FSFE Supports Microsoft Antitrust Investigation

An anonymous reader sends us to LinuxElectrons.com for an announcement from the Free Software Foundation Europe, in the form of a letter (PDF) sent to the European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. FSFE offers to support a possible EU antitrust investigation of Microsoft, declaring that "Microsoft should be required openly, fully and faithfully to implement free and open industry standards." Opera Software issued a complaint to the Competition Commissioner based on anti-competitive behavior in the web browser market. FSFE president Georg Greve writes in the letter, "Although Opera Software does not produce Free Software, we largely share their assessment and concerns regarding the present situation in the Internet browser market."

Comments

whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

if there investigation included this then i would listen

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I hesitated, suspecting another minicity troll, before I clicked this link, but the link turns out to be legit.

Re:whatever

[udippel]

Clever. AC offers a minicity troll and comments his own troll confirming it wasn't.
But it is. Stay off.

In Your Face Slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Your Face Slashdot !!

merry xmas

In the mood for blaming? Why stop at Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure as long as all the european companies and open source projects support the other "standards" microsoft is beholden to, such as korean active x craziness. Europe forgets while they gave HTML its start it was the US Mosaic which made it anything remotely useful, and from that came Netscape (soon to be Netcrape) and Explorer, and then there were the inbetween times which saw an explosion of what might as well be called innovation. Sure the wisdom of buttons on remote websites which can format local volumes via norton and active x controls can be debated, but that shit it used. Now that it's out there, and used, there is an obligation to support it in some fashion. After all the customers are demanding it, unlike Acid 2 compliance I might add. So while I pine away for a world wide trade war (hey I won't have a problem feeding myself, and it's not like cheap chinese crap lasts) why don't the asshats an europe take a look at the past, the present, and get relevant or go fuck themselves. If not, in the Christmas spirit, I respectfully request they just set themselves on fire and be done with it.

No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow, FOSSies are supporting an attack on Microsoft? That's pretty surprising.

It's also surprising that their failure to win over customers needs a scapegoat, so now they are trying to get government to force customers to use FOSS. It's really surprising that they are seeking to screw over the consumer's ability to choose in their blind and obsessive hatred of Microsoft. Because we see what a success the version of Windows without Media Player bundled in has been in the EU.

It's completely insane that they are seeking to force a modern operating system to ship without a browser. And even more insane is that they are going to have one set of laws which apply to Microsoft, and one set of laws which apply to everyone else... since they aren't looking to unbundle Safari from OSX, and haven't been seeking to unbundle QuickTime from OSX.

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that if you don't like Safari in Mac OS X, you drag it to the trash. If you don't like Internet Explorer in Windows... well, tough.

The issue here isn't that Microsoft has a monopoly, it's that they abuse that monopoly by strong-arming hardware manufacturers into bundling Windows (and IE) on every PC sold. If you buy a PC, you're FORCED to purchase Windows and IE. You can wipe the drive and install Linux or a *BSD, but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has made a sale of Windows/IE. Windows is simply the platform of people who don't know any better. It's the AOL of operating systems.

I don't wanna hear the tired argument that Apple should be forced to remove Mac OS X from their Macintosh computers. If Microsoft manufactured computers, I would expect them to be have Windows preinstalled.

Yeah, I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but I didn't want to take the chance of someone taking you seriously.

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

it always amazes me how sheep like you consistently put their head on the chopping block for the slaughter. microsft never fails to leverage new garbage on the consumer using their already established monopoly and the fact they can't find any reasons not to use alternatives other than you're already using microsoft software and probably are not intelligent enough to apply any of that elsewhere speaks volumes.

Re:No surprise here

[SanityInAnarchy]

The difference is that if you don't like Safari in Mac OS X, you drag it to the trash. If you don't like Internet Explorer in Windows... well, tough.

I'm curious... Does removing Safari also remove Webkit? And if so, does it break other OS X apps?

If removing Safari does not remove Webkit, then they're really not much better than MS in that respect. If you don't like IE on Windows, you can, in fact, prevent it from being used for just about anything except as an HTML engine for other things -- and even that can be replaced with Gecko, though people generally only bother to do it under Wine.

The issue here isn't that Microsoft has a monopoly, it's that they abuse that monopoly by strong-arming hardware manufacturers into bundling Windows (and IE) on every PC sold.

I realize it's different because MS is a monopoly, but Apple does exactly the same thing -- only worse. They control both the hardware and software, and God help you if you should try selling a Mac clone that can run OS X. And that was on PowerPC.

If you buy a PC, you're FORCED to purchase Windows and IE.

No longer the case. For instance, you could buy a Mac -- yes, they ARE PCs now, amusing ads notwithstanding. Or you can buy a computer with Linux preloaded -- off the top of my head, Dell and Asus are doing this.

The only way this is true is if you define a PC as an x86-compatible machine running Windows, which makes your point moot -- if you buy a Windows machine, of course you're forced to run Windows, because, guess what, you're buying a Windows machine!

Windows is simply the platform of people who don't know any better. It's the AOL of operating systems.

No, it's worse. It's the platform of people who can't use better.

I have to use Windows at work. Specifically, I have to use Windows XP Professional, since one of the programs I rely on will only run on Windows XP -- not 2K, not Vista. (Oh, and it needs Windows Media Player 10. Not 9, not 11.)

I could install Linux, and I have, but I can't use it during work. I can't get virtualization working properly at the moment, so I can't run Windows in a virtual machine. And this software does NOT work on Wine.

I suppose I could buy a Mac, but what would be the point? The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is Apple products look shinier and work out of the box more often.

I don't wanna hear the tired argument that Apple should be forced to remove Mac OS X from their Macintosh computers. If Microsoft manufactured computers, I would expect them to be have Windows preinstalled.

Except that if Microsoft manufactured PCs, you almost certainly could still install Windows on other PCs. That is the very thing that made Windows a disruptive technology -- the deal that they got from IBM which allowed Windows to run on IBM clones.

Apple does not allow OS X to run on anything but a Mac, and does not allow Macs to come without OS X. So, it is absolutely one huge package, and it is exactly the kind of thing that would get you worked into a froth if Microsoft did something half as bad. The only difference is, Apple is a minority, and people actually want to use Apple products, whereas people are most often forced to use MS products -- but that is not a legal difference.

Re:No surprise here

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's completely insane that they are seeking to force a modern operating system to ship without a browser.

I seem to remember that they'd allow you to ship a modern OS with an alternative browser.

And besides, the only reason that sounds insane is that we've been doing things that way for awhile. How insane is it that MS still ships an OS without antivirus? Especially when their Control Center will nag you to install some third-party antivirus?

And even more insane is that they are going to have one set of laws which apply to Microsoft, and one set of laws which apply to everyone else...

No, that's exactly what anti-trust laws are for. Read that again until you get it, because I cannot make it any simpler. Anti-trust laws were created to restrict monopolies. Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not. Therefore, Microsoft gets restricted, and Apple does not. If Apple had 90% of the market and Microsoft had 10%, we might be seeing the same thing in reverse...

Oh, one more thing: I strongly suspect that at least half this argument has nothing to do with unbundling IE, and is really about forcing IE to comply with the web standards they've been shitting on all these years. And this provides a neat counterpoint to above -- if Apple had 90% and MS had 10%, Apple still wouldn't be under as much fire, because Webkit actually follows standards. Wasn't it the first to pass ACID2?

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think applying monopoly principles to something like OS's or Software is silly. Its really only effective at covering two situations, A. Government granted monopoly. B. Monopoly over resources that are limited.. Ie...the government can GIVE you a monopoly, right of way, land usage, spectrum usage Or...you could own all the Water,Oil,Wheat. That is what a monopoly is and I find it honestly impossible to say that MS controls, all software. And an OS is just that,software. The existance of Linux is a perfect example of this fact.

As to the idea of forcing someone or some company into complying with a "industry" standard, it is a horrid idea. What about the priciple of capitalism. You know,letting the market decide? Who decides, what standards, who controls those standards etc. What if your local government official came in tomorrow and started telling you, how to do business..and they were taking their guidance from a competitor.

Its easy to cheer on a bad idea when it benefits you personally, but bad ideas tend to stick around alot longer than there good intentions.

Re:No surprise here

[drspliff]

. And this provides a neat counterpoint to above -- if Apple had 90% and MS had 10%, Apple still wouldn't be under as much fire, because Webkit actually follows standards. Wasn't it the first to pass ACID2? I think you've hit the nail on the head here, but it's all wrapped up in so much red tape and legal crud that it gets missed.

Opera are certainly pushing for this issue, partly because IE makes their jobs difficult and every web developer I know probably spends 10% of their time specifically hacking stuff together to work with IE 6 and 7. On one hand (Microsoft get their shit together) their hailed as saviours for getting Microsoft to be a responsible company, or if it goes the other way they end up with bigger market share.

Personally I think this could've been made much better on the PR side of things, instead of going straight for the neck they could've written an open letter and a petition to present to Microsoft saying how much of an absolute turd they've been acting over the past years and it's time to change their ways. With enough support - yes, you could eventually get a relatively large boycot... and then if Microsoft still don't do anything - the whole anti-trust & monopoly law thing should follow in full force.

Re:No surprise here

[doktor-hladnjak]

I think the anti-virus issue is always an interesting one to bring up. Customers would probably be happy if Windows came with anti-virus software, because it would mean one less thing to worry about, one less thing to buy and one less hassle. However, you can bet that Norton and McAfee and all the rest would have an anti-trust lawsuit on Microsoft's plate before the product was even released because it would mean they'd sell fewer pieces of software. In fact, if Windows could be made significantly more hardened to viruses without even writing an actual separate piece of anti-virus software, those same companies could quite likely be out of business in short order.

Re:No surprise here

[cp.tar]

The only difference is, Apple is a minority, and people actually want to use Apple products, whereas people are most often forced to use MS products -- but that is not a legal difference.

I always thought that MS being a monopoly made it a legal difference as well.

That's why Apple may do some things, while if MS did the same, that would be anti-competitive.

Re:No surprise here

[cp.tar]

Microsoft is a part of the W3C.

That means they first make the standards, then when everybody else implements them, they decide not to comply.

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is, Apple is a minority, and people actually want to use Apple products, whereas people are most often forced to use MS products -- but that is not a legal difference. I respectfully disagree with this statement. From a legal perspective, the standards for a company that has a monopoly in any market are different than for those companies which do not have a monopoly. Apple can bundle whatever they want together, stop competitors from running alternative software packages, etc. This is because it does not have a legally defined impact on competition given a non-monopolistic market share. In the US anyway, monopolies play by different rules and that is unlikely to change (nor should it IMO). Companies need freedom to innovate until such time as they have more incentive to restrict competition than to attempt to gain market share via a superior product offering.

Re:No surprise here

[cp.tar]

So how is something made to keep working for the anti-virus programs, but not web browsers?

Why the discrepancy?

Re:No surprise here

[Cyclops]

The only way this is true is if you define a PC as an x86-compatible machine running Windows, which makes your point moot -- if you buy a Windows machine, of course you're forced to run Windows, because, guess what, you're buying a Windows machine!

What makes your point quite pointless, is that you don't buy a "apple" or "windows" machine, you buy a computer and licensing for some software that comes pre-installed as a "favour" they do to you, who are not capable of doing it yourself.
So in fact you are paying a tax when you buy your computer, which may very well be of a few hundreds of EUROS. A TAX most computer manufacturers will not let you abdicate from paying.

That is immoral and an abuse of competition law (anti-trust only comes in point if we're talking about a monopolist entering another market). Buying a good which binds you to buy a specific non-essential service is usually forbidden by law.

This could be easily solved if the pre-installed software would only work after you insert an activation code related to your license IF AND ONLY IF you bought said license as well as the computer, but it would have to be two quite different things.

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you simply don't understand how the world works. Microsoft doesn't have any competition because nobody is better, that's what has given Microsoft their #1 position in the marketplace.

IE is the most stable and secure browser out there. Firefox was plagued by over 300 memory leaks, a metric ton of security holes, and denied each and every problem and flaw. That lack of honesty right there is why FOSS will never win over corporate customers, and the FOSS "support" model of telling the customer to go into the source code and fix it themselves hasn't proved popular with customers either.

Safari for Windows is complete garbage, and may put your computer in an unrecoverable state. Kind of like Quicktime.

So that's the two major competitors. Who does that leave? Opera... a browser which does the same thing IE does, but Opera charges you money for it. And even if they didn't charge... IE is still a far better browser, and doesn't require me to install anything.

Hey Opera, Netscape called, and they want their business model back. Seems Opera never got the memo that the Browser Wars are over.

So now, let's move our comparison over to the desktop operating system. Apple doesn't have the tools corporate customers are looking for- it's seriously lacking when you are trying to manage hundreds (or even thousands) of desktops. And the same goes for Teh Lunix. Neither of them are enterprise-quality, because their focus is on a single computer home user. Well, good luck getting enterprise customers to adopt your consumer-level technology. Not gonna happen. And I've already mentioned the Munich Lunix disaster.

So, you have laid before you the reality of the situation. Microsoft has no competition, not because "they are a monopoly", but because their product is, by a huge margin, far better than any other "competing" product. It's what customers choose after considering all the options. MS has a reputation for quality, and for the quality of their support. THAT is why businesses choose Microsoft. But hey, you guys keep blaming "their monopoly", since it's easier to do that than to improve your product to the degree to which it's actually good enough to start being chosen by consumers.

Re:No surprise here

[canuck57]

This could be easily solved if the pre-installed software would only work after you insert an activation code related to your license IF AND ONLY IF you bought said license as well as the computer, but it would have to be two quite different things.

That is a most excellent point. In fact you could include a variety of Windows (XP, Vista with MCE/Home/Premium/Pro 32 bit or 64 bit etc, including a variety of Linux and even Solaris i86/i86_64 for that mater. Even a 160GB drive could hold 30+ choices and just wipe out the ones not selected. And this would not be hard for the OEMs to do either, in fact quite trivial.

Or alternatively put the OS on a $10 USB drive or 20 cent DVD at time of purchase.

I do agree, if Microsoft manufactured it's own PCs, it should be allowed to do like Apple, bundle. But given Microsoft is more like a tire manufacture, a component of the system Dell, HP, Lenovo and others sell, it is bundling/MS tax. If simply because we have no choice.

Just like car companies do with tires/rims. Let the consumer choose.

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggy Apple fanboy. Don't you know only homosexuals use Macintoshis?

Re:No surprise here

[RightSaidFred99]

Microsoft is not a monopoly. Read that again. Demonstrably they do not have pricing power in the OS market, and demonstrably there are alternative OS's available for users at many different price ranges.

I miss the days when "monopoly" actually meant something. e.g. if my oil company is the only place I can buy oil, or if one steel company is the single source of steel for the country. Good times. Nowadays monopoly basically means any company whose competitors are too inefficient to compete in a few very narrowly defined markets.

Re:No surprise here

[ClosedSource]

This always comes up. The fact is that the difference in standards between monopolies and non-monopolies are not nearly as vast as many slashdotters think. It's not so simple as Apple can do it and MS can't. In addition, once a particular government has had its day in court and won, it rapidly loses interest in pursing the company further.

Of course, the US government ignores monopolies all the time: TicketMaster has had a monopoly far more pervasive than MS's for a decade or more but nothing was done. Ironically, it usually requires a competitor with deep pockets and influence (e.g. IBM, Sun etc) to get the government to do anything.

Re:No surprise here

[SanityInAnarchy]

That is what a monopoly is and I find it honestly impossible to say that MS controls, all software.

Monopolies do not need to be 100% to be considered monopolies.

What about the priciple of capitalism. You know,letting the market decide?

You must've failed Econ 101.

Monopolies are one prominent example of a failure of capitalism. This should be explained in detail in any decent textbook.

And just because I'm an ass, you must've also failed Spelling.

What if your local government official came in tomorrow and started telling you, how to do business..and they were taking their guidance from a competitor.

Part of MS' problem is seeing the standards bodies as "competitors".

But more to the point, remember that no matter who you are, so long as you're not a 100% monopoly, you are a competitor to someone, just as they are a competitor to you. Doesn't it make more sense for the government, local or otherwise, to look to all parties for guidance?

Re:No surprise here

[CrossChris]

How insane is it that MS still ships an OS without antivirus? Especially when their Control Center will nag you to install some third-party antivirus?

How insane is it that MS still ship an OS that is susceptible to viruses and other malware?

Game Over, Microsoft!

Re:No surprise here

[Ilgaz]

Safari supports web standards, IE does not. That is a fundamental difference.

As long as you code in Web standards,they will appear fine in Safari, you don't even need the browser to test while it runs under Windows.

To make sure your site is visible to monsters majority (IE) users, you HAVE TO buy Windows and test it with IE. It fails the standards so you either code specifically to "fix" your standards compliant code or you live real life, financial consequences.

That is what Opera demands, standards compliance AND/OR the user given choice what to run as browser.

They don't want MSHTML removed from Windows as a framework, they just don't want "Internet" icon being IE or if it will stay as IE, make the damn thing standards compliant.

Re:No surprise here

[MightyMartian]

Look you fucking retard, Apple is not a monopoly. Monopolies have to operate by whole different set of rules.

This concept has been around for decades, and has been explained ad nauseum since Microsoft first began running afoul of the DoJ in the early 1990s, so either you are a fucking stupid troll-faced idiot or you're yet another pathetic immoral Microsoft shill whose job is to come on to /. and hope that there's someone equally dimwitted to buy into the crapola line cooked up by the liars in Redmond.

Merry Christmas you no-good piece of human garbage.

Re:No surprise here

[sgtrock]

Sigh. Please go re-read your history and economics texts. There never was any time in the U.S. when you could only buy steel or oil from just one company, although there were times when just one company controlled the vast majority of both. However, when a U.S. Federal court finds that you have a monopoly, then guess what: You've got a legal monopoly under U.S. law.

U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, and now Microsoft have all been found to have such a legal monopoly. U.S. Steel and Standard Oil were both forced to break up. Microsoft avoided that particular hazard only because Judge Jackson screwed up and talked to the press.

When the European Commission finds that you have a monopoly, then guess what: You've got a legal monopoly under European law. So, now that Microsoft has been found to have a legal monopoly under the laws covering roughly 2/3rds of the world's economy, I'd say it's safe to say that they're pretty much forced to operate as if they did have a globally defined legal monopoly. :)

P.S. Yes, Microsoft does demonstrably have pricing power in the OS market. If they don't, then please explain to me why the retail shelf price for XP and Vista hovers between $250 and $500 in the U.S. and Europe, and about $3 in China. Heck, explain to me why it's between $50 and $150 for the top tier OEMs who have been forced to accept Microsoft's demand that they prominently display the "XXX Vendor recommends (the most expensive versions of) Windows Vista® (Home or Business edition, depending upon which section of their Website that you're on)", yet still only charge $3 for the exact same software in China! Tell me again that Microsoft doesn't have pricing power. Please. I'd like another bitter laugh. :(

Re:No surprise here

[RightSaidFred99]

First, you act as if they were "convicted" of being a monopoly. Of course, they weren't. It's not like being a convict where suddenly you have this special "monopoly" status. All it means is the next whiny ass competitor to come to court can claim they have a monopoly and refer to the finding of "fact". Second, Microsoft has no control over alternative OS's. That's where the comparison falls flat. Ask any anti-MS dweeb what OS they run - it ain't an MS OS. Ergo, Microsoft does not in any way control what OS's I or any other consumer can use. US Steel and Standard Oil had a stranglehold on Supply. MS, factually, absolutely has no stranglehold which would control what OS a consumer runs on his x86 based (using a narrow market) computer. Furthermore, you've confused pricing power. Linux is free. Microsoft has no real impact on Apple's OS pricing, on Linux, or for that matter on any other OS. Of _course_ they have pricing power over their own product, to claim otherwise would be nonsensical.

In other words, yes, they certainly do have pricing power over XP and Vista, want a cookie? In the end for you people it all boils down to "but, poor Joe Schmoe doesn't know any better and the computers come with Windows!". I would call this a ridiculous argument generally not even worthy of a rebuttal. People are lazy/dumb, so company X should be effectively siezed and dispositioned. Yeah, that's rational.

So fall back on "law" if you must, but law is often irrational and capricious. In fact, it seems the dweebs love it when the law goes against MS, but then lament how silly the "law" is when they seem to find things Microsoft's way. Microsoft simply isn't a monopoly in any rational, meaningful way and no finding of anything by anybody will change that.

Re:No surprise here

[QuietObserver]

I would argue that your entire line of reasoning is skewed. Apple isn't trying to gain a monopoly in any market it sells equipment in (the iPod's name recognition is similar to BandAid's or Kleenex's, but can, by no stretch of the imagination, be considered a monopoly; Apple isn't trying to foist the iPod onto their customers, but are merely attracting them with a quality product). Microsoft, on the other hand, seems incapable of entering a market without the goal of becoming a monopoly in that market; they have so far succeeded with operating systems and core business productivity (word processors, spreadsheets, etc).

Apple produces quality products and has no desire to mar the image of their software products by allowing them to work on cheep hardware; the least expensive Apple products are still mid-range in terms of quality. I'm not saying Apple's perfect; they make plenty of mistakes, and Steve Jobs has made a good number of his own. But they don't do business with the objective of hurting the customer, who, in their eyes, is the actual consumer.

Microsoft on the other hand, produces poor products and has an intense desire to improve their image while putting forth the minimal effort to do so; the most expensive Microsoft products (with the possible exception of Excel, some of their games, like Freelancer, and some of their hardware, like their mice) are mid-range at best in terms of quality. They do business with the objective of controlling every market they enter with no regard for the consumer, only their immediate customers.

Comparing the way Apple bundles their software with the way Microsoft bundles their software ignores the real point; the arguments against Microsoft should be about the Microsoft method of doing business. The acts of hobbling IE in terms of compliance with legitimate standards and bundling it with Windows has been made as a deliberate move to force the market to use IE and accept its deficiencies as a standard. Apple's inclusion of Safari, which is compliant with legitimate standards, in Mac OS X doesn't even begin to compare, since that has been made as a move to give their customers a means of easily accessing the internet, and nothing more; they don't want to control the market with Safari. I can't see any real similarity in these two business models.

Re:No surprise here

[Daengbo]

Standard Oil had a monopoly. I'm pretty sure there were Amish folk back then. Just because they didn't use oil doesn't mean that S.O. didn't have a monopoly.

The geeks who run that "alternate OS" were almost certainly forced to buy a copy of MS Windows, unless they built that machine themselves. Heck, here in Korea, Samsung sells the bare hard disks with Windows.

Re:No surprise here

[arose]

[..] so now they are trying to get government to force customers to use FOSS.

[citation needed]

Re:No surprise here

[RightSaidFred99]

The amish argument is a non sequitur. I'm not sure what you're saying, there. Had the Amish wanted to buy oil, they would have had to go through Standard.

And geeks who run alternate OS's are most certainly not forced to buy a copy of MS Windows. 1995 called, it wants its complaint back. I can not only go to any of numerous alternate-source manufacturers, I can go to plain old Dell.com and buy myself a Linux desktop. If a company bundles a product, talk to the source company - e.g. Samsung, or don't buy their products.

Re:No surprise here

[sgtrock]

Sigh. I wish to keep this civil, if at all possible.

First, you act as if they were "convicted" of being a monopoly. Of course, they weren't. It's not like being a convict where suddenly you have this special "monopoly" status. All it means is the next whiny ass competitor to come to court can claim they have a monopoly and refer to the finding of "fact".

No, Microsoft was not "convicted" of being a monopoly. I chose my words very carefully. However, you make a leap that is just not based on the law. The reason why the next "whiny ass competitor" can come to court and point at that finding of fact is because the law allows them to. The law and legal precedent covering the special status that a company holding a monopoly are well established, in part because of what happened under Standard Oil and U.S. Steel.

In addition, there is other case law covering similar activities. AT&T's refusal to allow the connection of 3rd party phones, for example, until their monopoly was taken away from them. IBM's refusal to honor warranties when 3rd party peripherals were connected to their mainframes, or when people ran IBM code on mainframe clones is another. Both faced the U.S. courts and were forced to back down. You may remember that AT&T was also broken up, at least partly due to the fact they continued to stonewall the court instead of accepting defeat gracefully.

IBM's case is closer to the conditions that Microsoft finds itself faced with. Unlike AT&T, IBM chose to negotiate a settlement with the courts that essentially acknowledged their competitors' right to compete. Since then, IBM has operated strictly within a set of moral and legal constraints that are well within what most people would find both legal and acceptable. That's why they don't find themselves facing constant legal battles and court supervision the way that Microsoft is at this time. (The sometimes questionable competence of said supervision notwithstanding.)

As to your contention that Microsoft has no pricing power outside of their own OS? Well, what do you think happens when someone goes to buy a new PC? Microsoft can clearly arbitrarily change pricing to force purchasing behavior for items other than the OS.

That's what I was illustrating by pointing out that the retail cost of Microsoft's OS is so much higher than what the top tier OEMs are allowed to charge. Microsoft holds a HUGE club over their heads. Those vendors either bury alternatives as deeply as possible /and/ prominently display that "XXX Vendor recommends..." tagline, or they'll be forced to pay the retail cost for XP, Vista, MS Office, and all of Microsoft's other products.

Do you really think any of these vendors can afford to do that? As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the margins on PC hardware is razor thin. No single top tier vendor can afford to compete by breaking ranks with the rest. The fact that all of the big vendors now have at least some form of Linux desktop available is only possible because the U.S. court found that Microsoft had engaged in restraint of trade.

So fall back on "law" if you must, but law is often irrational and capricious. In fact, it seems the dweebs love it when the law goes against MS, but then lament how silly the "law" is when they seem to find things Microsoft's way. Microsoft simply isn't a monopoly in any rational, meaningful way and no finding of anything by anybody will change that.

Sigh again. I doubt anyone is still reading this thread besides the two of us, so I'll probably just drop this after one final observation: If you find the law irrational, capricious, and silly, by all means work to change it. However, when multiple courts and most commentators in this thread (and elsewhere, I might add) all take a view that opposes yours, maybe it's time for you to reflect on the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you are the one who is wrong.

Re:No surprise here

[SanityInAnarchy]

Apple isn't trying to foist the iPod onto their customers, but are merely attracting them with a quality product

Replace "Apple" with "Microsoft", and "iPod" with "Zune" in the above statement.

Microsoft, on the other hand, seems incapable of entering a market without the goal of becoming a monopoly in that market; they have so far succeeded with operating systems and core business productivity (word processors, spreadsheets, etc).

The only difference I see here is that Apple has not yet succeeded as entirely.

Apple produces quality products

Well, there's that, too. That's another difference -- Microsoft produces very little of notable quality.

and has no desire to mar the image of their software products by allowing them to work on cheep hardware

Yes, I get this argument.

But understand, you are trying to tell me that Apple has limited my choice, as a consumer, to preserve their image. I happen to agree with you, I just find it absolutely disgusting.

But they don't do business with the objective of hurting the customer, who, in their eyes, is the actual consumer.

It may not be their objective, but it is the result, in a few important ways.

Microsoft on the other hand, produces poor products and has an intense desire to improve their image while putting forth the minimal effort to do so; the most expensive Microsoft products (with the possible exception of Excel, some of their games, like Freelancer, and some of their hardware, like their mice) are mid-range at best in terms of quality.

Oh, and Visual Studio. And the Xbox 360. And...

I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but they are capable, at least in small ways, of putting forth a very solid product. I suspect that they don't unless they have to, but you have to also consider that Microsoft does not function as a unit. Compare Halo with... well... any other Microsoft product. You can criticize the game all you want -- I happen to like it -- but the engine is absolutely rock solid.

Comparing the way Apple bundles their software with the way Microsoft bundles their software ignores the real point

The real point, for me, is that as a consumer, a world ruled by Apple is better for me only in that Apple makes quality products. As such, a world ruled by Microsoft is almost more appealing, because there would be more choice.

The acts of hobbling IE in terms of compliance with legitimate standards and bundling it with Windows has been made as a deliberate move to force the market to use IE and accept its deficiencies as a standard. Apple's inclusion of Safari, which is compliant with legitimate standards, in Mac OS X doesn't even begin to compare, since that has been made as a move to give their customers a means of easily accessing the internet, and nothing more; they don't want to control the market with Safari.

Now you are addressing motivation and business models, and we can really only guess at that. As I said in the conclusion of my other post, I understand that there is a difference -- I just don't think it's one you can define legally, except for the bit where Microsoft has actually succeeded at becoming a monopoly.

Re:No surprise here

[SanityInAnarchy]

Second, Microsoft has no control over alternative OS's.

No, they just control the market into which an alternative OS might be sold. No one wants to run an alternative OS, because everything is exclusively for Windows -- in some cases due to MS deliberately being incompatible (like, oh, Internet Explorer).

Or, for those who want to run an alternative OS, they often cannot, due to being dependent on Windows software.

Ask any anti-MS dweeb what OS they run - it ain't an MS OS.

Hmm.

At home, I run Linux pretty exclusively, but mostly because I haven't gotten my XP dual boot back. This is because I want to play games like Portal, the best game ever made, and I'd be lucky if it runs on Linux at all. If it does, it will most certainly run better on XP.

Now, I didn't have to pay for this XP, but that's because I got it for free from my college. I fail to see how anyone other than MS can pull off a deal like that -- the college pays a yearly subscription to have access, for all their students, to most MS software. Of course, that comes out of my tuition, which means MS is not only bundled with hardware manufacturers, they're bundled with higher education.

At work, I run Windows pretty exclusively. I try my damndest to at least be able to boot Linux most of the time, but I'm pretty much stuck with Windows, due to relying on Windows-only software which depends on .NET, Windows Media Player, and requires WGA to download, meaning it will be a cold day in Hell before it runs on Wine. But this same laptop came with Vista, and had to be downgraded to XP -- on the company dime. So, there's a useless Vista license lying around.

US Steel and Standard Oil had a stranglehold on Supply. MS, factually, absolutely has no stranglehold which would control what OS a consumer runs on his x86 based (using a narrow market) computer.

Supply is not the only way to control this, but let's pretend it is, for a moment.

Now, where can I buy an x86-based computer without Windows? Can I actually do this without paying for Windows?

The situation is better now, but remember, it was not very long ago that Dell selling computers with Ubuntu preloaded made the front page of Slashdot. That's how thoroughly Microsoft is entrenched.

"but, poor Joe Schmoe doesn't know any better and the computers come with Windows!". I would call this a ridiculous argument generally not even worthy of a rebuttal.

How is "the computers come with Windows" not worthy of a rebuttal?

Re:No surprise here

[QuietObserver]

Many of your comments here are quite valid; it's possible the iPod (any perhaps even the iPhone) was intended to drive other companies out of the MP3 market, though I have not seen any clear evidence that this is the case. And I, too, am not really happy about the inability to run Apple software on non-Apple hardware (I was merely pointing out what I've read about the company's policy; perhaps I should have expressed my opinion, too). I will, however, direct my responses to other comments you made in response to mine.

Oh, and Visual Studio. And the Xbox 360.

I didn't mention Visual Studio because I have no experience with the product, nor have I ever seen it. I've seen the XBox 360, but I haven't seen anything that is XBox only that I would want to purchase the console for.

I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but they are capable, at least in small ways, of putting forth a very solid product. I suspect that they don't unless they have to, but you have to also consider that Microsoft does not function as a unit. Compare Halo with... well... any other Microsoft product. You can criticize the game all you want -- I happen to like it -- but the engine is absolutely rock solid.

I've seen Halo, but it didn't really interest me, so I never bothered playing. I watched my brother playing it for a few minutes when he borrowed it from his friend, but only for a minute or two at a time before I got bored and went back to whatever else it was I was doing at the time (likely working on one of my projects, though it was too long ago for me to remember clearly). I can say the game seemed pretty solid and stable, but it's been years since the traditional FPS interested me; the only FPS I've play in the past seven years or so is Metroid Prime, and that's an FPS only in that you have a first person view and a weapon. I also recognize that Microsoft isn't a unit.

The real point, for me, is that as a consumer, a world ruled by Apple is better for me only in that Apple makes quality products. As such, a world ruled by Microsoft is almost more appealing, because there would be more choice.

Again, I agree with you, in principle. I'm not sure, however, that Apple's products would remain quality if they managed to take over the world, and I'm equally unsure that customers would still have more choice if Microsoft gained absolute control. Apple, after all, did fire Steve Jobs, then started producing some pretty bad products, and Microsoft has a history of taking actions that would limit customer choice. Basically, I'm saying that the freedom to choose cannot be guaranteed under the rule of any one corporation.

Now you are addressing motivation and business models, and we can really only guess at that. As I said in the conclusion of my other post, I understand that there is a difference -- I just don't think it's one you can define legally, except for the bit where Microsoft has actually succeeded at becoming a monopoly.

Good point. I should have worded that a little differently; I don't see that Apple is trying to control the market with Safari, while I do see Microsoft working hard to force IE on the market. As I said at the beginning of my original comment, I believe comparing the evident business strategies is more beneficial to arguments than trying to compare similar actions that have been taken by different companies. Overall, I actually never use Safari (the only time I did was when I got my Mac, and I downloaded Firefox immediately afterward).

I guess my original point is that I never really looked at Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows as a problem; when I asked others what the problem was, their answers never seemed to make a lot of sense, so I don't really see that using the same argument against Safari is logical. However, I do see attempts to force customers to use a product over all others as a

Re:No surprise here

[SanityInAnarchy]

I can say the game seemed pretty solid and stable

Well, it's solid, stable, visually beautiful, has a very intuitive UI, and absolutely no loading screens. That puts it ahead of most other games, at least technologically.

it's been years since the traditional FPS interested me; the only FPS I've play in the past seven years or so is Metroid Prime, and that's an FPS only in that you have a first person view and a weapon.

You'd like Portal, then.

Personally, I'd say Halo and Half-Life are probably the best of the traditional FPSes, and I'd buy a console just to play either one. But then, I have managed to find an exclusive for everything except the PS3 that I'd gladly buy the console just to play.

Again, I agree with you, in principle. I'm not sure, however, that Apple's products would remain quality if they managed to take over the world, and I'm equally unsure that customers would still have more choice if Microsoft gained absolute control.

I don't think they'd have more choice than right now, only more choice than if Apple gained absolute control.

Basically, I'm saying that the freedom to choose cannot be guaranteed under the rule of any one corporation.

Oh, absolutely. I would much rather have none of them gain control... though, of course, I would also rather applications were more portable. Not just that you can make a portable app -- there's always some cross-platform libraries to help you there -- but more like POSIX, where it becomes almost more difficult to write an application that's not portable than to write one that is.

The trouble there, of course, is that a world in which application development is commoditized like that is a world where both Apple and Microsoft lose. Apple would no longer be as able to innovate, as innovative new Mac-only features would be ignored, even by Mac developers -- and Microsoft would no longer have a stranglehold on the world. So I'm not sure anyone really has the motivation to do that.

ho ho ho!

[Anonymous Coward]

merry christmas niggers!

Re:ho ho ho!

[tristian_was_here]

There should be a "-5 Knob head" that I could use to rat this parent post.

Confused..

[mikesd81]

I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect. Of all things Microsoft does, not including a free alternative, or alternative at all, to a internet browser seems petty. I just recently had to format this computer, and recently built another and I promptly downloaded Fire Fox. I think Opera's problem is they just aren't making it like FF and IE are...

That's not to say that MS is innocent, but they're not blatantly stopping any installation of alternative browsers, or office suites.

Re:Confused..

[Coldness]

I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect. Of all things Microsoft does, not including a free alternative, or alternative at all, to a internet browser seems petty. I just recently had to format this computer, and recently built another and I promptly downloaded Fire Fox. I think Opera's problem is they just aren't making it like FF and IE are... That's not to say that MS is innocent, but they're not blatantly stopping any installation of alternative browsers, or office suites. That and Internet Explorer isn't even a product they're making money off of anymore. If I wanted IE7 I could go and download it right now for free. In a browser war versus three free products, who the hell cares which one wins? Start and anti-trust suite over their operating system monopoly, not their browser monopoly.

Re:Confused..

[taj]

The antitrust case in the US started out with Sun, Oracle, Netscape and AOL listing a few reasons Microsoft was a monopoly. The one they had solid proof of was the browser. Netscape was (disputably) trying to sell a product. Microsoft bundled IE and destroyed Netscapes marketshare almost overnight. It was a clear case of monopoly abuse despite the effort Microsoft put into their browser.

Netscape wasn't just going to browse the Internet. It would read news groups, function as a mail client, ... It was a 'platform' for other products. It was a closed source fork of Mosaic and it was out to take on Microsoft. The Firefox of today is a shadow of the dream (with a fraction of the bugs).

Re:Confused..

[calebt3]

but they're not blatantly stopping any installation of alternative browsers Not at the consumer level, no. Although their EULA is worded in such a way that I am sure that they would be legally capable of making that decision if they wanted to. Also, (IIRC) MS punished Dell for trying to install Firefox on their machines.

Re:Confused..

[Liquidrage]

MS bundles notepad and wordpad in the OS, why not a complaint on that? A web browser should be included in an OS because it's part of what we expect to use the OS for in almost all cases.

There is no "clear cut" as you're trying to say when it comes to an OS. What should be included vs what doesn't have to be is almost all gray area.

IE with the OS was nothing like Ma Bell, which was a clear cut case. Users chose to use an MS OS where other options were available, they had IE because of that, and yet still could install a different browser. With Ma Bell you were screwed. You're only choice to make a call was their services on their network.

MS got bent over without any logic on the IE issue.

Re:Confused..

[Draek]

it's not that they included a web browser with their operating system, it's that they included a web browser that doesn't properly implement existing standards *and* includes their own propietary protocols with their OS, thereby leveraging their existing monopoly to prevent standards-compliant products from competing fairly in the market.

if IE rendered standards-compliant webpages at least as good as Firefox does (let alone how Opera and KHTML do) and they didn't include the ActiveX crap with it, my guess is that nobody would be complaining about them bundling it with their OS. Certainly I wouldn't, at least.

Re:Confused..

[RAMMS EIN]

It's not that Microsoft actively _prevents_ you from installing competing software (browser, media player, ...) on their OS. But the fact that they _include_ their own already poisons the market. Windows's dominance of the desktop market means that the vast majority of desktop users _also_ get Internet Explorer. They _can_ install a different browser, but this requires extra effort that many people are (understandably) not willing to make.

It is the extra effort that people have to make to get a browser other than Internet Explorer that makes it so difficult for other browser vendors to compete. Many people won't even _consider_ installing a different browser. On top of that, Internet Explorer's dominance makes webmasters (understandably) reluctant of breaking compatibility with it. This means that vendors of other browsers can add features all they want, but if Internet Explorer doesn't support those features, they will not be widely used. This, again, makes it hard for browser vendors to even make it compelling for users to make the extra effort of installing a browser other than Internet Explorer.

For a measure of exactly how hard it is to compete with Internet Explorer, just consider how much it took before Firefox finally started to take away market share from Internet Explorer. Tabs, ad blocking, built-in search bar, better security track record, I don't even know all the extra features. And a large ad in the New York Times. All this implemented in a product that customers could download for free, with no ads or nagware or any other nuisances. This is not a level playing field. This is Firefox being pushed up Microsofts mountain an inch at a time, thanks to hordes of volunteers and I don't know how much money in donations.

Re:Confused..

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny how someone using one browser for web interface development thinks the other is broken and they get all pissed off and out of shape when everything doesn't look exactly as it did on their favorite preferred browser. There is no shortage of questionable behavior in any of the major browsers.

If either browser fixed all their rendering bugs tomorrow I guarantee you a non-trivial number of sites would break.

I've used both for quite a number of years and unless you do something whacky it really isn't that difficult to get both browsers behaving as you would expect. I'm actually kind of impressed that the DOM model works as well as it does between browsers.

No browser in existance supports CSS2 or CSS3. They pick and choose what they will implement, firefox has -moz-* extension CSS tags they require to get functionality that exists in the base CSS spec. (See -moz-border-*, -moz-inline-block, etc.)

How quickly we forget about the propritary, non-standard features added by netscape/firefox. (livewire et al) Is a great example of extending software to support netscapes own application stack.

I will add the world does *NOT* need this same experience x3 or x4 over...Opera and its non-starters can have all the fun they want sitting on the sidelines ranking slightly above BeOS and Sparc Solaris users in our web logs.

The space is actually very complex with a large number of technologies and specifications involved leadding to corner cases that even the best minds in the standards process can and have overlooked. If there is evidence for intentional breakage in the anti-competitive tone then by all means please post your evidence so the appropriate books can be thrown at M$.

Re:Confused..

[hairyfeet]

Of course,if someone wants to use an excellent (and much better) successor to the Netscape platform there is always Seamonkey. For those who haven't tried it,it makes a great tool to convert those home users still running IE+OE. I personally use it for my secure browsing,with Firefox for non-secure.

IMHO,that is the great thing about the modern browser scene. I have FF,Opera,Kmeleon, and Seamonkey, and each have their strengths. I personally don't see why they just can't come to a compromise and just have 5 or 6 browsers offered through Windows Updates, with a link besides each so folks can look at each and choose whichever one that looks good to them. And if they are so lazy that they can't even click a link popped up by WU, then I for one hope they stick with IE.

Re:Confused..

[doktor-hladnjak]

Interestingly, it seems fair to say that the expectation of a web browser included with the OS exists because of Microsoft's decision to put IE into Windows for free back in the day. Before that happened, Netscape even sold its browser in commercial boxes on store shelves. The idea of downloading software for free was simply not an option except for those in the BBS scene and those who had connections to the internet (largely techies, academics and scientists). Most people went to their local mall and bought their software in a box, no matter how trivial or commoditized

In many ways, the bundling of IE set the stage for the internet to break into mainstream consumer computing. Without that bundling, you have to wonder if adoption of the internet would have happened as quickly and to such an extent.

Re:Confused..

[Liquidrage]

"Interestingly, it seems fair to say that the expectation of a web browser included with the OS exists because of Microsoft's decision to put IE into Windows for free back in the day."

The internet was starting to boom before IE was included.
In the mid 90's when the boom started, you bought a computer with Windows on it and it also came with Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL. People would usually get one of those, and then they're connecting into their networks, using their software and browsers, bypassing Netscape completely,
Windows 95 comes out, MSN launches, IE gets included. It really was a huge part in letting people bypass the huge national ISP's that really put you on their networks with a proxy to the internet, to letting you find a local ISP.

But either way I'd say a browser is as much a basic part of an OS these days as a text editor is, and needs to be included. If MS killed IE and put Firefox on every box I'd be a happy man. But the monopoly talk of the browser has always been crap.

Re:Confused..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely misunderstanding the point. The damage to consumers is not done in terms of prices, but in terms of products which would have existed but don't. Right now web browsers are very limited in the functions that they permit you to use in an application. Netscape had a very explicit idea to make the web browser a complete computing platform. That would mean, for example, that decent 3D Gaming would be possible with web applications. What was shown in the Jackson anti-trust case was that Microsoft deliberately bundled their web browser in order to stop these other platforms developing.

Microsoft's monopoly of the web browser was gained by illegally using their OS monopoly. They now use the browser monlopoly to keep the OS monopoly. For example, BeOS would have had much more chance if there were fully featured web applications avaliable in a competitive market. Just looking at product pricing is not a reasonable way of analysing tech development. What is needed now is a strong remedy which restores the damage that Microsoft already did.

Opera wants a partial solution to this. In fact I would say a far too weak solution. They really need ideas like a) Microsoft must announce all new features 12 months in advance. b) Microsoft must give an open / web interface six months before introducing an internal interface. c) if a new MS feature is adopted for standardisation by a standardisation body MS may not distribute a pre-standard implementation even for external testing. d) Microsoft may not aquire patent licenses. f) all Microsoft patents are automatically licensed for use by Free software projects.

Re:Confused..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand... Yes you can download Firefox or Opera or any other... and you can install any or all of them and they will no interfere with each other, also you can uninstall any of them at will and they will not leave a trace (well, almost), but you can't uninstall Internet Explorer, you can't disable it. If you open My Computer and type a URL in the address bar it will become Internet Explorer and that is the problem...

Re:Confused..

[man_of_mr_e]

If you open My Computer and type a URL in the address bar it will become Internet Explorer and that is the problem...

Except that doesn't happen anymore. Vista removed the integration between the shell and IE.

Re:Confused..

[hkmwbz]

I think Opera's problem is they just aren't making it like FF and IE are...

Opera is making it in markets with actual competition (mobiles/devices). Despite Firefox being funded by many huge corporations, IE still has more than 80% market share globally. Making it? Are you saying that IE would have had 80% market share if there was actual competition as well?

Re:Confused..

[mikesd81]

Yes. Only because of oblivious people who don't know about FF or fed FUD about Open Source or who just plain don't care. Go ask an average computer user (by average, a non slash dotter or fairly computer wise person, like perhaps a person in their 40's that just uses a computer to have one for the internet)if they know about Fire Fox or any IE alternative.

Re:Confused..

[hkmwbz]

Except you are talking about a situation without actual competition...

Re:Confused..

[mikesd81]

Are you saying that IE would have had 80% market share if there was actual competition as well?

I'm answering your question. Unless Opera or FF or Mozilla or Dillo or who-ever-else advertise and get word about their product out...then IE will always have an advantage in any scenario.

Re:Confused..

[hkmwbz]

You are still describing a situation without competition, and a situation where market share isn't determined by quality.

Re:Confused..

[gr8scot]

I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect.

I did not understand how browser inclusion is a problem the first time I heard about it, but since then I've read a lot about security vulnerabilities in IE, and the fact that I cannot *remove* that particular honeypot from my system -- unless I remove that entire operating system -- irks me. In a nutshell, my dealings with Microsoft have not provided the advertised convenience, and have provided unadvertised insecurity, and I do not believe "fraud" is too strong a word. That wasn't exactly the case brought by the plaintiffs, but dumping "bads" on consumer while advertising and selling them as "goods" is essentially what antitrust laws exist to punish.

Merry Christmas

[c3ph45]

Microsoft anti-trust investigation... it's the type of thing that makes you feel warm inside on a cheery Christmas day. Merry Christmas Slashdot!

Re:Merry Christmas

[jimmyhat3939]

Be careful what you wish for. How soon after Microsoft gets taken down will Google take their place on the throne of darkness? Just a thought...

Re:Merry Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Not long after Balmer throws the Throne of Darkness at Google.

Quit whining

[dayzd]

If they'd put as much effort into writing a better platform as they do into whining about how closed off Microsoft is, then maybe competition wouldn't be an issue. Interoperability is useful for everyone but that doesn't mean that they should be able to sue Microsoft into being compliant with the full HTML spec or CSS or whatever the new technology may be.

Re:Quit whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes actually it does, because of Microsoft's unique market position (dominating it) microsoft is able to abuse its size to the detriment of the market, thats what all these cases are about.

If microsoft had a 10% market share they could do all the shady business practises they wanted to, and it wouldn't harm an entire world market and its associated products.

Re:Quit whining

[Anonymous Coward]

People write better platforms all the time and Microsoft has shown their business practice in those cases to be either A) "Steal them", B) "Buy them", or C) "Push them out". In this case, their history in this field leans toward an attempt to push their competition out of the market.

The problem with this is that Microsoft has an immeasurable advantage over every other Internet Browser developer in that they also write one of the three common Operating systems and packaging their software with it ensures that a vast majority of the market can be guaranteed to have their version of the product installed. They've used this strategy before to kill off Netscape and because they had a larger share of the technologically illiterate market share (those who installed another browser generally knew you could use more than one) for the most part it worked splendidly until the courts became involved. Netscape had a much better product by nearly all industry reviewers but Microsoft killed their ability to compete by effectively demolishing the standards when they introduced unofficial additions and broke compatibility to ensure that Internet Explorer displayed a web page one way while everyone following the HTML specifications displayed it another.

Because you could then code a webpage to display properly in either IE or in anything else but not easily do it for both developers were forced to write a page that could be viewed in IE because they represented the largest portion of the market and then if they wanted to put the extra effort into it they could also write another copy of their page in code compliant with the standards for the smaller portions of users who generally knew that if it didn't work in their browser then it would probably work in IE.

This obviously lead to the self-perpetuating cycle of developers writing to display properly in IE because it had the most users and users being forced to use IE because developers wrote for it. The result today is the insane requirements placed on web developers to ensure that their code works with three distinct styles of browser: legacy browsers, current browsers, and legacy internet Explorer. The first two have been painstakingly tested and deliberated by W3C committees in an effort to ensure that new standards are as backwards-compatible as possible (it probably won't be pretty in older browsers but it'll convey your message) but the third still represents a sizable portion of users who don't have the technical knowledge to do much more than press the power button and click on the blue e. Add to this that in an ideal world each site would scale to almost any screen resolution (I, and many other users, absolutely detest 800x600-px layouts. Any cell-phone and PDA users out there care to weigh in?) and you have a recipe for frustration when trying to work in various "hacks" to have different code displayed by different browsers.

If Microsoft continues this pattern of preventing any competition in those areas in which they traditionally held a near-monopoly. One can only hope that IE version 379 will be the one to instantly halve the size of XML stylesheets by accepting the standard XML namespace declaration format... we all have our dreams I guess.

Re:Quit whining

[spectecjr]

Add to this that in an ideal world each site would scale to almost any screen resolution (I, and many other users, absolutely detest 800x600-px layouts. Any cell-phone and PDA users out there care to weigh in?) and you have a recipe for frustration when trying to work in various "hacks" to have different code displayed by different browsers.

Not sure where microsoft's responsibility figures into any of that... Personally, I'd blame CSS, which frankly is an unwieldy, terribly designed piece of crap the moment you try to do any kind of layout with it.

Which is terrible, because that's what it was supposed to be the solution for.

Rapture Rapture Rapture

[Anonymous Coward]

Repent your sins and be saved on this holiest of holy days, the christ child is welcoming you

Find your gun
Find your purple coolaid
Fnnd your speedball
Find your gin bottle and car keys

You are welcome in this land
Just, no pets!

From a web developer standpoint

[psychiccyberfreak]

Ok, let me clear it up, Opera is suing MS over their lack of standards compliance, not browser monopoly. Web standards are probably the biggest pain in the ass when it comes to IE. There aren't many good JS debuggers for IE (there are, but I don't find them very bug free). I think getting organizations to support this is a good thing, although in the end it'll probably slip through the cracks...

Re:From a web developer standpoint

[MaWeiTao]

I agree that Internet Explorer's compatibility problems are an issue. But this isn't something the government should be involved in. The solution should come from the free market. Microsoft is free to do whatever they want with their software. If they don't want to support web standards its their prerogative. It's not like Windows prevents anyone from installing another browser.

Basically, developers should stop supporting IE. Don't bother with the extra trouble of getting a site to support IE properly. In fact, the market is already addressing the problem. More and more people are dropping IE for other browsers.

Microsoft will eventually face the consequences of their decisions. Those consequences may be slow in coming, but they are coming. No need for government officials to stick their noses where they don't belong.

Re:From a web developer standpoint

[psychiccyberfreak]

Yes, but the issue here is that people will use the browser they want. They don't know or care about web standards. They will keep using their favorite browser, while using firefox/another browser for those sites that don't support IE. Less intelligent people will just think the site is broken. Unfortunately, most developers would probably be fired if they refused to support IE. I'd like to think that the open market will work things out but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Re:From a web developer standpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans and your suing, Opera is _not_ suing anyone, they are reporting them to some legal branch of the EU.

Re:From a web developer standpoint

[hkmwbz]

Opera isn't suing anyone. They have logged a complaint with EU for anti-competitive practices (monopoly, lack of standards compliance).

Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[SanityInAnarchy]

*sigh* I don't know why I'm bothering replying to someone who can't spell "lawsuit" and doesn't know the difference between "an" and "and", but here goes...

Having a monopoly on anything doesn't make you illegal, but it does prevent you from using your monopoly in one market to discourage competition in another market. That's exactly what antitrust laws are designed to prevent.

Which is exactly what Microsoft did here -- and does. IE7 comes with Vista. IE6 comes with XP. IE has come with every OS they've put out since at least Win98, if not Win95 (too lazy to double-check that). It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't.

And that, in turn, helps perpetuate their Windows monopoly, as no one can legally run IE without owning a copy of Windows, and it certainly was never designed to run outside of Windows. Thus, if someone makes a website which is not standards-compliant, but which is dependent on IE (even without ActiveX), that website will only work on Windows.

In the old business world, the end of that story would have been: Netscape goes out of business, IE is suddenly no longer free, but there's no alternative. (Think like the story of Office before OpenOffice.org.)

The only reason we avoided this is, Netscape released their browser as open source, thus making it both truly free (in both senses of the word) and actively developed, and IE is none of these things -- thus, Netscape/Mozilla/Pheonix/Firebird/Firefox can actually compete with IE, whereas the original Netscape couldn't. (I know IE7 is better, but it is a direct response to Firefox.)

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* I don't know why I'm bothering replying to someone who can bother looking up basic facts.

First, selling a browser was *never* Netscape's business plan. They sold server software, which worked best with their browser. The idea was that if all your users are using Netscape's browser, and you know the brand, you are likely to serve up your pages with their software too. It was very uncommon to have businesses license Netscape, with the only group that paid being government labs (someone got a payoff on that - since the license was free for them).

And yes, Win95 has IE (2.0) and everyone was more than capable (and did) download Netscape or Mosaic instead. IE was also available for other operating systems (Solaris, Mac) but that slowly died over the years. They died as IE development was halted for all platforms, including Windows, not out of some sincester plot.

Netscape died because their server software was eaten up by Microsoft, who long had been entering that market, as well as other players (e.g. Apache). It also sucked, and Netscape had a history of code rott. We weren't saved by having them open source their browser, since that code base was killed off. Rather, it drained the last of Netscape's financials on what eventually became an even more bloated and slow browser than its former. We have other browsers, like Konquer and Opera, that were just as capable of competing with IE without Netscape going open source.

Netscape died because they weren't able to compete. Their software got worse (really, really bad) as Microsoft's got better. But their browser wasn't the corner-stone of their revenue. The fact is, they lost their customers fairly because those of us forced to use their crap eventually found ways to use something better.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, yes, I didn't bother to proof read. No point when the parent is just a mindless GNU fanatic.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[houghi]

since at least Win98, if not Win95

The first version of Win95 came without IE. These were both the normal and the a(lowercase) version. The A, B and later C did have (different versions) of Internet Explorer. source

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. Netscape did a crappy job of selling a crappy version of Mosaic which was the only game in town. When Microsoft was about 2/3rds as good as Mosaic, Netscape became Netscrape and the limitations of Andreeson and his stock option infatuated grad students became clear. Not long after the US government stopped funding Mosaic because commercial browsers had taken off and they wanted the free market decide. Then Netscape started to get truly awful, and you know what? The next version of IE turned out to be a halfway decent browser. It even had functionality beyond Mosaic! Then there started the explosion of innovation the government wanted from the freemarket. Netscape couldn't do it. They were tapped out. They couldn't imagine tabbed browsing despite the presence of the controls for tabs in Microsoft foundation classes. Gestures. Just better memory managment. Hell, anything. Eventually, Mozilla would rise from the ashes of asses. But in the meantime IE started driving webstandards, breaking new ground, much of it poorly chosen in the Sun Tzu sense. Microsoft still has to live with those consequences. There are people out there usuing those dark arts, as they're so commonly thought of. Ways of communicating are built on them. Not so much in the West, but occasionally there too, in the dark corners. When people bitch about Microsoft's non-compliance and the burden that places on developers, well they're really making a value judgement that their time spent trying to do anything new is much much more valuable than the time all the interested people would have to spend redoing everything old. They're very quick to write off other people's time and money, after all, they're busy developing webstandards people aren't all demanding en mass. (I'm sure they're all very useful.) But no, it's all Microsofts fault because when everyone else was sitting on the sidelines, they weren't and now they have to live with some of those decisions thanks to customers who depend upon them. Microsoft should fuck them over because it gets in the way of an Acid 2 smiley face, and because Microsoft has strongly resisted fucking a few people over hard, people it could honestly get along quite nicely without, they're an evil empire like the New England Patriots. And they should have a bunch of eurotrash who's significant contribution to the web was what amounts to a curious skeleton from a particle accelerator lab stealing their money.

How about Mozilla, and Opera come up with a whole infrastructure package which beautifully replaces Microsofts infrastructure offerings. Everything from databases, exchange, Active directory, office and groupware. Make it better, make it easier to install, more reliable, easier to use, maintain and recover from failures. Oh? That's too big. Well how about socialized Europe just throw a bunch of money at it then. Can't make everyone happy all the time, even if you're the evil empire that makes by far the most people the most happy despite the vast sums of money you demand to make them happy. Failing that, how about you jackasses just remember your history correctly. (It wasn't IE that saved Windows, it was Trumpet Winsock. But I don't see anyone arguing that microsoft should be forced to unbundle TCP/IP.)

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[ClubStew]

Last time I checked, IE came bundled with Mac OS and Mac OS X as well and follows standards about as well as IE on Windows. How's the lock-in argument work now?

People that know an alternative exists know perfectly well they can download and use that alternative. Taking WMP out of Windows XP (for Windows XP N) also doesn't help anyone since people that don't know about alternatives just want something that plays those "music files" their grandchild sent them. Same with IE. They just want to "view the Internet" and need something. If they do care and do know about an alternative, they know how to get it.

Various *nix distros come with several browsers, but at least KDE and Gnome last I checked install their own default browser. You can still use an alternative but even they prefer one - often to help render content just like IE's rendering engine is used throughout Windows and Windows apps.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[DMNT]

Last time I checked, IE came bundled with Mac OS and Mac OS X as well and follows standards about as well as IE on Windows. How's the lock-in argument work now?

I strongly suggest you check it again.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[erroneus]

It has been a LONG LONG time since you've checked then!

Fact is, 5.2.3 is the last version of MSIE released for MacOSX... and well, it doesn't work particularly well.

The lock-in argument works perfectly. Now, if you want to experience the web the way the majority of users do, you have to run Windows and MSIE 6 or 7. If you want to do business with the likes of ADP and several banks and others, you have to run Windows, MSIE and enable ActiveX! (Huge security problem if you didn't already know) Microsoft has enabled and encouraged developers to use their MSIE API as if it were the Win32 API which extends any vulnerability that MSIE has into any program that uses it. (This is where some, but certainly not all of the vendor lock-in comes from.)

Microsoft's intentional modification of web standards (you think they don't have the expertise in-house to follow standards?) has managed to twist the internet's primary uses into an almost exclusively Microsoft-centric experience. (If you didn't guess, I mean the WWW and Email as the primary uses of the internet.) Microsoft's dominance in the OS and Office arenas have been unfairly exploited to serve their interests in the expansion of their monopoly to the public internet. This serves to create problems for competitors past, present and future in the arena of the public internet. It serves to damage the standards and standards bodies that were created to ensure that competition exists while innovative and technological progress moves forward. It serves to unfairly discourage users from choosing alternative operating systems (by that I mean MacOS and Linux) when doing business or recreational activities. (And is it relevant to suggest that the existence of a Microsoft-monoculture has made possible the exploitation of the entire internet infrastructure as spammers and other assholes create botnets in global proportions... millions and BILLIONS of computers are compromised to serve their interests because the majority of machines are running identical software with identical weaknesses. With every famous worm and every bit of spyware and every bit of email-distributed attack software floating, evolving and plaguing the public internet, there is another clear indication of the mess that Microsoft's monopoly has created.)

The matter of this antitrust action being limited to the browser addresses only a part of the problem I describe above, but it is a very central part of the problem.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[Anonymous Coward]

...basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser...

Except Netscape was giving their browser away freely, too.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[Liquidrage]

The part you missed in all that is:
1. MS used to bundle Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL because MSN and IE existed. Each of those allowed connections to the internet (through their own networks) without using Netscape via their own software.
2. Netscape was trying to sell a browser. Something that for the last 10+ years has been as basic a need on a computer as a text editor. Paying for a browser would be akin to paying for notepad. And using an OS without a browser is as worthless as an OS without a text editor.

You freely throw around the "market" to describe IE being included in the OS. Why? The OS vs the browser market? What's to make that different then the IP stack vs OS market? Or the text editor vs OS market?

MS has been screwing me for years. I made the best game of computer hearts ever and no one will buy it because MS includes Hearts in Windows.

3. You've completely ignored Mosaic in all of this. And it's history here is important.

My bottom line on this is when you can logically layout the "market" part of software that comes with an OS, I'll buy your argument. But until then I see your argument as needing to cherry pick software types from a large list, while the others your completely ignore.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Thanks for replying, I think I learned something.

But one thing to consider:

IE was also available for other operating systems (Solaris, Mac) but that slowly died over the years. They died as IE development was halted for all platforms, including Windows, not out of some sincester plot.

I find it odd, both that IE development was halted then (with IE in such a sorry state wrt. standards compliance), and that when IE development was resumed, the Solaris/Mac versions did not also resume.

We have other browsers, like Konquer and Opera, that were just as capable of competing with IE without Netscape going open source.

It might've happened, but... KDE is finally being ported to Windows, but it's in a version that may or may not ever be released. (KDE4 is now being mentioned in the same breath as Duke Nukem Forever.)

And it does say something that Opera doesn't seem to be coming close to Firefox.

Re:Do you know what "anti-trust" means?

[hkmwbz]

And it does say something that Opera doesn't seem to be coming close to Firefox.

Not really. Firefox gets free money from the likes of Google, Sun and IBM. Heck, Google pays people to get other people to download Firefox. Opera is the only truly independent browser. Firefox would have been nowhere without the bottomless pit that is Google's wallet.

Huh?

[sqrt(2)]

Didn't we just have an article a few days ago about the next version of IE that's still in development passing the acid 2 test? That's about HTML and CSS standards right? Why would they be suing to get something that's already on the horizon anyway; wont the upcoming IE8 do everything they're asking? There will still be all those un-updated versions of IE out there that will remain none compliant with standards, but you can't mandate that people upgrade, and punishing MS retroactively for those copies that will never work with the new standards doesn't seem legal.

Re:Huh?

[Fweeky]

Acid 2's hardly an exhaustive test of standards compliance. Passing it's good, but a decent HTML, CSS and JS test suite involve more than a smiley face and one person saying "yup, looks like a smiley face, here's a downsampled gif".

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

but you can't mandate that people upgrade

you can't mandate them, but you can save loads of money not wasting time developing for those broken browsers, and then the people using them will eventually get sick of websites not showing up right, and actually get a working browser installed one way or another.

Re:Huh?

[pembo13]

so you've made the jump from an IE developer saying that IE8 passes the acid2 test to IE8 supporting standards. Isn't that a pretty big jump?

Bollocks from FSFE, But I Can See Opera's Point

[RAMMS EIN]

"Microsoft should be required openly, fully and faithfully to implement free and open industry standards."

Meh, I don't see why. It's up to the customers. They should use open standars, so that they have freedom to select the best vendor and can interoperate with everybody else. If customers choose to pay to get locked into proprietary formats (be they Microsoft's or anybody else's), I don't see how that's Microsoft's fault.

``Opera Software issued a complaint to the Competition Commissioner based on anti-competitive behavior in the web browser market.''

Now there is something to that. Microsoft is _still_ using their dominance on the desktop market to push their browser (push in a very real sense - IE7 was pushed over Windows update without asking any questions, as far as I understand). The poor support for standards in Internet Explorer causes webmasters extra work, but also combines with the fact that it's bundled with a widely sold operating system to make competition even more difficult for vendors of other browsers.

I understand that the sort of bundling Microsoft does here is illegal in both the USA and the EU (but note that IANAL). _That_ is something they can be held accountable for.

Re:Bollocks from FSFE, But I Can See Opera's Point

[someone1234]

Without following standards M$ abuses its monopoly power over the desktop oS, extending it to other fields, stiffling anyone else regardless if this someone else is proprietary or FOSS person.

FSFE doesn't like M$'s abuse. Nor does Opera.
It is easy as pie.

People didn't choose. They were forced to choose. They had little options, when most computers come with M$ and webdesigners make their sites to follow IE's broken (and not open) standards.

Re:Bollocks from FSFE, But I Can See Opera's Point

[Watson Ladd]

Microsoft has a monopoly, meaning that it can be held to higher standards to insure competition. IANAL, but I think the first complaint is part of the second complaint: If IE implemented standards other web browsers would be able to compete against it more effectively.

Re:Bollocks from FSFE, But I Can See Opera's Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsofts passive aggressive stance in regard to standards and bundling of IE holds back the web. What compelling reason is there for users to switch browser when the majority of sites are made to work with the (howdy tongue-twister fans) dominant lowest common denominator? But browser wars were never about the web, the bit you missed is this...

Moreover, these web browsers cannot be hardwired into the dominant Windows Operating System as is the case with Internet Explorer.

There's a shift in application development coming and layout engines are at the heart of it, with an emerging market for developer tools. Remember that the first browser war and anti-competitive behavior over Java were about Microsoft preventing a 3rd party application platform from making Windows irrelevant. Guess what's going to happen in 2008/2009...

Re:Bollocks from FSFE, But I Can See Opera's Point

[petrus4]

People didn't choose. They were forced to choose. They had little options, when most computers come with M$ and webdesigners make their sites to follow IE's broken (and not open) standards.

No...they weren't actually forced to do anything. What they could have chosen to do is exercise some fscking self-responsibility...tho that's an unpopular option, I know. I've used Firefox ever since the first version of it, and for the most part used Netscape/Mozilla before that. I used IE 4 in particular...but deliberately, consciously, and because I liked it. No other reason. I was using Netscape before IE 4, and I went back to using Mozilla not long after the release of IE 5. I'm using Firefox right now.

IE being installed by default means that Microsoft are betting on the majority being buck passing, mindless lemmings...and of course, where human beings are concerned, that's always a very safe bet. In no way are you forced to use IE at all, however...all it means is that in order to use something else, you need to exercise an actually very small amount of personal initiative.

Re:Bollocks from FSFE, But I Can See Opera's Point

[atraintocry]

That doesn't change anything. Microsoft is still a monopoly. The law says you get treated differently when you are a monopoly. Leveraging your monopoly into another market is completely forbidden. Maybe that seems unfair for something that is as trivial as a browser (although, as others have said, it wasn't as trivial 10 years ago). Maybe that leverage is made possible by customers' inaction in the face of other choices. It doesn't matter. Monopolies have different rules to follow. Which meant bundling IE was in violation of the law.

And it's a smart law, when you consider the stagnation that a monopoly created in the desktop/OS market.

But... How Will I download Netscape...

[EETech1]

My first ever reply, so,,, Well have at it! I love every last one of you! MERRY CHRISTMAS! Just thinking back to the excitement of my very first (used win 95) computer with no software at all... How Much is it??? $295.00 Can it access the internet... Yes... SOLD! FYI... First website I went to... Netscape!

Re:But... How Will I download Netscape...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back at ya! I actually bought netscape on disk. Don't recall how much it was but seems it was a lot, like 40 bucks or something. Now after that I had net access eventually, I just wanted to support them at the time because I knew I would be getting net access. Weird, huh?

Functionality?

[EETech1]

If you just got your first computer this morning from ol' saint nick (or OLPC), wouldn't you want it equipped with the functionality to access the internet??? (even if it is riddled with security holes that will have your new computer slower than ever before new years)! I doubt very many computers (any OS) would be sold if they did not come out of the box with this option... I'll bring over a CD of FireFox sometime next week, and get you surfing...

Revisionist History...

[SerpentMage]

Ahh yes I love when people write revisionist history.

>It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't.

What killed Netscape is arrogance! I was in the business world, and my company (which happened to be a very very big bank) was shunned by Netscape. I am not kidding here. The bank wanted to license Netscape Navigator in 1996, and Netscape decided that the bank was not a big enough client (they only wanted to buy 4,000 licenses). Thus we were left hanging in the wind and mighty annoyed.

Next Netscape actually was the first company to support ActiveX in the form of Active Documents. I used it to illustrate how stocks could traded in 1996. Yes it was an undocumented feature, but it worked. I then asked the head honchos on when they would be extending this, and their reply was, "it is not going to be extended because it is Microsoft technology." Notice though how XPCOM is very much like COM?

Standards? I find it ironic that the EFF is going after Microsoft. Netscape in its heyday was notorious for ignoring the standards and creating their own. They would constantly add features and do-dads that would only work in the Netscape browser. I remember when frames and tables were added. It sent browsers like Mosaic into a tailspin.

So to rewrite history and say that IE won because Microsoft was a big bad monopoly is a pile horse hooy... Microsoft was massively behind and they won because Netscape blundered!

Re:Revisionist History...

[Zeinfeld]

Standards? I find it ironic that the EFF is going after Microsoft. Netscape in its heyday was notorious for ignoring the standards and creating their own. They would constantly add features and do-dads that would only work in the Netscape browser. I remember when frames and tables were added. It sent browsers like Mosaic into a tailspin.

Quite so, and in addition Netscape had this enormous plagarism issue. Andressen never mentions Tim Berners-Lee except to bash him. They had a book written 'architects of the Web' that has chapters on each 'architect' acording to the Netscape history but not Berners-Lee or Dan Connoly or Dave Ragget or anyone else involved in the CERN or W3C end.

The history of the invention of SSL leaves out the fact that Alan Schiffman and myself demolished SSL 1.0 in less than ten minutes. There was no integrity protection at all and Marc didn't understand the problem.

Microsoft on the other hand were fully behind the W3C efforts, they were engaged in the process, Netscape did not bother to turn up.

The whole anti-trust suit was really no more than an alibi for Clark and McNeally, they had run their companies onto the rocks and they thought it would look better to blame Microsoft. Sun's problems in particular came from Linux, not Redmond. Netscape's problem was that they were trying to make money off the server, not the browser and they never got the fact that both ends would become comodities.

The biggest problem with the Cark/McNeally approach is that they brough the whole corruption of Congress and put it right in the center of the technology industry. Suddenly people realized that they could win battles in Congress or the EU that they had lost in the market.

The EU suit to protect RealPlayer's product was particularly bad. For the past five years I have had RealPlayer's site locked out at the firewall to stop people downloading the code onto the machines in the house. It is just so loaded up with cramware that I consider it malware at this point.

Given Opera's recent behavior in the HTML 4/5 situation I don't think that they are in a position to criticze others for not following new standards proposals. Its not really about standards, its about seeing if they can persuade the EU to throw up a non tarrif barrier to help them.

I am quite happy to have these arguments in the industry and on Slashdot. But anyone who goes crying to Congress or the EU is a much bigger problem than any industry player in my view. The process is not quite as corrupt as it was in DeLay's day when there was an actual bribe tarif chart circulated by Cunningham, Ney and others. But it is still pretty corrupt. If you are going to take the game to a place where the outcome is determined by the longest purse, guess who is going win in the end?

Re:Revisionist History...

[hkmwbz]

Given Opera's recent behavior in the HTML 4/5 situation I don't think that they are in a position to criticze others for not following new standards proposals.

Bullshit. You apparently think that Opera is the only one involved in HTML5, which is false. Mozilla and Apple are heavily involved as well. The editor works for Google. Get your facts straight.

But anyone who goes crying to Congress or the EU is a much bigger problem than any industry player in my view.

Not when this "anyone" is known to put real money into open standards.

but Opera IS good

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is definately a competitor to firefox in browser quality. There are many whom argue that it is a superior browser.

That's complete bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't even like Microsoft.

"IE7 comes with Vista. IE6 comes with XP. IE has come with every OS they've put out since at least Win98, if not Win95 (too lazy to double-check that).

Unless you knew, we live in (soon to be) 2008. I, for one, am really fucking satisfied that operating systems are shipped with a browser. How on earth would I be able to download one otherwise? Should Windows ship with wget, so that we can grab another browser? Or should I use another computer to download a browser, burn a CD and then install it from there?

You are so full of shit if you think it's reasonable to assume that an operating system can be shipped without a browser. In fact, no such operating system exists today, pretty much because the concept of "operating system" is vague, and nowadays surely has to include a browser. A browser is pretty much as important as a file manager. Does Mac OSX come without a browser? Ubuntu? Any BSD? ANYTHING?
Why should Microsoft be punished because they are big, when they ship an OS including a browser? Should they be sued because they ship explorer.exe, when there are competitive shells and file managers out there (there are)? Mine sweeper? Notepad?

It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't."

Lots of people use Firefox, because it's better than IE, and the Firefox user base is growing. So, obviously what you claim, is a lie. Well, except you use the word "sell". Anyone trying to "sell" a browser today is an idiot (except perhaps for special embedded devices).

And that, in turn, helps perpetuate their Windows monopoly, as no one can legally run IE without owning a copy of Windows, and it certainly was never designed to run outside of Windows. Thus, if someone makes a website which is not standards-compliant, but which is dependent on IE (even without ActiveX), that website will only work on Windows.

Utter lie and complete bullshit and idiocy. "One can not legally run IE without owning a copy of Windows". So? Some don't even want to run IE at all, ever thought of that?
If any random idiot somewhere makes a web site which is IE-compliant, is that reason enough to sue Microsoft? If someone writes a program which only runs on Windows, is that reason enough to sue Microsoft? Bullcrap.
And worse yet, you claim that the fact that IE ships with Windows "helps perpetuate their Windows monopoly". You are so full of shit. What helps them perpetuate the Windows monopoly is that businesses around the world uses Word, nothing else, at all. Word and Word alone. Not even Office (people can't use anything but Word).
It's not Microsoft's fault they have a monopoly. Enter any random company, and you see them use Windows and Word. THEY are to blaim for Microsoft's monopoly.

In the old business world, the end of that story would have been: Netscape goes out of business, IE is suddenly no longer free, but there's no alternative. (Think like the story of Office before OpenOffice.org.)

The only reason we avoided this is, Netscape released their browser as open source, thus making it both truly free (in both senses of the word) and actively developed, and IE is none of these things -- thus, Netscape/Mozilla/Pheonix/Firebird/Firefox can actually compete with IE, whereas the original Netscape couldn't. (I know IE7 is better, but it is a direct response to Firefox.)

And the lies and bullshit continues. Netscape died because it wasn't open source? It was free (of charge) but not open source, yes. That's why it died? Where the hell do you come from? Netscape SUCKS, SUCKED, and HAS ALWAYS SUCKED. It was the most crappy browser every existing (except IE < 4). That's why no-one used it. NS 3 was cool when it came out, but it didn't take many years for it to become as completely deprecated crap

Re:That's complete bullshit

[SanityInAnarchy]

Or should I use another computer to download a browser, burn a CD and then install it from there?

I didn't say "should". But, if you look at the history, there was actually a time when a browser was considered separate than the OS -- when you might actually go out and buy a browser when you got Internet access.

Of course, people are too stupid to do that, so now everything's bundled. Windows is bundled with the machine. Nero is bundled with every CD burner, and WinDVD or PowerDVD with every DVD drive. And I actually like it better that way.

Lots of people use Firefox, because it's better than IE, and the Firefox user base is growing. So, obviously what you claim, is a lie.

Except for the part where I claimed something? What did I claim?

Well, except you use the word "sell". Anyone trying to "sell" a browser today is an idiot (except perhaps for special embedded devices).

Largely because MS gives away IE, yes. Well, and because of Firefox, which might not have existed, had MS not given away IE.

Utter lie and complete bullshit and idiocy. "One can not legally run IE without owning a copy of Windows". So? Some don't even want to run IE at all, ever thought of that?

I did, actually. What the fuck does that have to do with the current discussion?

If any random idiot somewhere makes a web site which is IE-compliant, is that reason enough to sue Microsoft?

The trouble is, it's not one "random idiot", it's quite a lot of them. And they don't realize they're doing it until they bother to test on another browser, at which point, they often shrug their shoulders and say "Meh, it works for most people."

And that is pretty directly damaging to the Web. That and the fact that those of us who would like to write a cross-platform website will have to spend twice as much time getting it to work in IE as it takes to get it to work in any other browser.

If someone writes a program which only runs on Windows, is that reason enough to sue Microsoft?

Except that you never claimed it would run anywhere but Windows. "Website" implies being able to access it anywhere.

And worse yet, you claim that the fact that IE ships with Windows "helps perpetuate their Windows monopoly". You are so full of shit. What helps them perpetuate the Windows monopoly is that businesses around the world uses Word, nothing else, at all.

Wait, I'm full of shit because I suggest that there might be more than one reason, hence the word helps? Which is more believable, that there is one reason, or that there are many?

If it was only Word, don't you think more businesses would be using OpenOffice on a Mac by now?

And the lies and bullshit continues. Netscape died because it wasn't open source?

I never said that.

Netscape SUCKS, SUCKED, and HAS ALWAYS SUCKED.

Wow, you're a moron.

Out of curiosity, you say you use Debian. What's your browser? Let me guess: Iceweasel?

You are using a Netscape derivative, my friend.

Now, here's a fucking clue, and you probably need to read this three times or so: I did not say Netscape died because it wasn't open source. I said it did not die because it became open source, which is why you have your Iceweasel.

Oh noes we can't surf the web!

[BenoitRen]

Can people please start using their brains to realise that if you don't have a web browser installed, that you can still download it? Yes, that's still possible nowadays! You don't even need to have a web browser to do it!

OEMs could install a tiny program that connects to the Internet and downloads your favourite web browser after asking you which one you would like. They could host a recent version on a fixed spot on their website.

Can an OEM choose to not install IE and provide Firefox or Opera instead? No, it can't. Back in the day Microsoft would even threaten to revoke their OEM licenses if they uninstalled IE, or even removed the icons, and/or installed Netscape. That's Microsoft abusing their monopoly right there!

A lot of people seem to have forgotten why bundling IE was so bad and are making up excuses. They should be ashamed of themselves. And shot. Twice.

CSS today ODF + PDF tomorrow

[BlueParrot]

If Opera manages to get precedence set for forcing Microsoft to adopt CSS standards, imagine the implications with regards to ODF and PDF....

Ww need more soap, lots of it. Let's make this slope as slippery as we can.

Re:CSS today ODF + PDF tomorrow

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Regarding PDF, Microsoft had support for PDF in Office 2k7, but Adobe threatened to sue Microsoft in the EC (fearing that it would threaten Adobe's own monopoly in Office to PDF conversion tools), which forced Microsoft to remove PDF support. How's that for irony? An "open" format (PDF) that Microsoft is forbidden to support in its products.

As for ODF, Microsoft is sponsoring an open source ODF plugin for Office, so they already do that.

Oh, and OOXML is well on its way to becoming an ISO standard (see Brian Jones' latest blog entry on the progress ECMA is making to address the objections raised to the OOXML submission). When that happens, I fully expect you to make a post saying that all parties should be forced to support OOXML, since it'll be an open ISO standard.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, one more thing: I strongly suspect that at least half this argument has nothing to do with unbundling IE, and is really about forcing IE to comply with the web standards they've been shitting on all these years. And this provides a neat counterpoint to above -- if Apple had 90% and MS had 10%, Apple still wouldn't be under as much fire, because Webkit actually follows standards. Wasn't it the first to pass ACID2?

No, the point is that FOSSies can't win over consumers... and shockingly, consumers don't give two shits about "web standards". They just want a browser that works, and IE is the most stable and secure browser out there right now.

So now, since you guys still don't realize the "Browser Wars" are over, and Microsoft won, you are seeking to get your arbitrary standards written into law. That's going to eventually harm ALL us computer users. Once you make "web standards" into law, how long do you think it will be before lawmakers start taking over the creation of those standards? Are you really foolish enough to think they are going to let you guys write law?

Give up your blind hatred of Microsoft. Try getting a real IT job, and start realizing how happy businesses are with Windows, and how it does things no other operating system is doing. Lunix and OSX are niche products because they don't have those capabilities which allow them to compete. That's not Microsoft's fault.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Re:The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars

[SanityInAnarchy]

No, the point is that FOSSies can't win over consumers... and shockingly, consumers don't give two shits about "web standards". They just want a browser that works

Consumers are getting Safari on iPhones, Opera on Wiis, and occasionally are testing out OS X and Linux on the desktop. They do indeed just want a browser that works, but part of a working browser is one which displays websites properly. The only working definition of "properly", and even MS agrees with me here, is "according to the standard".

So now, since you guys still don't realize the "Browser Wars" are over, and Microsoft won, you are seeking to get your arbitrary standards written into law.

Standards which Microsoft helped create, and now doesn't follow.

Give up your blind hatred of Microsoft. Try getting a real IT job, and start realizing how happy businesses are with Windows, and how it does things no other operating system is doing.

Give up your own blind hatred. I have a real IT job. I am forced to use Windows and Linux every day, and occasionally help the boss out with OS X.

But I don't suppose I'm going to get through to you. I've been trolled pretty hard, haven't I?

Re:The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars

[QuietObserver]

But I don't suppose I'm going to get through to you. I've been trolled pretty hard, haven't I?

I would like to point out that my earlier argument to your earlier attempt to speak reason to the AC's in this thread, while I fully support everything I said, was aimed more toward the AC than at you, though I won't take a single word of my earlier statement back. I do completely agree with your everything you've said in this specific post, however. Microsoft has a history of bullying the markets it enters.

And the idea that IE is completely stable is, in my opinion, extremely laughable. As the AC stated, Firefox does have its problems, but contrary to the AC's statements, Mozilla doesn't just sit on their hands and ignore the issues; they may not respond immediately to every bug, but they don't rest on their laurels, either. Microsoft, on the other hand, sat on the buggy IE6 until Firefox began threatening its market dominance. IE7 may be better (though I'll never know, since I've now nearly detached myself from Microsoft completely, and have no intention of returning; I only VM Windows so I can use the WordPerfect 9 suite), but Microsoft lost my interest in finding out.

Re:The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars

[SanityInAnarchy]

Thanks.

I should also say that your earlier reply was actually not as aggressive in tone as mine... I'm trying to find a diplomatic way of saying "I'm an ass."

Just know that I almost never attack people on Slashdot, only arguments, and not always bad ones.

Re:The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars

[QuietObserver]

You're welcome. I would like to say that your response to my earlier post didn't sound like an attack on me, just a counter balance to my arguments. I, too, avoid attacking people when I make responses. I tend to find that attacks on people generally say that the writer is speaking emotionally, and isn't thinking his comments through very thoroughly.

Flame Retardant Suit now equipped

[MrCopilot]

Disclaimer: I am an Open Source user/advocate/evangelist. So save your educating flames for someone who needs them.

Back in the day, long before we had competing FREE browsers, we had to pay for em. I for one was happy Microsoft bundled What I considered "necessary" Applications with the OS. Why should we have to plop down (back then) $4000 for a PC and then run out and spend another couple hundred to $1000 for apps, just to listen to music or browse the web.

Sure like everyone else here, I wish it wasn't IE. But at least you could browse the web. It wasn't the bundling we were upset with, it was the anti competitiveness of MS to OEMs who wanted to ship Netscape.

Skip ahead to present.

Personally I hope IE phones home to see that every Windows reinstall I've ever done shows Firefox download as the very first web destination. I used to replace the Firefox icon with IE's now I replace the IE Icon with this one. That is assuming I cannot convince them to switch to Linux.

I understand Opera being upset. But I don't see where they can complain anymore. They should focus their efforts on bundling their browser with hardware, like the Wii, and cell phones. Does doing so make their position hypocritical?

How many people still code for IE? I don't. If it doesn't look good in IE, I could care less. @work I force everybody to use Firefox. We put a best viewed in Firefox badge on our sites and fret not, Saving untold # of man hours and headaches.

Re:Flame Retardant Suit now equipped

[drspliff]

I think you've missed one of the main points - forcing people to use Firefox is just going back to the bad old ways of "Designed for IE".

"Oh cool, I can do this in Firefox/Mozilla, but it means it doesn't work so well in other browsers - well everybody uses Firefox anyway so why does it matter..."

I use a mix of Opera, Safari, Firefox, IE and at times Links and Dillo. I target the standards instead of specific browsers, then test to make sure it's usable in all the common browsers.

I was lucky that I never had the "coded for IE" mindset - being an early user of Mosiac, Netscape, IE and Opera gave me insight into why being able to use the same page across multiple browsers was an important thing. In the monoculture of Internet Explorer and Windows that most web developers/designers started in it was almost expected to forget the original meaning and use of HTML that we're only starting to get back to today.

Re:Flame Retardant Suit now equipped

[MrCopilot]

I think you've missed one of the main points - forcing people to use Firefox is just going back to the bad old ways of "Designed for IE". "Oh cool, I can do this in Firefox/Mozilla, but it means it doesn't work so well in other browsers - well everybody uses Firefox anyway so why does it matter..."

Um, ok. Have you ever seen a site coded for Firefox that doesn't render in Opera/Konquerer/Safari/links/dillo.

yeah, me either, Unless its completely graphical. I code for standards too, I just check it thoroughly in Firefox and recommend it highly.

Re:Flame Retardant Suit now equipped

[hkmwbz]

I understand Opera being upset. But I don't see where they can complain anymore.

They can complain that Microsoft prevents competition, which they do.

They should focus their efforts on bundling their browser with hardware, like the Wii, and cell phones. Does doing so make their position hypocritical?

No, because neither Nintendo nor Opera are monopolists.

How many people still code for IE?

Lots.

joke of a country

[Anonymous Coward]

in the U.S., MS has a free ride, break up MS? Sure... in the same country where marijuana is illegal and O.J. has walked free?

Firefox WAS somewhere.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Firefox did not always have the free money you speak of. From what I remember, even before Firefox, Mozilla had more users than Opera.

Firefox would be nowhere near what it is, but it would probably still be ahead of Opera.