Slashdot Mirror
EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs
An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica's report that "the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install before they can first browse the Internet, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). While the latest Windows 7 builds let you uninstall IE8, 'third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft. The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default. The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.'"
You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.
those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?? It's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.
Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE. But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead? If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?
This is beginning to get out of hand.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.
This is just as stupid as forcing Microsoft to bundle alternative browser binaries with Windows.
The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else. Microsoft's dictating what software can be included with Windows is the real anti-competitive behavior here -- so fix it by removing that behavior. If Dell wants to include Firefox, let them. If Opera wants to sign a deal with HP to include its browser on all their machines, let them.
Don't force all OEMs to include all browsers. That's stupid and impractical.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Wont anybody think of the users. I dont want to have to make choices thats why I use Windows in the first place.
We should have multiple text-editors also! Stop the Notepad monopoly!
Which browser do you want?
[ ]IE
[ ]FireFox
[ ]Opera
[ ]Safari
Which image editor do you want?
[ ]MS Paint
[ ]GIMP
[ ]Paint.net
Which text editor do you want?
[ ]Notepad
[ ]Notepad2
[ ]vi
[ ]Emacs
and on and on...
Windows will become itself a linux-like distribution, with hundreds of included, tested, and secure packages of several alternative tools for the same purpose. Think like Kubuntu, that comes with the KDE desktop, Konqueror as default browser and several more "by default" applications, but where you can install with a command alternate browsers, office suites, entire desktops, and so on.
All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable. Like completely removable, not just a "hide the icon" sort of uninstall and give OEMs the right to put whatever browser they want on their systems.
Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user? There probably won't be any expectation of this ballot system giving the pros and cons of each browser so they'll just opt for the familiar IE they've always used.
EU proves to be ineffective by being too late on doing something about this problem and picking a poor solution.
Hang on a minute, browser bundling?
The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default
That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?
Also.. who chooses which browsers are included in the list? M$? What's to stop M$ putting theirs at the top of the list? I like the idea but it needs more thinking through. I read TFA (yes, I'm new here, etc.) and it was very light on detail.
I somehow sense this isn't the end of the matter..
So now I'm going to have to waste another 3 minutes of my life uninstalling more shit, just so my grandma can use her new computer. All hail the mighty crapware.
How long until they're forced to offer options of different operating systems at startup?
Are they required to pick popular browsers as alternatives?
Which browser would you like to use? Internet Explorer, Lynx, or xBrowser?
1. google for this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html 2. click on 1st link 3. no paywall if you come from google
Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now. Yeah, Microsoft sucks and is anti-competitive, but including basic functionality with their O.S. without including needless redundancy is _NOT_ evil, or even slightly unpleasant.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Timothy, please next time consider the difference between the verb used in the title (EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs) and in TF summary (the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose).
We don't need you to be a professional editor (even though you probably are paid for the job), but please just try not to work like a moron from a random tabloid.
. . . forcing Windows users to choose . . .
How about saying, or believing, "Free to Choose" . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Let me preface this tirade with a disclaimer: Yes, I realize Microsoft is a huge company, with enough resources and market share to constitute a monopoly, and is therefore deserving of governments' watchful eyes. I also realize that IE may not be the highest quality browser out there; and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'. I'm also glad that Microsoft didn't get to design (for instance) the IMAP RFC. Please note I'm not making any _legal_ arguments, just "history-of-OS" type arguments.
HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed. My argument is what we, the user, perceive as an operating system changes and grows over time. I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition). I think it is in the same manner as a command shell, file browser (cd & ls), calendar, chat client, windowing system, network stack, etc. have become what we'd consider part of an OS.
Some companies and organizations are clamoring for inclusion of their pet projects by default... I say "rubbish. You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too." I can't make any analogies to car makers, nor do I care to. We can argue about "stifling innovation and choice" until we're blue in the face, but I still insist that a web browser is integral to the operating system. Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.
I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}. This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows. I'm sure there are good arguments for the EU poking its nose, but since they're so caring, they should also ask nicely that MS provide users with choice of desktop clock widgets so that the poor makers of clock software aren't left out.
Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting. That, I find really irritating.
So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users? Just because I compete with IE?
Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.
Can it get any more silly?
IE is a cheap software platform.
Microsoft controls the OEM's so they won't budge.
Take for instance my real estate friend, she wanted and bought a Mac without realizing Rapatonni is IE only.
Sure she's getting by with Citrix/IE, but it's a hassle and a security problem.
Why does Rappatoni depend on IE?, because it's cheaper than a full blown software package for each platform.
This needs to stop, by leveling the playing field of browsers, will increase other browser market share and force companies to quit depending on IE only.
I wonder whether as a result of this policy that IE6 becomes one of the many different browser options, just to keep happy those businesses with legacy code that wont work on anything else!
Now that really would cause Microsoft a headache - competing with its own lack of standards...
Not that many web designers will be happy with this though!
I think you're right.
If you have a little spare time, play great game here: mybrute.com ;-) bet youll like it.
So "all other browsers" can demand to be on the list. What's to prevent "American Adware" and "Built By Boris" (from Russian Business Network) from showing up on the list?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Your set of options sounds like doing a Linux install, save for including MS options. :)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The last thing a consumer wants to do, when they turn on a computer, is to immediately be asked more questions. It's a pain in the rear. Sorry EU, but how about we start requiring that all cars imported from the EU to the USA have the option of being fitted with American V8s....
oh wait, that sounds like a good a idea.
Never mind.
This is my sig.
If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers. Microsoft is being required to make options available. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really are literate. Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous. Nanu Nanu, dude.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The real problem isn't the IE shell, it's the Microsoft HTML control, and even if you quote-remove-IE-unquote all that removes is the shell.
If I were MS I'd do it for them for free:
Just include a copy of lynx.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
This whole "browser war" nonsense has gone on long enough. Back when a browser was a novelty, perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store, maybe it made sense to worry about competition. However, now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform, the demands being made entirely idiotic. It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not. I do agree that they should be able to disable or uninstall it if they feel it's a security problem. However, forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE's dominance has caused in the first place.
Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use. A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car. Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.
But what does a steering wheel have in common with browsers besides being a platform staple? They support standards. The steering wheel is a standard interface, and while they do vary from car to car, they all support a common baseline of functionality and features.
So the real solution to this IE problem is not to force a company to support their competition. No I vehemently disagree with that, it's simply wrong to force a company to collude with their competition. Instead, the solution is to enforce IE's support of recognized standards. If you truly wish to neuter Microsoft's control of the WWW, then limit them to implementing standards compliant browsing only, let the community and the market decide what that means, and then let people continue to make their own choices about browsers.
Frankly if you look at all platforms, not just personal computer platforms, you will see that they all include their own browser choice, whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox, or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia's S60 platform. Macs include Safari, my Wii came with a free Opera download, my DSi came with a free opera download, and my PS3 includes a browser based on the same tech they use for their feature cell phones.
So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're failing to target the real problem in the first place.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
It's not fair that General Motors put only their own radio in my Malibu.
Worse, they tied my Chevy's radio to the operating system: the volume turns up when the car goes faster, and it knows which key fob I used to unlock the doors. This is anticompetitive and monopolist.
I demand that GM install multiple radios -- one each from Ford, Chrysler, Bosch, Blaupunkt, and Kraco, plus an open-source handwired crystal receiver from Heathkit -- and I demand that they print the wiring diagram on the hood (so I can design my own radio anytime I come down off the Percocet).
Every time I start the car, I should be presented with a menu allowing me to choose which will serve as the "default radio."
No. IE is not Explorer. I have an Nlited Windows XP, from which IE has been completely removed. Explorer works just fine without IE. Stop spreading FUD, please.
However - Explorer can be removed from XP along with IE, and replaced with some other shell. There are dozens of them available, many for free. The pretty icons, taskbar, systray, and start menus that you cite aren't even "part of the operating system", as you seem to imply.
My #1 favorite file browser is PowerDesk. I generally retain the Explorer shell, because the prettiest and best shells are proprietary, and I'm not willing to pay for them.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Apple has not yet been convicted in multiple courts of being a monopoly, let alone an abusive monopoly. Personally, I think they ARE monopolistic, but haven't crossed the line into true monopoly land. If/when they are proven a monopoly IN COURT by competent jurists, then I suppose that the same sanctions being put into place against Microsoft might be used against Mac.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
But making the average Joe choose between Notepad and vim would certainly be a distaster for those that chose vim.
Why? Modern versions of Vim and Emacs have a traditional Windows-style menu bar (see Vim screenshot) to let the user copy and paste with less retraining than from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007.
The first thing that I want a brand new Windows installation to do is download the latest security patches. Downloading a web browser should come after that.
That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?
Gopher. Or a minimal web browser that can't resolve DNS outside browser.microsoft.com.
OEMs pick image organisers for their users: also fine
OEMs pick ISP software for their users: no problem
OEMs are given the opportunity to pick browsers for their users: *shitstorm*
To me this looks like the media trolling for attention; in the real world OEMs will either bundle IE or IE + firefox, and no end user will notice any difference...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
I used a medical analogy where I should have used a car analogy. An immediate correction is required:
If a car mechanic adds water to your car so that your cooling system works, that's legal. If he adds water to your car so that your brake fluid doesn't work that would be illegal. When Microsoft designed their system so that even when a third party browser was installed, you couldn't remove IE and still ended up using IE for functionality like help browsing, they added the water to the brake fluid. It's not just what you do; it's why you do it and how you do it.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
No. IE is not Explorer. I have an Nlited Windows XP, from which IE has been completely removed. Explorer works just fine without IE.
I'm facepalming hard. Internet Explorer uses the same exact libraries as Explorer, and for you to say anything otherwise as though you know what you are talking about simply makes you an imbecil. IE being "removed completely" simply means that everything having solely to do with IE was removed... and maybe... have the libraries that were shared between iexplore.exe and explorer.exe be renamed so the EU thinks they were removed.
I would just LOVE to, when installing Windows, have to sit through a dozen screens asking me "hey which browser do you want, hey which text editor do you want, hey which music player do you want, hey which chat software do you want...". NOT. FUCK YOU EU, your whole court system is a bunch of money-grubbing morons.
I'll give PowerDesk a try to see if I like it better than Explorer.
*I'm not affiliated with SharpE in any way; just a satisfied user.*
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
If you are looking for a really nice replacement shell, check out litestep. It's actually the only thing I miss from windows (I now use ubuntu). Well, that and being able to adjust my volume during a full-screen game...
The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google. If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.
Now that Google has its own platform in Chrome why does it need Mozilla?
my mod points when I need them? Someone mod the parent up a point or two please
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Ok, let's put one thing straight:
Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.
If the wants to forbid anyone else to bundle, it can do it. If it wants to scrap it into the trashcan, be it.
What Microsoft has no right to do is to claim what Windows is not. They claim it is an Operating System. Cool, I have my little-pretty program here, I want to run it on Windows. No way? Then don't tell me you are selling an operating system. Call it whatever you want - a all-bundled system, an application complex, the bloat of the gloat or the gloat of the bloat...
But "Operating System" is something with a clear definition, with a definite purposefulness and for which Microsoft has no patents, trademarks or special privileges. Stop using it, stop using the OS definitions to describe Windows and be happy. Like Sony and other companies.
However Microsoft does no do it. Why?
Because it is afraid of loosing potential market?
It fears that someone may come with some new bright idea and they will not be able to surrepteously bundle it?
Because this may create independent systems upon which Microsoft will not have a hand on?
Because it will be much harder to asfixiate a concurrent?
And for how long such opportunism will continue? Until all creativism is crushed and the land barren?
I'm really, really, really, REALLY confused about why Slashdotters hate this idea so much. When people install Windows, they'll be asked which browser they want to use. What could be better than that? How did tortured objections like "but then they'll have to include Lynx Spyware Edition!" become so popular?
Property is theft.
bundle competing browsers. They didn't "pull" Windows from OEMs that did bundle them.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
OEMs with discounts for not bundling competing software. So the "power isn't left with them".
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard.
When IE came to dominance it came because Netscape came to pure suckiness. Does anyone here acutally remember using Netscape? My god it was horrible.
Hell netscape wanted to use layers. LAYERS!!!! over divs. Everyone got their panties in a bundle because MS introduced IFRAMES...some thing badly needed and DIVs still need a SRC attribute if you ask me.
Firefox 2 and up is great. But that was only a few years back. IE has to deal with a whole era of legacy that Firefox does not. MS should be yelled at for ActiveX, but in reality the problem is with HTML. Many Intranet apps used by call centers and the like really didn't work all the great in HTML 3.2...even 4 when it first came out. Hell AJAX is just now getting somewhat stable...if you want to call it that. Libraries like JQuery and Prototype have turned a piece of shit lanaguage like Javascript into a usable one...a real language wouldn't need a library just be useable.
Web "standards" are treated as some sort of god ordaned thing. Or even worse like stanards such as TCP/IPv4. IPv4 and TCP are incredibly simple compared to HTML. HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 are similiar in complexity, but HTML is like an entire GUI API. Add CSS in there and my god what a mess.
I've been developing since I was 12 (30 now) and I honestly have no desire to anymore with this hunk of shit we call the web stack. Even this sight slashdot is going to hell as more and more DHTML comes into play. At work it looks entirely different. I surf in IE, Firefox, and Chrome at home. At work I'm stuck on IE 7. I see differences in all three and worse I see Javascript just randomly breaking. As most of us have seen one bad line of JS and all the JS stops(ever had Google analytics fail?)...so the page then renders wrong...or won't submit because every anchor in slashdot has an onclick handler..I'm guessing added by some JQuery like piece of code that scours the page for them. DOM tranversing is incredibly buggy in all browser and even between releases. I have had tried and ture Prototype library code just not work on some form in Firefox...then pull it up in IE and bam.
JS performance has gotten way better with Firefox and Chrome. And developers are taking advantage of the finally optmized versions. Why the hell was it so slow in the first place huh? And of course I'm already seeing Firefox and IE just "hangin" while a JS happily loops over huge sections of the ever increasinly bloated DOM. Talk about bloatware...the DOM is getting out of control.
Hulu is now releasing a full desktop app, eBay put out an AIR app, iTunes is a desktop app. Flex and Silverlight will have some limited footprint. The vast majority will be newspaper sights where the HTML is just lots of formatted text. Intranet apps will likely be Flex and Silverlight or heavy Ajax stuff with one browser still being "recommend over another". Chrome is already putting out example that just run in it.
At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser. This is a just a futile effort by the EU. They just want to punish IE...maybe a few want to help the end users...but if that was the case they'd invest money in Ubuntu and bring it the rest of the way.
Why exactly would an OEM want to do this?
It's not like bundling Firefox with their PC is going to increase their sales or profit. If Opera were going to pay them to bundle their browser, they would have done it by now (as someone has already pointed out, Microsoft doesn't prevent this).
In short, I really cannot see any OEM's bothering to do this - and so nothing will change.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
So when is the EU going to slap Apple computers with the same thing. OS X comes with Safari... that's bad! When I buy and install an OS I expect to be able to use the internet, listen to music. If it keeps going on like this, they are going to make us get a media player, a browser, quite possibly we might have to get a start button! =O. I better see Apple computers getting slapped with the same type of bullsh*t in the future.
"I'm facepalming hard."
Could be you are doing it wrong? Lose the palm, try the edge of the table. If you regain consciousness, you might want to explore nlite: http://www.box.net/shared/c1d4bd0az5#1:10768665:108618379 http://www.nliteos.com/guide/ Shared DLL's remain, of course. The DLL's are called "shared" for a reason. But, IE can be removed, not just disabled.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Which browser do you want?
I'll never understand how a geek could even - think - that allowing the EU bureaucrat to decide what can and cannot be included in a standard OS distribution was a good idea.
The political winds shift and Ubuntu is in his sights now.
I missed the part where folks in eu are being forced to buy MS anything. If they don't like the product they can use *nix or macos or whatever. MS should tell them take it or leave it. Let's see how well they do w/o any MS products.
Does ShDocVw.dll still exist? Check. Can I use it to embed an IE control into an application? Check.
It is still there.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Everyone knows that the reason the majority of (non-technical) users don't change their browser is that they never see a need to change from IE, or don't even understand what a browser is. (Then there's the millions of corporate machines still running IE6, but we won't go there). This leaves a (thankfully shrinking) majority of net users using the least standards compliant browser, which probably would have less users than Opera if it wasn't bundled with Windows.
A pop-up box that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari will massively increase the market share of the other players, and the average user will soon learn that IE is really not that great. Hopefully, the real achievement of this scheme will be to force MSFT to create a solid, standards compliant browser. To their credit, they're already starting to move in this direction, but it'll take some actual free market competition to really push this along. I can't wait.
So by your logic, if two programs share any libraries then the two programs are actually the same?
"Everything having solely to do with IE" is what IE is. IE is to Explorer like an extension is to Firefox. If you remove the extension, it's gone. That fact that what it was built on top of remains does not change the fact that it is gone.
Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
I can't help but feel that this isn't so much about fairness and more about penalising Microsoft. When you look at Apple, which not only bundles the browser with the OS, but the hardware, and has it against the T&Cs that you can't install the OS on anything else, Microsoft's browser bundling really seems like a bit of a non-issue.
How exactly is the user going to be able to select and download a browser if there's not a default browser already installed on the computer?
I really don't see why the browser should be such a priority, it is easier to install Firefox than another OS and Windows is more dominant in the OS market than MSIE in the browser market.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Which is one reason of the smaller reasons I don't like Linux. I don't want to waste lots of time install all the junk that comes with it. Atleast with the OEM junk, a format and reinstall will clear it. But unbuntu includes it in the cd!
Use debootstrap to get a minimal install and install stuff from there.
This has been taken far enough. I mean, seriously, a ballot screen? Once you apply this system to web browsers, it sets a precedent that could be applied uniformly, i.e. choose every single piece of software individually. Thing is, there's already something that fits this description: it's called Gentoo.
If Microsoft has a monopoly, why are they spending so much money to compete against Apple?
The fact is that operating system is not complete without a browser, the same as a car is not complete without a radio. Microsoft has every right to include a browser, and they have the right to build it themselves.
If you don't like it, and you clearly don't, fix it yourself when you get your PC home... or buy a Mac, or get a pile of parts and duct-tape some flavor of Linux to them.
Microsoft - Windows is the "gloat of the bloat and bloat of the gloat"
User - What is this moat of the goat or...
Microsoft - It is a complex of programs to feel a unique experience on digital information.
User - Can I put something into your?..
Microsoft - No way. Verbotten! It's pure proprietary, closed source, use it or drop it.
Now laws are being broken here. And it's not a question wether this works on PCs or not. It is clear black on white.
Now if...
Microsoft - Windows is an Operating System!
User - Can I put my program?
Microsoft - Eh, uh... No. Use ours or drop dead.
That IS a violation of law. More it is an antitrust violation because in the OS market you have a privileged position and you are misleading everyone AND using that "mislead" to kick out the alternatives.
So the EU thinks it's great to force Windows users to choose a browser... so why isn't it a solution for EVERY operating system? Why aren't OSX and Linux forced to give Opera a chance to sell them a browser?
Oh that's right- the EU has an entire subset of the law which applies only to Microsoft. Typical FOSS strategy- they can't win in the marketplace, and they can't win in the courts... so they have to try winning in the legislature.
I've never played a full-screen game on Linux (it's on of the reasons I switched to linux, I wanted to kick my gaming habit), but kmix has a nice on-screen global volume control overlay (plus, for multi-head setups, it shows centre of the screen with the pointer on it). It does, however, work on fullscreen video (even xshm/X11 overlay), so I'd imagine it would work on fullscreen gameplay. By default it uses the XF86VolumeUp and XF86VolumeDown (which means supported multimedia keyboards and/or fancy mice and/or fancy discrete HIDs like numpads/gamepads), but there's no reason you can't add a custom binding using (kmix settings/$GLOBAL_HOTKEY_MANAGER/xbindkeys/$MEDIA-PLAYER-WITH-GLOBAL-HOTKEY-SUPPORT).
You seem to think I ride with the crowd that is complaining that IE is still there when you remove it. Sorry that I didn't properly express my opinion on the matter. My take is that you can't remove IE from Windows because there is so much that relies on the same libraries that IE relies on, and that Internet Explorer in itself is primarily just a shell for those libraries that happens to surf the internet instead of your filesystem. Therefore, the "removal" of Internet Explorer isn't actually a removal of Internet Explorer, because complete removal of all things Internet Explorer would break basic functionality of the Operating System without some sort of replacement of those libraries (like how Runaway1956 talked about third-party shells).
Gnome works exactly the same. The problem is not my lack of media buttons. The buttons (volume, pause, next, etc) all work perfectly fine during web browsing, full screen movies, etc. It's only fullscreen games that mess it up. For some reason the games like to "steal" the buttons, preventing them from even firing off the event in the first place.
If the concern is standards, then it makes more sense for the EU to require IE to adopt standards than to enforce bundling.
Try KDE and GNOME.
"IE damages web standards."
There's a long history of browsers breaking or extending standards. Javascript, AJAX, and other capabilities would not exist if standards had been religiously followed. Standards work when they codify existing practice - they're not an effective means of planning for the future.
With about 66% of the world using IE, it is the de facto standard whether or not it's a good one. The WC3 has it's own agenda and it's not an organization who's decisions are inherently superior to those of browser makers.
It's a red fruit.
Yes, you can. You can remove IE, but Trident is left behind. Same as if you remove Safari from Mac OS X (by dragging it to the trash), WebKit remains behind for other programs to use. Internet Explorer is not Trident.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
It's not an IE control. It's a TRIDENT control. That's like saying embedding Gecko is embedding Firefox.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
...forcing Linux distros bundling Internet Explorer?
Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse delendam.
Just ask yourself, why Chrome. What on earth would google do with their own browser? Just one thing and one thing only, try to FORCE all other browsers to increase their capabilities.
If you are involved with the web, then MS/IE is the ISA bus. It is the 8 bit application that still got to be supported. It is keeping the whole web back.
I could right now design a web app that will blow the socks of anything available, and it can never be commercial because it won't run on IE6/IE7 or even IE8. Google is pushing like mad to develop javascript libraries to code around IE so that stuff other browsers properly support can be made to work under IE as well, but the performance impact is a killer. IE is already by far the slowest browser, adding extra javascript to make it more capable is hardly going to help with web-apps.
MS doesn't want web-apps, because it can't control them. More over, their IE team either has secret orders or just isn't competent. You got to wonder what the reason is Opera, Apple, KDE, Mozilla and some others can implement the standards with speed and MS just can't. Lack of resources, hidden agenda or just plain incompetence. Take PNG encoding, MS still hasn't got it right. The official message is they want to support it, so why can't their coders do something everyone else has been doing for years?
So the browser wars are still very much on. But this time it ain't a battle for who sells the most browsers. It is a battle for the internet itself. Their is Google on one side, that wants to have web-based apps and MS which doesn't. As long as IE is the dominant browser, web-apps will have to be either crippled or limit themselves to certain browsers which is economic suicide.
MS doesn't care about standards or even market share, it just wants the web to die and go away. Lets not forget that MS looses money to the web, their encarta offering had to be killed because Wikipedia killed it. Do you really think MS wants to risk fully HTML5 capable browsers killing its office line? google docs is good enough for me and if google docs could ditch IE support it would be even better. That is what MS fears.
The browser wars are over, the battle for the internet has just started.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In the EU monopolies and market dominant companies are controlled by regulation agencies. These agencies ensure that the market still works even if a company gained dominance. They do this in the telecommunication sector, so big telcos like Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom have to open their nets. The same applies to electricity companies and of course to Microsoft, as they have a dominant position in the software sector.
In a function market situation, there would be no need to regulate MS. However, today they can corner the market. You either play by their rules or you don' t play. This dominance eradicates the positive effects of a market based economy. Therefore the EU has to act and regulate them.
Force MS to remove IE from windows, and then let OEMs bundle whatever browser they want...
99% of users receive windows preinstalled with a hardware purchase anyway, and most oems already bundle all kinds of stuff with their installs.
And before you bring up linux, this is exactly how linux works, Linus only distributes a kernel and it is up to third parties to bundle it together with other apps.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
As far as I am concerned, this is pretty much a non-issue. If the EU intends to on creating a true-choice landscape (which wouldn't be a bad thing) they'd go for the OEM's by requiring them to have blank computers as default. If Windows is desired by the customer, they should ship an extra-cost retail copy of it (which would also take care of the recovery disk BS). Likewise for any other OS (Linux could be shipped on a simple CD if no retail box exists). This would offer true choices as well in regards to wants and needs of the customer, capabilities of the OS and the true cost associated with said choice.
Further a compatibility test suite should be developed, by which all OS' and their preinstalled applications should be subjected to. For example, the installed browsers (I really don't care which one) need to comply in full to a set of published web standards. The current test result status of the various offerings can easily be displayed on some web site for reference. Office Suites need to be *fully* compatible in regards to some base formats (OpenDocument lends itself nicely, as well as PDF) and rigorous testing needs to take place. If they fail to read/write/import a document from another standards-compliant suite without farking everything up, it should be tossed out as a possible default installation for OEM's and if installed anyway, the OEM sanctioned. Ditto for e-mail etc.
Only such enforced base-line measures could possibly make a real difference by requiring inter-operability standards regardless of OS and application and get rid of the mess we're in with monopoly abuses and vendor-lock-in etc..
I really don't know how your comment can be considered insightful
1) This is just a proposal so its very hard to criticise right now, however many people have recommended similar plans.
2) The whole point is to remove MS form the equation, let Manufacturers decide what to install as they are not invested in the software business.
3) So your only real hope is to convince HP, Dell or whoever, that your browser creates some added value and therefore they will get more sales, Google, Mozilla and Opera are betting that they can win this argument. You have the right to do the same.
Goodness knows why anyone would tag your comment insightful.
Nobody is suggesting that your browser should be included with MS.
Read the article again and try to understand what it says. If it isn't your first language, get someone to help you. Make sure you're sobered up first though.
Litestep is based on Afterstep, which you can easily installed on Ubuntu...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Without them the riches that are available tend to end up in the hands of the biggest, nastiest beast in the jungle.
Regulations are there to, amongst other things, prevent monopolies forming.
See Enron to understand what a lack of regulation and oversight can lead to.
The subject line says it all. The amount of pro MS nonsense and PR spin directed against the EU court judgement, and similar issues is increasing on Slashdot, while the amount of reasoned argument is in decline (no, I'm not new here).
It is of course a perfect platform for them because of the high percentage of Linux users which can be found here.
In the long term it won't work because it will just antagonise people who are capable for thinking for themselves.
The best solution to all this madness would be to disallow Microsoft to have lock-in technologies in their bundled browser, media player and so on. Bundle Windows Media Player all you want, as long as all Microsoft format it plays are open... Then anyone can create a competing player knowing they also can implement the same formats. Same logic goes for IE8.
Dvorak on Doomtech
That's right: you _still_ cannot actually remove Internet Explorer, only the latest versions overlaid on toop of the older ones. So even a manufacturer or environment where IE is considered a major security problem (which it is, historically), is stuck with it on every machine.
And don't forget that Microsoft Update tools _only_ work with Internet Explorer. Not using IE makes keeping your Windows machine up to date with security patches particularly awkward, at least for people without the very expensive and awkward to maintain centralized patch management technologies.
I am so happy not be subject to the insanity known as the EU.
I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.
If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.
Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
IMHO Your example is pure nonsense. It would be (closer to) a good example if:
- The car-manufacturer had a market share of >90% of all cars sold as well as of all radios sold and made their own radio's.
- The radios would require radio studios to implement extra technology because these radios would not be standard-compliant as all other brands were and not recieve standard broadcasts well.
- The other radio brands would not be able to recieve the broadcasts made with the car manufacturer's technology well.
I might have missed a few points, but I think this is a more comparable situation. (Insofar as compatibility is involved here)
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
With ISP's ? I remember when you had to delete AOL, MSN, etc off the desktops. That was really effective, wasn't it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is bad. Let;s extend the same principle to everything then. How about forcing car manufacturers to include an option to put a competitor's engine in the car. E.g. Mercedes must provide an option where the user can put a BMW engine in the car. In my opinion it makes not sense.
Visit http://www.kaizenlog.com
Why is everyone going to realize that "bundling" in not the crux of the matter.
It is COMMINGLING THE CODE that is the problem.
MS has been doing that all along.
Do you need networking? No fine. Yes which one, Novell, MS, etc.
Do you need a brower? No, fine. Yes which one, MS, Firefox, Opera, [and 100 others]
This should be part of the install or desktop icons.
All of MS website should be W3 standards compliant and not rely on Exploder. There is a monopoly violation, since I use Firefox.
REMOVE ALL code that is not essential to devices and presentation and let the customer decide what to have.
Surely if the EU are "considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install", then the same rule should be applied to Mac users, too. I can't see Apple being any more keen on the idea of being forced to give their users the option for an alternate browser right from the off than Microsoft.
...when you could just have a standardized radio enclosure and hook-up, and you can either build your own radio and put it in, or buy any number of different makes that adhere to these standards, and put one of those in?
January 2010. OK, so I take my new Windows 7 laptop back to my Paris hotel. Too bad I accidently dropped the old one in the Seine. I start it up and select a browser to download. Oops, hard stop. The hotel, like many, requires a web browser present in order to authenticate and establish an Internet connection. No web browser, no connection, no browser download. Thanks, EU competition bureaucracy, for making it impossible to fulfill the EU-mandated requirements. (Unless the EU is going to put always-on Internet access ports in all public places. Not.)
Because it's been sieved and buried in pieces through the OS (because MS can, nobody else is allowed) that an IE exploit will STILL affect them even if they don't use IE and they "uninstall" IE from their computer.
They have no choice to avoid the exploit on, for example, their Media PC (which really doesn't need IE AT ALL) because it's still in there, leaving holes in their OS.
Why?
Because they said (MS) that they could NOT compete with a browser that came with the OS.
Do you think they were lying? If so, why?
EU is more like FU, or Fascist Union. Enjoy your involuntary freedom and unified choice.
See, you yourself say that IE is "primarily just a shell". So how is removing that IE shell not removing IE? Those shared libraries left behind are most definitely not IE.
Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
if people wonder why europeans are less and less interested in a european parliament , constitution and laws this is the perfect example, until these legislators - pardon, BUREAUCRATS- focus on serious issues people will simply let the european "concept" just sit out and die !
Without EU regulations there would be no serious attempt to have a level playing field for all the country members (things are bad as they are, no regulation would make them worse).
Normally the tabloid media name the regulations out of context, in which they seem ridiculous, further scrutiny very often reveals that there are very good reasons for arriving to certain rulings.
Granted, the EU will get some things monumentally wrong, but that does not mean that all what they do is useless and that regulation is uncalled for (banks gave us a shinning example of why we need regulation).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please refer us to the official MS document that will tell us how to do this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Don't embarrass yourself missing that obvious point.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What is your problem with that exactly?
Let companies get it right, but let the EU in this case force them to make sure they are offering choice.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh yeah, never. That was much better.
There is such a thing as reputation, if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Have you been asleep the last couple of years or what?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How many years do you need for something *not* to be a knee jerk reaction?
One hundred?
One glacial age?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Authorities in general don't get to clean the mess left behind by people or entities braking the law.
They impose remediation that in many instances may not be 100% satisfactory, but they may be doing the best of a bad job.
MS is the one that created this mess, don't blame the EU if it is difficult to come with a clean solution.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is a great way of approach problems you have got there: brake the law in a way that makes life convenient, sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.
How can serious people advocate this?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Car analogies are fun if used with some degree of wit
Car analogies are not always pertinent, this is such a case.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You don't have to own 100% of the market in order to be considered to have monopolistic influence in that market.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Who gets to decide on the list?
People that sell and/or manufacture computers. The problem has been MS dictating what these companies can install, and thus, favouring their own browser.
Why browsers, but not other basic programs?
Because MS went out of its way in order to obliterate competition in the browser market when it was on its infancy. They subsidized a product and arm forced hardware manufacturers in order to make sure no other company could get access to a computer's desktop.
Won't people look at the screen, confused for a moment, and then click the familiar blue e?
They may, but that is not the point. Just ensuring people know there are choices would be good enough.
Why even bother doing this, since the people who care can easily get a new browser?
Because is people not caring whoul should be made aware about the state of affairs.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For somebody deriding others about their short memories, I have to say yours is pretty selective, to say the least.
Netscape may have sucked, I think that is now firmly established, but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.
The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.
Unlike your amnesiac account of facts, I remember when Bill Gates wrote "The Road Ahead", its "visionary" book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned, if at all. This was 1995, when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.
Once Gates & Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet, so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it: the web browser.
So they did what many monopolists have done before: dumping. They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business. The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed, but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.
Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure. They really believed that the MSN (MS Network!) would beat the Internet, but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open, free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.
That is what is being punished. It may not be a timely punishment, but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers, unless you guys are using gopher or FTP), so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
With many places having up to 25% of Firefox users, I think OEMs should wisen up to the fact that people are looking for options.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.