Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Lets You Uninstall IE8
CWmike writes "A just-leaked build of Windows 7 lets users remove Internet Explorer, the first time that Microsoft has offered the option since it integrated the browser with Windows in 1997, two bloggers reported today. The move might have been prompted by recent charges by the European Union that Microsoft has stifled browser competition by bundling IE with its operating system, the bloggers speculated. One solution under consideration by the EU would require Microsoft to disable IE if the user decided to install a different browser, such as Mozilla's Firefox or Google's Chrome. Microsoft had no comment when asked to confirm whether Windows 7 will let users dump IE8 or whether the option was in reaction to the EU charges."
Me installing firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled.
Ah, you may like it to be there. Not everyone does. And that's the crux of the matter... Having the freedom to choose. Which of course nobody cares about when they choose to go with the majority. Fortunately, the EU understands that the rights of minorities are more important.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It seems the astroturfers are going crazy trying to confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with end users. The important thing the EU is trying to get is for OEM's to have the ability to replace IE with (or add to IE) Firefox or some other browser.
Let's repeat this carefully:
1. An OEM (like Dell) must be able to load the computer with arbitrary programs, some of which compete with Microsoft's world domination plans, without Microsoft being able to punish them by changing the terms of their OEM contract.
2. This has NOTHING to do with what users do with their machine after they get it home. Astroturfers are trying to say this has something to do with installing alternative browsers, or some kind of installation switch to allow the users to choose, or other bullshit. That is just to make it sound like the EU is forcing the machines to be "hard to use". In fact it is making the machine easier to use because it allows end users to not have to do the "hard" installation step, this difficulty is in fact a major part of Microsoft's lock-in.
3. Yes the IE libraries are not going away. They cannot, as other programs use them and expect them. This is not relevant as the browser that people are using to talk to the outside world is not calling these libraries.
4. It does sound like the truth is that IE is somewhat more "integrated" than just the existence of libraries, and thus Microsoft had to do some work so that everything works if the ie.exe file is missing (such as apparently removing the ability to choose it as the default browser if it is missing). Good for them, they are obeying the rules.
Maybe you shouldn't rely on it, then? Detect whether it's available upon installation. If it is, use it - if not, install and use a different layout engine (gecko, webkit, whatever)
Posting anonymously for reasons that are soon to be obvious.
Huh? I'm sorry, this isn't obvious at all. Is it because you made a pro-windows post and think you're going to get modded down? From what I've seen in my time here, well-thought-out posts that defend any OS seldom get modded down. Occasionally you'll get one or two downmods from zealots, but those will generally be corrected by later mods.
(I won't get into the silliness of posting anonymously to protect a fictitious karma number in the first place...
Maybe I shouldn't rely on any sort of Library? Bundle my own browser, GUI toolkit, Shell? audio/video codecs? Hell, how about my own HAL?
Do you know a how long it takes to get permission to use or even link users to download a piece of software? So many potential liability issues that a multibillion dollar product has to deal with?
Idealist heaven for you as it might be, it's pure hell for the developers.
Um, any decision Linus makes on the Kernel doesn't really affect speed or make the entire OS feel full of cruft. If Canonical decides to totally screw up something, I can apt-get remove it and reinstall a different version with no problem. Ok, sure if you disagree with EVERYTHING Canonical does apt-get remove might not work for you, but thats why there are 100s other distros. But for almost anything Canonical can screw up, a fix is just about 3 commands away, whereas when MS screws up it takes hours to remove.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So then everyone has to distribute an engine with their apps or assume everyone has a net conection? Which engine? Will I end up with three or four render engines on my Windows desktop just like I have Qt, GTK+, GTK2 and whatever else on my Linux ones? Reminds me of all the software discs with "IE4 included!"
How about the option to remove the network stack or the window manager? The file manager? MS has a monopoly on file managers because Win comes with one preinstalled! To me, it's all part of the product they're selling, so I shouldn't complain if it comes with whatever feature they sold to me(bugs aside).
Obligatory car analogy: I think Ford should stop selling cars with alternators. Other parts of the car rely on having electricity to run, but what if I don't like the one they sold to me in my car?
Maybe MS should just improve the quality of its rendering engine.
i'm not sure why people think ubuntu is any more bloated than any other mainstream linux distro.
Canonical are basically going to get criticised no matter which approach they take: if they don't go for the kitchen-sink approach then Ubuntu isn't casual user friendly and shame on them for making people rely on package management; when it does it's considered too bloated and crufty.
It's a no-win situation, someone's always going to gripe.