grocery store can sell ebola-laced beef. We regulate economic action for our best interests.
"they are even worse than MS
Microsoft has been convicted of various crimes in various jurisdictions, including the US and the EU. Opera has not, and appears to have no such black marks on its record. I do not see how its attempts at legal recourse he are worse.
Despite yourself, I think you're right that MS would be scary if it were run like Opera. Its illegal actions have caused significant damage to its financial position. If I were a stockholder, I'd love to have that massive EU fine dispersed in a dividend. And I'd be enamored with MS adopting anything close to Opera's quality of software engineering-- with MS' market position, it'd be unstoppable.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
But what do you call it when pretty much every company standardizes on the same platform? Coincidence? Please, I assume we both know enough math to calculate the chances of that.
It's called "Microsoft has the best product" -- as defined by the metric the vast majority of the market cares about, which I already explained in my previous post. To quote myself:
"The reason Microsoft has a large marketshare these days is because that's where the applications are. People use applications, not operating systems. Microsoft mostly has a monopoly because of the traditional incompetence of the competition, because they think the operating system matters. It doesn't. The applications are everything."
Exactly what "dirty trick" is Microsoft using at this point to lock people in? As you point out, "The competition between MS Office and OpenOffice is non-existent despite the massive price difference." The reason is because, despite a lot of fanboi-ism, the applications for MS Windows (not just Office, but on the average across the spectrum) are superior. This also despite the extreme mediocrity of the Windows OS. People just want to get their work done.
But back to the original question: does Microsoft have a monopoly? Are there *no* viable alternatives? Is it impractically difficult to live a Microsoft free life, either at work or at home? I would say there are numerous Mac people who would say 'no', as well as numerous Linux people. Does Windows have the best application base? Unquestionably, which is why they dominate. Are the other platforms so inferior as to be impossible to use? No. Hence, Microsoft has a dominant marketshare, but does *not* have a monopoly.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The (legal) definition of a monopoly is not that there are absolutely no alternatives. Which makes sense, if you think about it. Otherwise a monopolist would only have to fund a small garage company to produce some "competing" product, with a total market share of 0.00001% and he's home free. And lawyers aren't good with numbers, so they try not to base decisions like "monopoly? yes or no?" on some limit value like 95% or 98%. They look at the effects on the market, and that effect is very, very obvious. In a very competitive environment, there has been one attempt to introduce a new product into this specific market in the past what, 15 years? In a market that yields billions of potential profits. You have to be absolutely blind to economic reality to believe that competitors to such a highly profitable market would not line up by the dozens, if it weren't for some factor that tells them even trying is foolish. It can't be the sheer quality of the current market leader, we agree on that. Microsoft has a dominant marketshare, but does *not* have a monopoly. Replace "dominant" with "dominating" and you pretty much have the legal definition of what a "monopoly" is. Again, a monopoly does not mean 100% market share, and it does not mean there are absolutely no other alternatives. It means the market does not work anymore, and the OS "market" certainly doesn't.
Prove me wrong. Find funding for a startup that produces an operating system. For what it's worth, find a VC company that doesn't laugh you out the door.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org