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."
A compelling feature to drag people away from XP.
Now only if it included a utility to uninstall Windows...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Man who remove Internet Explorer but not Windows is a little like Lance Armstrong: still one Ballmer remaining.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
...you don't use the browser for updates anymore. You haven't since XP.
Read the article. They state that iexplore.exe is gone.
Sure, some libraries will stick around. They have to, otherwise a lot of applications will break. You can't "decouple" a dependency from applications without breaking them. But IE was never integrated into the kernel; it was integrated into the shell. I know that doesn't jive with your particular interpretation of the definition of an "operating system", but that is the reality of the situation.
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
The kernel isn't the operating system. That's the basis of the GNU/Linux vs. Linux debate.
That said, this seems to be functionally comparable to deleting the Safari.app on a Mac - the application is gone and cannot be launched, but the rendering engine sticks around because it's used elsewhere in the operating system for other tasks.
That was what people were saying for ages. There is almost no way to remove mshtml (the real ie) from an up and running Windows OS.
It was possible, one Aussie teacher made a state of art .inf file and called it Win98 lite. It was even mentioned in court by judge. In fact, it could impress anyone since the speed of OS actually skyrocketed.
MS was unhappy of course and they built this massive IT conspiracy making sure it will never happen again and they would easily say ''Order us to remove? Well, see what happens when it is removed''. With lazy Windows developers and gecko.dll never stabilizing enough like todays Firefox or Apple Webkit, the plot worked fine.
If one installs Windows of any kind today, he should never pass any IE updates since it is there, working and massively linked even by Microsoft's most die-hard rivals.
Looks like the newest prank to play on someone's computer will include uninstalling all of their browsers.
-- lol pwned
Uh, they already did that a few years ago, beginning with Vista. Windows Update is completely decoupled from the web browser. It runs as a standalone Control Panel applet.
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)
Well, the parent articles covered this, which leads me to my point:
Why couldn't this slashdot post point to the two people who actually came up with this? CWMike provided no original insight whatsoever.
Original sites referenced by CW's article:
http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/03/ie8-functionally-removable/
http://chris123nt.com/2009/03/03/win7-build-7048-ie8-is-removable/
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
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.
> ... 6 apps that I have that will break, off the top of my head.
You may want to move your head out of the way - you're liable to get a concussion.
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.
(No such problem on Linux, of course; rm -rf / will happily wipe your entire fs, including the rm binary and the /bin directory.)
This is a "bug". Under recent POSIX revisions this is now considered incorrect behaviour (something about trying to follow "/." and "/.."):
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck/entry/rm_rf_protection
Supposedly Debian (from Sid onwards) also does not allow 'rm -rf /'.
This is a "bug". Under recent POSIX revisions this is now considered incorrect behaviour (something about trying to follow "/." and "/.."):
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck/entry/rm_rf_protection
I didn't realize that had been changed recently. How sad. Another bit of Unix lore that only us old-timers will get to experience.
By their argument, `cd /; rm -rf .' still ought to work. Sigh. That lacks the drama, the feeling, the intensity of slamming down the return key knowing you're about to delete every file on the system. :-)
Supposedly Debian (from Sid onwards) also does not allow 'rm -rf /'.
Pathetic. But at least you get the source to rm(1) so you can fix that bug - or write your own, it's not that hard.
Now, get off my lawn.
Maybe MS should just improve the quality of its rendering engine.
Lo and behold, they did! IE8 passes ACID2. It's still behind all the other major browsers, but they're actually working on trying to catch up.
Remember that no major browser has a currently-shipping release version that passes ACID3; Safari 4 beta and Opera 10 alpha don't count quite yet. It's been argued that Firefox scores higher than IE, but the reality is that neither of them will pass any time soon. IE8 really doesn't look too bad in this light - it's a couple years behind the curve, but only a couple years.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Server core still has IE libraries - for instance, WinInet which basically is a standard internet connectivity library is there. Hell, even Hyper-V server (the OS that is free and can only run Hyper-V) will actually get offered some IE updates - because some IE components are still part of the OS. Iexplore.exe isn't there, but other chunks are there because substantial parts of the OS (and even third-party applications) use them.
So many strawmen, so little time...
One, Ford does not have a monopoly, therefore they are not subject to the restrictions put on monopoly players.
Two, does it really make a difference to you if you have three or four render engines on your desktop? The space used is negliegable today. Different from the different GUI systems you list for comparison, you'd not notice very much anyways.
Three, the file-manager-monopoly is entirely misleading. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Leveraging it to drive out competition is.
Four, this is not a matter of quality. Even if IE were the absolut best browser around, it would still be the same problem, except maybe that MS wouldn't drag the matter out over years and do every legal and some illegal tricks on the book to avoid a judgement, because they actually could win in the market. Again, this is not a matter of quality, but of protecting the free market from one of its worst enemies: A monopoly player.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org