Opera CTO Thinks IE Will Be Forced To Support SVG

Julie188 writes "Opera Software is, as expected, preening over the forthcoming browser ballot box feature in Windows 7. It will put the Opera name in front of millions of users who probably never heard of it. But that's not the only reason Opera is gloating. CTO Håkon Wium Lie feels that today's decision will force Microsoft to make Internet Explorer do a better job of supporting standards, particularly the Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). Lie would also like to see Apple and Linux makers follow suit with browser ballot boxes of their own."

Comments

Ballots and ballets

[rvw]

It's an official opera now!

Re:Ballots and ballets

[Curien]

It is your regulation, Sire. No ballet in your opera.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[davester666]

It's weird, but unless they add some kind of description along with the browser name (that is displayed by default, not after a click or mouse-over), the layperson will think it's a multiple choice test to pick the browser from the list, not which browser to use.

Because from these names (and only the names), which of these would 'seem' to be a browser:

Internet Explorer
Safari
Opera
FireFox
Chrome

From these names, the only one that people would read and link with the internet/web would be Internet Explorer.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[siloko]

From these names, the only one that people would read and link with the internet/web would be Internet Explorer.

especially if they have been living on the moon for the last five years.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[pushing-robot]

From these names, the only one that people would read and link with the internet/web would be Internet Explorer.

especially if they have been living on the moon for the last five years.

Or the Netherlands.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[siloko]

well I've heard of asparagus, I know what purpose it is supposed to have but I don't use it on a regular basis. Err that was meant to be a car analogy but I don't have a car where as I do eat veg so I thought I better play it safe. Long and short of it is that knowing about something and using it are two different things - I bet more than 15 per cent of people in the Netherlands have heard of Firefox and know its a web broswer/IE alternative.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[Korin43]

For a car analogy you could've gone with:

The fact that very few people own Lamborghinis doesn't mean that no one knows what they are.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[halltk1983]

Is it bad that I read that as "the Neanderthals" and laughed, but then was confused by the other responses to this question?

Here I was thinking this was the beginning of a GEICO / Microsoft advertising partnership.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[tsa]

I guess the fact that FF adoption is so low here has to do with the fact that we almost never see ads for computers on TV, let alone software. I guess therefore many people aren't aware that there is more than the stuff that comes with your computer.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[s4m7]

firefox runs ads on tv?

Re:Ballots and ballets

[siloko]

Flamebait? Flamebait? It was a fucking joke you pricks. Now get off you Internet fucking Explorer no brain web horses and get a clue.

Err just joking . . .

Re:Ballots and ballets

[shutdown -p now]

Assuming browser manufacturers would get the last say in how their browser is named in the list, this is trivial to correct - just list it as "Opera Web Browser".

Re:Ballots and ballets

[davester666]

I can see it now:

Internet Explorer (hardcoded in the os to always appear first)
(bunch of spaces)Best Choice FireFox Web Browser
aaaaaaaaaPick This Entry Opera Web Browser Don't Pick Firefox or Internet Explorer ...

Allowing browser makers to name their entries and/or provide descriptions may not be the best option... :-)

Re:Ballots and ballets

[tsa]

No but other software makers do, so I've heard. And we never ever have seen any of the 'I'm a Mac, I'm a PC' ads on TV, for instance. Come to think of it, the last ad for software I have seen on TV here in NL was the ad for OS/2 somewhere in the early 1990s, as far as I can remember.

Re:Ballots and ballets

[Red Alastor]

Unless they have to write "Google Chrome", people will use "The Google".

Re:Ballots and ballets

[asdfndsagse]

Konquorer

ie
Netscape Navigator
Internet Explorer
Konquorer
.
a rational progression

Apple and Linux, too?

[mister_playboy]

MS has to do this because of monopoly concerns... Apple certainly won't be doing it anytime soon, since they emphasize integration between programs so much. Linux? Sorry, Opera, but your software isn't open source.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[BikeHelmet]

You seem to be under the impression there's only one browser on Linux?

If you RTFA, it sounds like Lie suggested it because it's a Good Ideaâ rather than because he wanted to see Opera on it.

Q: In your opinion, should Apple also be expected to offer a ballot box for its computers? Should Ubunto?

The Microsoft case is based on antitrust law, something that only applies to monopolies. Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it; the browser is the most important tool for most of us, and having access to better browsers is a good thing.

1) Ubunto?
2) I don't see him specifically saying Opera should be on it. There's many good linux browsers, for different purposes.

Firefox, Konquerer, Chrome (getting there; it's really fast compared to the rest), Lynx. ;)

I find Firefox to be bloated and slow on Ubuntu. It runs slower on a 2.6ghz Athlon X2 than Firefox does on a 2.0ghz Athlon XP, in Windows 2000.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[BikeHelmet]

Apparently the TM (trademark) char turns into an a with a ^ overtop it. Or maybe my browser is just being ornery.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[mysidia]

Many linux distributions have been known to ship with non-free but gratis software packages such as Pine, Pico, GNUplot, Affero Ghostscript.

Linux itself is free, but not necessarily everything distributed with it.

Nothing really prevents Linux distributions such as SuSE or Redhat from including closed source software, so long as the vendor of the software allows them to distribute it with Linux.

Enterprise for-pay Linux distributions have even been known to include commercial software that is not even available free of charge.

It's mostly the Free-software leaning community projects like Debian that have a "pure free software policy" and so reject non-free packages from being distributed with it.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[countertrolling]

® -- Close enough?

Here's a handy, dandy reference page. Have fun...

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[jisatsusha]

Slashdot isn't a fan of Unicode, sadly.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[derGoldstein]

What are you talking about? I use Unicode all the æ±åOE--å...çSæ-ç'åå¦ããï¼OE2åæãRubyã'ç"ããYåYæoeçsããf--ãfããf©ãfYãfãã'å...ä®ç'ç®ãã--ã¦ãããèç®--æ©YæSè"è...ã'ç®æOEã(TM)ãYãã®è義ããçããSï¼OEãã"ããääã'éèOEã(TM)ãæéã®çãçã¦ï¼OEèfãæ-ï¼OEãfãfãf¼ãfæ-æã®æææã'æ±ãå¦ãããã"ãã'ç®çsãã--ã¦ããã

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Sir_Lewk]

I'm certainly aware that there is more than one browser on linux. Personally I use Arora, a Qt/Webkit browser, because I can't stand firefox and frankly, Konqueror sucks.

Doesn't change the fact that most distros either have mechanisms already in place to allow the user to choose their browser (as well as other preferences), or default the user to some sort of sane default (basically the same thing Apple does). Having some sort of dialog solely for the purpose of letting the user pick a browser would be rather inconsistent imho.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[religious freak]

Sorry, Opera, but your software isn't open source.

Wait... are you implying that an OS provider should have a choice as to which browsers are included in their distribution? It's a close call, but if I had to choose between MS and the government controlling things, I wouldn't choose the government.

Irrespective for any individual's hatred of MS, this decision reeks.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gratis = free.

Oh, I see, you actually meant to say "open source" instead.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as soon as one linux vendor control 95% of the market, then absolutely you bet your damned ass that I would expect them to provide a choice as to which browser to install by default.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[BikeHelmet]

Thanks! Bookmarked!

But... I still can't get TM to show up. ® wouldn't work - it was a running joke a while back, that somebody trademarked "Good Thing".

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[BikeHelmet]

Arora isn't bad. I used it a couple times while trying out browsers.

I can't speak to the consistency of offering a choice of browsers on first boot.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[sqldr]

Mod parent up. it's Microsoft's monopoly and use of OEM licensing to force vendors to sell machines with windows on them which the EU should be addressing.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[TrancePhreak]

Apple certainly won't be doing it anytime soon, since they emphasize integration between programs so much.

As did Microsoft, but you see where that got them.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Anpheus]

He's using the RMS definition of free, which... *checks news headlines* this week has more restrictions than it did last week.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[colinrichardday]

OpenSuSE 11.0 includes opera (9.27)

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[PopeRatzo]

If you RTFA

You also learn that the CTO of Opera has a cool, computer-guy name, which goes a long way with me.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[derGoldstein]

True, but Apple takes a different approach. It's never going to be truly dominant because its business model, or maybe I should say "company culture", is that of a fashion company. They're selling a brand that people buy and identify with, not unlike clothing brands (I'd cite a few, but I go around in shorts and flip-flops). They don't allow anything into their walled garden that they haven't personally approved -- see iPhone/iPod software/hardware. I'd go so far as to say that they're not *interested* in replacing Microsoft, nor getting into large corporations. Fundamentally, they're (and this will get me modded "troll") elitists. They like to have a large crowd of people to look down upon with scorn. They don't *want* to go mainstream, not in the "Windows XP" sense of mainstream.

Now go ahead, flame me to bits.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[eugene2k]

>If you RTFA, it sounds like Lie suggested it because it's a Good Ideaâ rather than because he wanted to see Opera on it.
Of course he suggested it because it's a good idea and not because he wants more exposure for his browser. I mean we all know how hard it is to actually go to opera.com and download the damn thing, don't we? /sarcasm

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[itsdapead]

Apple certainly won't be doing it anytime soon, since they emphasize integration between programs so much.

On my Mac, if I click on the "Apple" menu (Note for Windows users: its a bit like the "Start" menu) and choose "Mac OS X Software" I go to an Apple-run software catalog website. Number 7 on the "Most Popular Downloads" list is currently Firefox. Number 1 if you go to the Internet Utilities section - Opera is down at 14. You have to dig a bit to find Camino, Flock, Omniweb and Seamonkey, but they're there.

Not exactly a "browser ballot", but all on an official Apple site one click away from the desktop, so its hardly a Safari lock in.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Blakey Rat]

Just to clarify:

* ATT, Verizon using the court system to increase profits = bad
* SCO using the court system to increase profits = bad
* Opera using the court system to increase profits = good

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Mystra_x64]

Just to clarify:

* You are green
* You are fat.
* You are troll.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[witherstaff]

That should be corrected to

Government mandated telco monopolies AT&T/Verizon using courts to get even more profit = bad

Desperate company (SCO) filing bullshit claims in a failed attempt to make money, in the process potentially hurting innovation and open source = bad

Decent IT company (Opera) that makes innovative products fighting against a recognized monopoly (MS) = good

Making money isn't a problem. MS did a lot of things right and should rake in as much as legally possible. Being a monopoly and/or stifling innovation is bad

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[tsa]

Very good point. I don't get the EU's decision either. But then again, MS should have been split into an OS and an applications company when the US had the chance to do that, IMO.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[countertrolling]

But... I still can't get TM to show up...

Yeah, my bad. My explanation should've been more complete. Apparently Slashdot(slashcode?) won't display anything above ASCII 126 unless it has an HTML name. As you probably discovered, the number doesn't always work. Rather strange for a ten year old techie site....Just discovered it doesn't like any superscript. Oh well...

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[onefriedrice]

No kidding. This issue with the browsers is just small potatoes, and the result is just stupid anyway. This slap on the wrist may come with a little more string that Microsoft is used to, but it's still just a slap on the wrist and the real problem isn't being addressed.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[zippthorne]

The test is where the increased profits come from. Does opera's increased profits mean greater expense for the consumer like in the first two cases, or does it mean that opera is getting a larger piece of the pie, but actual costs to consumers goes down?

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[node 3]

He's using the RMS definition of free, which... *checks news headlines* this week has more restrictions than it did last week.

RMS has been extremely clear and consistent on the definition of "Free Software". In fact, the GPL is only at version 3, and has been around for 20 years!

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[node 3]

Mod parent up. it's Microsoft's monopoly and use of OEM licensing to force vendors to sell machines with windows on them which the EU should be addressing.

20 years too late. The damage is already done, MS already has an OS monopoly. 14 years ago they started using that monopoly to push their browser. At least now, there are still competing browsers. The are only two even remotely competitive OS's, one of which isn't available for PC's, and the other isn't terribly user-friendly (even compared against Windows Vista).

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[seeker_1us]

Linux already gives the user complete control over choice of browsers at install. That's browsers, more than one.

Anyone who wants opera on Linux can get it easily enough by ftp or through auxilliary lightweight browser (such as Konqueror) chosen at install.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[node 3]

but if I had to choose between MS and the government controlling things, I wouldn't choose the government.

Fortunately, that's not the choice being presented. The government isn't controlling things. They're just getting MS to agree to let the user choose a browser.

Irrespective for any individual's hatred of MS, this decision reeks.

Why? Letting users choose a browser is a bad thing? It's worse than just pushing one browser on them?

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[node 3]

Just to clarify:

* ATT, Verizon using the court system to increase profits = bad
* SCO using the court system to increase profits = bad
* Opera using the court system to increase profits = good

The first two are anti-competitive. The third is not. So, pretty much, yeah.

More accurate "T,FTFY" version:

* ATT, Verizon using the court system to stifle competition = bad
* SCO using the court system to stifle competition = bad
* Opera using the court system to promote competition = good

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[shutdown -p now]

Here's what you do on a fresh install of Windows: open Internet Explorer, and type "browser" in the address bar. That's right, directly in the address bar. With default settings, you'll get Bing search these days. First result link is Firefox, second is Opera, third is Chrome, fourth (!) is IE, fifth is Safari.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Ilgaz]

When I installed Arora to OS X (yes,thanks to Fink), I wondered why would people ask Apple for a Safari for Linux browser.

It is not a clone of Safari of course, it is coded with same design and attitude that is all. It doesn't have "space ship controls", it has a decent web rendering engine, good standards support, prefs that would matter to most and a simple UI.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has to do this because of monopoly concerns... Apple certainly won't be doing it anytime soon, since they emphasize integration between programs so much. Linux? Sorry, Opera, but your software isn't open source.

Yet I would guesstimate that there are more Linux mobile devices running Opera then mobile devices running Safari or Firefox. Not to mention self-service kiosks, when was the last time you saw Safari or Firefox on one of those -- never?

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Bert64]

That strategy is good in the grant scheme of things.. Not everyone should compete at all levels of a given market.
Ferrari don't make cheap lowend cars, they don't make large family cars, they compete in small subsets of the market.
Prada don't make cheap jumpsuits for mechanics to wear at work etc...
Given an open competitive market it's possible to do this.

If MS's stranglehold is broken, then you will see Apple as a highend vendor offering higher end fashionable goods, lower end vendors like Dell and Asus offering cheaper linux based systems, sun/oracle offering their own solaris based packages targeting the high end but less fashionable market, and end users can choose what suits them best, just like they do today with cars, clothes and thousands of other goods.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[atomic777]

You're absolutely right. Apple did a very smart thing and recognised that computers were being commoditized and ubiquitous and that this naturally creates a market for people who are willing to spend a premium on a fashion statement. Those people also tend not to care if they're being absolutely gouged, so profits are handsome for Apple -- why bother even going after the riff raff?

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[Spaseboy]

Opera's potential market right now is the same as Netscape's could have been had they not pretended that the internet was Windows. Opera needs to port their little browser to everything that is not a PC. They need to make Opera available for every SmartPhone, every game system, every toaster. They need to pretend Windows doesn't exist the same way Microsoft pretends nothing BUT Windows exists. The issue is if Opera doesn't get on this, WebKit is going to make them irrelevant.

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[omfgnosis]

Ow! My freakin' eyes!

Re:Apple and Linux, too?

[omfgnosis]

"non-free but gratis" is pretty clearly shorthand for "... but free as in beer", the latter of which is not only more annoying to type but more annoying to read. I was pleased when I read it. It's good to self-regulate pedantry by thinking about what someone meant first.

HTML 5 Canvas tag

[BuR4N]

I do not belive SVG ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svg )has that bright future, the Canvas tag in the HTML 5 specification ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element) ) seems to gain allot more traction these days. SVG may be better from a technical standpoint, but that alone is not enough.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[fbjon]

Where is the canvas tag widely used? I know that SVG is considered the standard for vector graphics on Wikipedia.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[maxume]

Canvas will probably see more use for interactive stuff, but I don't think vector graphics programs are going to start storing images as a series of javascript instructions.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[daniel_newton]

Canvas will probably see more use for interactive stuff, but I don't think vector graphics programs are going to start storing images as a series of javascript instructions.

Very good point... But then again, Windows Metafiles are just that, a dump of GDI api calls

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[IntlHarvester]

It's worth noting that Microsoft was committed to supporting SVG at one time, before they disbanded the IE team and stopped development on IE6.

VML was a preliminary standards proposal that evolved into SVG, if I remember correctly. So, its not that IE can't do vector markup, they just need to get it up to speed with the latest specs.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Canvas is pretty crappy. It's 25 pages in the HTML 5 1000-page spec, and is nothing more than a bunch of Javascript methods for drawing bitmaps. There's no way to scale something once it's been drawn, figure out what shape has been clicked on, no animation, etc. But at least you could implement it in a week.

By contrast, the latest JS (ECMAscript) draft spec is smaller than 250 pages.

On the other hand, SVG is a monster 700-page spec. It appears to have been designed by Adobe to either be a replacement for Flash or just a means to write Illustrator files as XML. Unfortunately, it is so big that it's almost impossible to completely implement. I don't think even Adobe has implemented it all, and none of the existing implementations are entirely compatible in the subsets they implement. Although there is a "tiny" version of SVG, its spec is still over 400 pages.

The thing is, even once you implement the whole SVG spec, you still have to create a whole rendering and animation engine to actually display anything. Luckily MS already has such a thing in their browser to support VML (which was designed to support rendering Office files in HTML). This means that you could just use XSLT to convert 99% of all SVG to VML and not need to change IE at all.

dom

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[mabhatter654]

the real problem with SVG is that it's a "kitchen sink" Committee made spec. When Adobe didn't own Flash, they wanted a spec that was a "flash killer" so threw all sorts of garbage in SVG that doesn't belong there. We're in the situation where most browsers support "most" SVG, but they're all at different stages of unique implementations and don't do the SAME things right in the SAME way. I like how another poster mentioned SVG tiny and that's probably what should have been done first to make the tool usable on as many platforms as possible and to make pages compatible between browsers.

Even with HTML5 the big companies like Apple and Google are pushing how THEY want things done and have them already done, versus the guys like Opera and Firefox that want clean specs first, then implementation.

The sooner we get all the other parties supporting things is when web developers can just start ignoring IE, especially at non-work sites where people should be accessing pages from home. When people start using HTML5 at home.. then it will push into workplaces.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[Tony Hoyle]

Not widely used at all, due the the lack of HTML5 support except in the very latest browsers (and nothing by Microsoft, who alas still are the majority of browsers out there).

You'd be nuts to make an HTML5 only page at present... a few years down the line, who knows.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[derGoldstein]

SVG is good for (mostly-)static vector graphics. While it was designed with a DOM and proper handlers in place to facilitate animation, in practice it's A) not fast enough and B) a very, *very* large standard.

If you want to see Canvas used for animation, check out the Chrome Experiments page. Most of the animation there is done using Canvas. It's a smaller standard, and it's very close to already-implemented 2D-model engines, like cairo.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[derGoldstein]

That's true, and it's why Inkscape uses SVG to store static vector information. SVG is XML-based, making it very easy to parse (there are tons of libraries in practically every language to parse XML), and supports CSS, which is also has widespread support. The problem isn't with static graphics, it's with animations. If you want to design an interactive control to use in a browser, you'll going to need 5-times the amount of code to do so in SVG than you would in Canvas, and it'll be both slower, and supported on fewer systems.

The Canvas spec is smaller (much smaller compared to SVG), easier to implement, and is already supported on Firefox and Webkit-based browsers. This is the most practical advantage it has -- availability in the field.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[derGoldstein]

In that case, Google is completely nuts.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[Fallen Seraph]

Have you ever actually USED the SVG animation specs? I have, I've built an entire page using pure SVG and SVG animations as an experiment. To animate something, it's a single line of code. Additionally, writing SVG is about as easier than writing HTML in my opinion, and the animations run very smoothly in Opera. Do tell me how canvas is better see as how it has more overhead, and is more complex?

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[asdf7890]

IIRC, one of the reasons that MS has thus far resisted any idea of implementing the canvas tag is that there is some IP issue regarding Apple that may be relevant). Some have suggested that F/OSS browsers shouldn't be doing canvas related stuff until it is cleared up.

I've never particularly liked SVG myself, like most things XML is has "designed by committee" stamped all over it, but it is at least an open standard more so than the canvas tag is while that IP issue hangs over it.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[itsdapead]

[Canvas] is already supported on Firefox and Webkit-based browsers. This is the most practical advantage it has -- availability in the field.

Except SVG is already supported on Opera, Firefox and Webkit, too, and even in IE via plugins.

The killer app for SVG would be if someone developed an artist-centric development tool like Flash.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[derGoldstein]

I really wish I had more time then I do now... I could write a dissertation on the SVG/Canvas dilemma. Yes, I've used them both for animation. Here goes:

SVG is wonderful to generate on the backend, or with client-side apps. It's the better solution for larger, more complicated vector graphics that don't have to be animated -- maps, charts, graphs, and visual structure representation (including CAD output). In order to animate SVG on a lower-level, you really must write a decent-size JS "library" to deal with all the DOM insertions and modifications. If you have set-pieces which you want to move, for example you have a ready-made SVG of a car and a ready-made SVG of a racetrack, then SVG will be your first choice for turning that into an in-browser game. Whenever you have previously-created vector graphics elements, that need to (primarily) be moved around and slightly modified, then SVG is the better solution.

Canvas is low-level, inherently. That means that the assumption is that in most cases you *don't* have previously-created graphics, and that you're generating everything you're about to display -- on the fly. This includes custom user controls, dynamic visualizations(flow, growth, timeline, mathematical representations, etc.), and elements that are to be generated once and then placed around the site, as part of the usual DOM. One example that comes to mind is the Bespin project, where the entire GUI is one huge canvas element, because everything must be generated in real-time, from scratch. Another advantage that canvas has is speed, as can be seen on the Chrome Experiments page.

If it were up to me, I'd happily use both standards in the browser. But it's not. Currently, both Firefox and Webkit-based browsers (Safari, Chrome) support Canvas, with Opera on the way to completing the spec implementation (I think the latest beta versions may already support it). Effectively, this leaves only IE, in which you can get canvas (partially) using explorercanvas.

It's a matter of adoption. Canvas is way ahead, even though it's a much younger standard. The reason is that SVG is a massive standard, which is especially difficult to implement in a browser.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Well, lets ponder that statement for a moment. chromeexperiments has experiments in the name, so obviously, its experimental and not meant for mass consumption. Similarly, html5gallery is a demo. The oreilly site apppears to be a discussion of html5 rather than a user, and the youtube page is, again, a technology demo rather than the main youtube page. So, you have 2 evangelist sites, a dud, and a prototype. Yes, HTML5 is the future, but it won't be here for years.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[derGoldstein]

First of all, Google placing its weight behind it is serious business.

As far as browser support goes, Firefox 3.5 has a huge amount of HTML5 implemented, and so do Webkit-based browsers (meaning Chrome and Safari). Opera is on the way, and since HTML5 is in its final stages, it won't take them look to make that last push.

What that means is that every browser *except* for IE will have support for HTML5 by the end of the year. Remember that most people who use a non-IE browser upgrade to the latest version very fast (Chrome practically forces you to, since it upgrades without asking, and Apple is extremely aggressive in having its customers on the latest version of each of their software packages).

In other words, if you're developing something new *now*, you'd be foolish to ignore HTML5 features. It will simply place you behind everyone else in the race.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[Fallen Seraph]

I'd have to disagree with you there, at least in part. For relatively simple graphics, SVG is ideal. It's perfect for doing things like replacing what most web programmers and designers do with small gifs and pngs, for many background elements, etc. Coding SVG by hand isn't too difficult at all if you read up on the tag documentation a bit. I think that Canvas certainly has its merits, and it is indeed faster for things like particle effects, having many items moving at once, or for doing work in 3D, but for the vast majority of web animation, SVG is both simpler to use and just as fast.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[BZ]

Canvas is an immediate-mode graphics API. SVG is a retained-mode graphics API. They solve very different problems and have very different use cases; that's why both sorts of APIs are out there in the wild... There's some overlap where either one could be used, but in almost all such cases one or the other is an obviously better fit.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[tyrione]

[Canvas] is already supported on Firefox and Webkit-based browsers. This is the most practical advantage it has -- availability in the field.

Except SVG is already supported on Opera, Firefox and Webkit, too, and even in IE via plugins.

The killer app for SVG would be if someone developed an artist-centric development tool like Flash.

I have no idea why you aren't marked as Informative. WebKit of course has SVG built-in. Apple isn't suspending SVG with Canvas.The canvas element represents a resolution-dependent bitmap canvas, which can be used for rendering graphs, game graphics, or other visual images on the fly; and threaten SVG or any other vector based graphics, but most certainly gives a shot in the ass for bitmap'd graphics used for texture fills and more, on the fly, that could add something useful to the Web.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[derGoldstein]

I didn't mention anything regarding hand-coding SVG. Of course it's simpler to do it, if you do it manually. If you're used to XML/HTML and CSS, then it's a breeze. It also allows you to define a graphic structure and tweak it using far less code, since, naturally, Canvas is just an interface, not a document, meaning you'd have to stack javascript commands (a bit like postscript).

When I said "ready-made SVG" that included documents that were created/tweaked manually. But if you have to create a document from scratch, using javascript, then you're going to have to use the DOM, with all of the mess that comes with it (there are javascript SVG libs designed to help with exactly that, but it's still relatively verbose).

I don't consider the two standards as 'competing' for the same use. There's some overlap, sure, but SVG is a document with an implementation standard, while Canvas is just a single tag that provides you with an API to directly manipulate bits within a given area of a display. That's another difference, BTW -- canvas lets you do bitmap(raster) editing, while SVG allows you to define printing properties (though CSS).

They're different tools for different purposes -- my only assertion is that canvas will (and already has) see faster adoption because of its simplicity. But there's no doubt in my mind that once Google decides to implement Google Maps in vector form, it would be nuts to do so using canvas. That's something that SVG is perfectly suited for. Right now you'd see most SVG online on Wikipedia, since it's adopted it for static graphical representations (it prints to scale, or at least on a browser that's working properly it's supposed to). Basically: complementary, not competing.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[dryeo]

According to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)#Intellectual_property_over_canvas once canvas becomes a W3C recommendation it is licensed for HTML usage.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[Magic5Ball]

Why is it a good thing to test against three different HTML5 implementations now and again later, as opposed to waiting for the standard to finalize?

I thought we've been down this road before around a decade ago and extra standard functionality implemented in funny external libraries that also couldn't agree on how the standard was implemented. SVG reminds me somewhat of how VRML was (mis-)handled, while some of bleeding edge parts of HTML5 working best/only with Google Gears feels a lot like the competing client side Java plugins and system-specific hackage required to be compatible with each of the three major JREs.

As an aside, I'm starting to dislike that Firefox's defaults are to check for updates to itself or addons at every invocation, to the point where using more than around five addons will almost guarantee a two minute penalty on each invocation. Combined with the session restoration, crash recovery and db integrity checks, it's been tempting to get coffee while waiting for Firefox to boot, rather than after pressing the power button. Some colleagues are switching from Firefox back to IE or Safari because of the drain on productivity and group meetings, and because of the recent Firefox 3 builds which creep to 80MB per tab for squirrel mail, without letting go until the process exits.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[maestro371]

Chrome does a really fantastic job with SVG JavaScript DOM manipulation; it's crazy fast. Safari 4 does as well.

Firefox is okay, but slowish and the latest 3.5 build breaks some things with SVG transforms that worked fine in 3.0

I'm not sure that you can categorize it as not being "fast enough". The progress in WebKit based browsers is really quite remarkable. I've been writing an SVG application for the last year or so that relies on the ability to manipulate a dynamically generated network map with JavaScript (move it around, scale, etc., found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/flower-nfa/) Chrome and Safari do a great job. Firefox did in 3.0, but is badly broken in 3.5.

Also, check out Google's SVGWeb project. It looks like it might be promising if MS decides to never build support for SVG.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[convolvatron]

compared to alot of graphics standards, its actually reasonably terse. there are some herniations...like the dro pshadow image processing and composition. the animation is a little nasty too. but generally if you ignore the ugliness of w3 encapulation and html-style syntax, its not any worse than gl, rendering libraries, or X

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[maestro371]

You keep pointing to Safari's and Chrome's support of Canvas as a unique factor that points to greater adoption for Canvas.

Both browsers also support SVG quite well (as well as Firefox - at least up to 3.0); I'm not sure why you're trying to draw that distinction.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[BitZtream]

No browsers support 'most' of SVG. No browsers support anything more than basic shapes for shit.

We're in a situation where all browsers that support SVG do it in such a shitty way that for anything more than a smiley face on Wikipedia, SVG is worthless in a browser.

The company I work for does all of our work in SVG now, however since the browsers suck at it, we render it to GIF or PNG and use that in a browser rather than SVG since we actually want it to look right.

Apache Batik is the only SVG renderer that doesn't suck complete ass, and its got issues. Adobe doesn't appear to have updated their SVG renderer since they bought out Macromedia.

Ironically, IE has plugins that provide far better SVG support than any Gecko or WebKit based browser or Opera has to offer.

EVERYONE PUSHES THEIR OWN AGENDA, just like you are now, and I am. Welcome to reality, no really need to point it out to anyone older than 15 or so I think.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[onefriedrice]

Even with HTML5 the big companies like Apple and Google are pushing how THEY want things done and have them already done, versus the guys like Opera and Firefox that want clean specs first, then implementation.

I would just point out that this is far better than the alternative. The "internet" belongs to all of "us," and many of us have an interest in changing it in ways that we think will profit us. At least the ones with the money and interest are working on standards rather than each creating their own browser plug-ins to accomplish everything they need. That's what the alternative would be. Yeah, so the end result spec isn't going to be as "clean" as implementors want, but what more can we hope for given the many and varied interests people have in the internet?

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[shutdown -p now]

Frankly I'd be happy if we just had SVG Tiny support across the board. We really need a common vector graphics format at least for static images.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[Zontar The Mindless]

The killer app for SVG would be if someone developed an artist-centric development tool like Flash.

Someone already did... about ten years ago. (Unfortunately, it seems to have been shelved later by Corel after they acquired it, hence the link to the 3rd-party download site.)

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[asdf7890]

That is good, but as it is not yet a W3C standard the issue remains for the time being.

While the chance Apple would risk doing anything about it is very small (if they did they'd have to do it across the board, not just to MS, and the outcry from all angles (F/OSS, opera, MS) would be difficult to manage) I doubt MS's legal department or stockholders would be happy about the product opening itself to the risk.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[h4rm0ny]

Having just scrolled down fully half the length of this Slashdot story, easily several hundred comments, yours is the first comment to actually mention SVG! I just wanted to say thank you! :D

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[h4rm0ny]

Yep - I still use Firefox on Linux sometimes (mainly because the Kubuntu package of Konqueror is lagging behind the times and has bugs in it), but on Windows, I'm starting to use IE8 for the same reasons as you give.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[euxneks]

The killer app for SVG would be if someone developed an artist-centric development tool like Flash.

Inkscape? Adobe Illustrator? Do you mean something that would include animations too?

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[mabhatter654]

of course they're most likely "astroturfers" (smart young coders are slightly stupid about politics) paid to throw the standards committee into taking longer to agree and promising the moon and pie from the spec while at the same time the company management has no intention of ever USING the specs and has already cut their side deals. I think the W3C has become the "distraction" that's served it's purpose and the big companies have grown tired of playing.

The game companies like IBM, Adobe, Microsoft are playing is against each other and "standards" are just ways to lock out the wannabe sheep.

Re:HTML 5 Canvas tag

[itsdapead]

Do you mean something that would include animations too?

...along with enough scripting, events, timelines, shape libraries, controls etc. and an application framework so you could easily write fairly sophisticated "rich internet applications" without needing a PhD in the Document Object Model and inter-browser variations. I.e, as I said, "Something like Flash".

Of course, it would all be running on a standard SVG + ECMAScript base so, unlike Flash, a puppy wouldn't die every time you used it.

It doesn't really matter

[davmoo]

It will put the Opera name in front of millions of users who probably never heard of it

And the majority of users will simply ignore it and click on a name they've heard of. If Opera doesn't come up with some sort of educational advertising campaign, having this choice in Windows 7 won't make a damned bit of difference in the usage of their browser.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Totenglocke]

I used to use Opera back in the day (before firefox existed), and I liked it. However, with the other browsers out there now, the last time I used Opera I didn't care for it, nor do I see any reason to give it a try again unless somehow every other browser turns to crap in a few years.

People who actually know what a browser is (sadly, there's many people who don't know what a browser is - they think that IE IS "the internet") are well aware of the other browsers out there besides IE. Some of them, like a few IT people I know, say "IE does what I want, why would I change to another browser?" even though people repeatedly point out all the security flaws in IE. The rest of us already have tried several other browsers and have decided what we want. Most of us did NOT choose Opera and putting a box to select a different browser will probably not increase Opera's market share much, if at all.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It will put the Opera name in front of millions of users who probably never heard of it

And the majority of users will simply ignore it and click on a name they've heard of.

Ahh, but some small number of users will choose Opera for one reason or another and that benefits Opera. And some other subset of users will choose anything other than IE which means they'll be running a standards compliant browser that is mostly interoperable with Opera and thus Web developers are more likely to use said standards which means users who do use Opera will have a better Web experience. Further, every user who isn't using IE is learning they have choices, which might mean they actually look into other browsers and start to decide which to use based upon actual merits of the browser.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft should put the top three on there. IE8, Firefox 3.5, and Chrome.

Fuck you, Opera.

Chrome isn't in the top 3.
Fuck you, FishWithAHammer.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[mdwh2]

Fuck you, Opera.

What are you, 12? What is it with all the Opera hate on Slashdot?

If market share is what's important (and ignoring that the market share stats are very dubious, and unfairly biased against Opera, which until recently identified as IE, and even now some users have to identify as IE due to poorly written websites, not to mention that browsers that don't cache as often will get more hits), by your logic we should all be using IE.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The rest of us already have tried several other browsers and have decided what we want. Most of us did NOT choose Opera and putting a box to select a different browser will probably not increase Opera's market share much, if at all.

I agree that it won't directly help much, but I think it will help Opera indirectly in several ways. One of Opera's biggest weaknesses is the inability to handle nonstandard pages written for IE as well as Firefox and Safari do. The more alternative browsers that are in use, the fewer such pages will exist and the less this hurts them. Opera spends a lot of money working around those kind of pages both in their regular browser and compromisingly on their mobile browser. This means they can spend less money on that and more on making their browser better and they can make more money licensing their mobile version and services to mobile device OEMs. As you point out, many users don't know they have a choice in browsers, this makes that perfectly clear to them and even if they don't pick Opera from the list, they might consider evaluating different browsers in the future. This isn't an automatic win for Opera, but if gives them an opportunity to compete on even ground, which is all they really want. With the ballot situation users might end up using whichever browser is best, motivating all makers to work hard to be the best.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[FishWithAHammer]

Safari on Windows is nonfunctionally bad, and a tiny slice of the total Safari share anyway. You sure you want to go that route?

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

A minority of Windows users is still a lot more than Opera has now.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[calmofthestorm]

Well a lot of people will learn that there is a choice. It's a start. People will switch away from IE and/or Microsoft will have to actually compete for market share, and quality goes up. It's really win win.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... given the % of people who click on the stupidest Spam, this is still going to mean a major expansion of Opera's user base. It's going to become harder to joke that there's just twelve of us.

But more importantly it's going to change the kind of user Opera has. Like with Ubuntu for Linux, it's not going to be just keen & forgiving enthusiasts anymore. How well Opera retains (& possibly expands) this new user base will be a real indicator of how well their browser can do among the general populous going forward. If they don't retain these new users, then Opera is going to have to reconsider their business plan. We might not see an Opera 11 for the desktop.

Disclaimer -- I've used and like Opera since 3.5. I tell friends and family to use Firefox.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Totenglocke]

Do you really think someone who doesn't know that there are browsers besides IE (or don't even know what a browser is) will choose something other than IE? Most likely not. If they do, it'll probably be Chrome due to Google's name recognition.

Firefox and others haven't had the advantage of this "ballot box" and yet they have a much larger share than Opera. The simple fact of the matter is that most people just don't want to use Opera. People can make excuses of "unfair fight" or your comment about them not being able to render some pages right (I've never had that problem in any other browser), but in the end, you'll realize that the other browsers out there just do a better job than Opera and Opera will never be number 1 (unless they can BS the EU into making it mandatory that Opera be the default browser in Windows 8).

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Go what route? All he did was point out that you were wrong to list Chrome as one of the top three.
Nothing you said in this post was relevant to the fact that you were wrong.
After these three posts, you now look:

A) Stupid and uninformed.

B) Like a general douche-bag.

Cheers

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The hate is due to their sense of entitlement, and the fact that for all their talk their browser still hasn't managed to attract any more than a token market share in over 12 years, whilst multiple competing browsers have out-performed it in much shorter time periods.

In any case, the "market share = we all should be using IE" argument is a red herring. IE is the de facto browser that obtains its market share purely from the fact that it's bundled. Only the alternatives to IE actually compete on quality (ie, they need to be a sufficiently better alternative for most to bother), and it's that competition which Opera fails at.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

On what basis do you argue that Opera would warrant inclusion in the list? After listing IE and Firefox (it's large share means inclusion is practically a given), why would Opera be given a spot on the screen over more popular alternatives like Chrome and Safari?

Re:It doesn't really matter

[FishWithAHammer]

Psst. I use Firefox and Chrome. I just don't like Opera.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[DMKrow]

I have found the opposite to be true. Opera works better than Firefox for internal pages at our company (which is ie6 focused).

Re:It doesn't really matter

[FishWithAHammer]

Safari is not one of the top three on Windows by any stretch. That top three is IE, Firefox, Chrome.

I thought that would be obvious to somebody who isn't mentally handicapped.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[demachina]

"If Opera doesn't come up with some sort of educational advertising campaign"

Why exactly would anyone PAY for an advertising campaign for a FREE product which they make no money on because they give it away for FREE. I think Opera pretty much survives on licensing their embedded browsers. Its not really clear why they are still even in the desktop browser business other than for brand awareness which isn't really working for them. I wager Opera is pretty much just burning money still doing a desktop browser at all, I think there business is all embedded browsers.

Microsoft got in the browser business only because Netscape terrified them and when Netscape cratered Microsoft stopped caring about it until Google revived the threat of web apps and cloud computing. They are afraid the browser is going to displace their OS and they want to lock people in to a proprietary web, and they are mostly failing at it.

Google did a browser because they are fixated on web apps and want to drive the technology for their apps and the have a river of money from search to fund it.

Firefox/Mozilla is where Netscape went to survive and amazingly did survive and thrive as open source mostly thanks to the Firefox team.

Just about everyone else is doing Webkit lately.

To be honest it sounds to me like this Opera guy is still fighting a war that was over years ago. The fact is browsers on the desktop are an undifferentiated commodity and there is no financial incentive to even be in that business any more. Only reason to be there is if you want to control the direction of the web which is Microsoft, Google, Firefox and Apple's reason for being there, not Opera's, Opera is an embedded browser company now.

The worst proprietary lockin everyone should be unhappy about is Flash.... and SVG isn't the solution. The main solution is to get the HTML5 video tag to work and get every browser to support the same codec(s). Once Flash loses its lock on web video Flash and Adobe matters a LOT less to everyone than it does now. Without a lock on video Flash can go back to where it was in Flash 5, an annoying purveyor of obnoxious ads, and a platform for mostly bad games, that people can block if they hate it enough.

As others have said the EU fixating on the browser is completely retarded at this point. The two real problems with the Microsoft monopoly are:

A) they force all PC manufactures in to shipping their OS exclusively on most new PC's so everyone buying a PC is practically forced to buy it even if you don't want it

B. Office proprietary file formats and the network effect tends to lock all business in to running Office for all docs and spreadsheets. Open Office is a nice product but the docs it produces never work quite right in Office.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Blakey Rat]

Some of them, like a few IT people I know, say "IE does what I want, why would I change to another browser?" even though people repeatedly point out all the security flaws in IE.

To be fair, IE has advanced in leaps and bounds. IE 7&8 run in a security sandbox on OSes that support it (i.e. Vista and Windows 7). IE 8 has process separation for tabs, something that Firefox doesn't yet have.

In short, make sure you don't fall into the trap of thinking IE6 is still what IE is like. Go use IE8 for a week, and set a new baseline-- IE is actually quite good nowadays.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Grrblt]

Because this concerns Europe and Opera is larger than both Chrome and Safari combined in Europe.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[shutdown -p now]

unfairly biased against Opera, which until recently identified as IE

By "until recently", you mean "4 years"? Because that's for how long Opera didn't lie about its identity in UA string.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Zontar The Mindless]

And how exactly does this mean that nobody else should use it either, once again? Because I seem to have missed that part the first time round.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I admittedly am among those Opera "haters".
Why do I "hate" it? Because it's darn good, but closed, and I chose to never use anything closed when I do anything on the net.
Most of us would kill to see Opera's code being open (or Firefox being comparable in size and speed).

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera doesn't have market share not because IE is the default browser. There's like 1/3 of the internet using Firefox, Safari and Chrome so people do know about 3rd party browsers. Brand new browsers like Chrome or Safari for Windows got a MUCH larger share of the market in mere weeks than Opera managed to get in over a decade. In fact, the current model seems to work great for everyone else.

Opera doesn't have market share because they make a product nobody wants of. They can't even give it away, it's that awful. And now they want to force MS to bundle their garbage instead of making their shitty browser not suck.

So yes, FUCK OPERA.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want Opera anywhere near my XP or Ubuntu PCs either.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You've been modded troll which is probably unfair. You did not, however, address any of the points I made in my post. I explained why this will indirectly help Opera and you basically replied with "nuh uh".

Re:It doesn't really matter

[FishWithAHammer]

I don't recall saying you shouldn't use it. I recall saying that I don't like Opera, and I would like it if they got screwed. :)

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Totenglocke]

I did address them, but not in the way you wanted, by pointing out that the majority of the masses of asses will still go with IE because it's all they know and are terrified of trying something new. As such, by them continuing to use IE they will NOT be encouraging people to code to standards and the effect that you claim would happen probably won't (it might, but I wouldn't bet on it).

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

Why exactly would anyone PAY for an advertising campaign for a FREE product which they make no money on because they give it away for FREE. I think Opera pretty much survives on licensing their embedded browsers.

Actually, 1/3 of Opera's total revenue comes from the desktop version. They get paid every time someone searches from the user interface, just like Mozilla.

Its not really clear why they are still even in the desktop browser business other than for brand awareness which isn't really working for them.

Actually, Opera's desktop user base was 40 million a few months ago, which was more than twice as much as less than 2 years ago.

I wager Opera is pretty much just burning money still doing a desktop browser at all, I think there business is all embedded browsers.

Nope. They are making money off the desktop browser. And what's also great about having a desktop browser is that you get loads of free testing, which makes all products based on the same engine much better.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

Actually, Opera still completely spoofs as other browsers for lots of major sites. They have settings that override the defaults and are downloaded regularly to work around browser sniffing.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

The hate is due to their sense of entitlement, and the fact that for all their talk their browser still hasn't managed to attract any more than a token market share in over 12 years, whilst multiple competing browsers have out-performed it in much shorter time periods.

Actually, Opera is the #3 browser both globally and in Europe. In Europe, its market share is higher than Chrome and Safari combined.

In any case, the "market share = we all should be using IE" argument is a red herring. IE is the de facto browser that obtains its market share purely from the fact that it's bundled. Only the alternatives to IE actually compete on quality (ie, they need to be a sufficiently better alternative for most to bother), and it's that competition which Opera fails at.

Actually, the fact is that IE does not compete fairly, and even Chrome has failed to gain significant market share. Firefox is an anomaly. The fact that you need a non-profit organization to make a dent in the market means that something is seriously wrong.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

Brand new browsers like Chrome or Safari for Windows got a MUCH larger share of the market in mere weeks than Opera managed to get in over a decade.

Actually, Opera is the #3 browser both globally and in Europe. In Europe, its market share is higher than Chrome and Safari combined. Also, Opera has only been free for 3-4 years. Before that it was not meant for the mass market.

Opera doesn't have market share because they make a product nobody wants of. They can't even give it away, it's that awful.

Actually, Opera has more than doubled its desktop base in less than two years.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

One of Opera's biggest weaknesses is the inability to handle nonstandard pages written for IE as well as Firefox and Safari do.

I'm sorry, but this is completely false. Opera's problem is that it did not get the free compatibility ride that Firefox did, and it has a much longer history than Safari (which means that many sites contain workarounds for quirks in very old Opera versions, and haven't been updated yet).

Opera's problem is not that it doesn't handle nonstandard code as well as the others. It probably handles it much better because it doesn't get a free ride unlike IE, Firefox, and to a certain extent Safari. The main problem for Opera today is browser sniffing discriminating against Opera users.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[shutdown -p now]

Good point, I forgot about their per-site "compatibility" tweaking; or rather, about the part of it that spoofs UA string (as opposed to a different part that rewrites broken HTML on the fly). My apologies - even more so as I'm actually using Opera as my primary browser, and have been using it as such for over 8 years now.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

Firefox and others haven't had the advantage of this "ballot box" and yet they have a much larger share than Opera.

Actually, Opera is the #3 browser both globally and in Europe. In Europe, its market share is higher than Chrome and Safari combined. Firefox is an anomaly because it's made by a non-profit relying on donations and free labor. That's not how the free market is supposed to work.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people just don't want to use Opera.

Actually, most people don't even know what a browser is. Yet Opera managed to get more than 40 million users in less than 4 years (it didn't become free of charge until 3-4 years agl).

in the end, you'll realize that the other browsers out there just do a better job than Opera

False. Firefox, IE and to a certain extent Safari get compatibility for free because they are pushed by major corporations. Opera is the only independent browser vendor, and therefore doesn't get all that compatibility for free. Nothing wrong with Opera's abilities, it's browser sniffing that is the main problem.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[hkmwbz]

Opera is the #3 browser both globally and in Europe. In Europe, its market share is higher than Chrome and Safari combined.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[Zontar The Mindless]

Right.

When Firefox runs on my mobile, call me.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I did address them, but not in the way you wanted, by pointing out that the majority of the masses of asses will still go with IE because it's all they know and are terrified of trying something new.

No, that's called sidestepping the point. For example, I pointed out a technical difference between Opera and Firefox that potentially results in the effect upon them being different. Your reply pointed out how things work with Firefox and concluded that the same then applies to Opera, never addressing the difference I pointed out. You addressed exactly zero of my points, instead you basically repeated your previous post and ignored everything I had written. In a rhetorical argument, that's tantamount to losing, but since we're much less formal here I though I'd give you the opportunity to actually go back and address them.

Re:It doesn't really matter

[FishWithAHammer]

My mobile runs Chrome. Sorry for your incapability.

How the ballot box will work

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera Software is, as expected, preening over the forthcoming browser ballot box feature in Windows 7. It will put the Opera name in front of millions of users who probably never heard of it.

Windows Setup, Screen 25:

As per litigation by the European Union, please select your internet browser:

[ ] (large IE logo here) MICROSOFT(tm) INTERNET EXPLORER(tm) 8(tm) — The NEWEST, most FASTEST web browser from MICROSOFT(tm)! See all your favorite web pages load up to fourteen hojillion percent faster than ever before with brand new MICROSOFT(tm) SUPERFAST WEB(tm) technology! Browse in the utmost of safety with the latest and bestest of MICROSOFT(tm) security! Witness the splendor of MICROSOFT(tm) STANDARDS(tm) in webpages worldwide! All available as soon as your MICROSOFT(tm) WINDOWS(tm) 7(tm) computer is set up!

[ ] Other — You will be prompted for a URL to download an executable installer for your browser.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[mysidia]

Actually, I think they'll just display the icons of each browser and the name, with a radio box.

But the MSIE radio box will be selected by default, so the user who just clicks 'next' will automatically pick Microsoft's preferred browser.

Also several pages before it will have two radio buttons, "Use Microsoft recommended settings" and the second option will be "Customize advanced internet settings (for expert users only)"

Choice of browser won't even appear unless you elect to see advanced options

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Anonymous Coward]

Much more likely to be

Please choose from the top 5 browsers as rated by [insert ratings firm here]

Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 (Compatible with the vast majority of websites)
Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 (This is the recommended option for your computer - features enhanced security and speed)
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 (This is not recommended. Upgrade to Microsoft Internet Explorer 8!)
Mozilla Firefox (An alternative browser similar to Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 - link downloads version 3.5.1)
Google Chrome (Link downloads version 0.9.7)

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

You really think the EU will let this through? Where the vast majority do not have a ballot displayed? I doubt it. Much more likely that this screen will be required for all installs, including the final setup that OEM version do when you turn them on for the first time...

Re:How the ballot box will work

[pankkake]

Version numbers are especially important - users will use the one with the highest version, i.e. IE 8.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Anonymous Coward]

actually that's true. also i just checked my version of chrome and it appears that i downloaded version 2.0.172.38, which is rather more advanced than my vlc-inspired 0.9.7 was. chrome's obviously catching up quick on firefox!

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

OEM's can't be told what to do based on a ruling against Microsoft.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

Don't have to. Just make Microsoft put it at the user creation screen which appears during setup. And prompt for every new user who is created when they first login.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

So admin's don't get to pick a single browser and install it once for all users?

OEM's dont get to install the only browser they indend to support?

OEM's dont get to preconfigure the machine with a net-nanny type kid-safe browser?

People with netbooks and expensive wifi have to pay high rates to download a browser?

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Simetrical]

Version numbers are especially important - users will use the one with the highest version, i.e. IE 8.

You mean Opera 9.6, right?

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

All of our admins use an image. We don't use the install from our vendor. Those who don't use an image could login as administrator and set the default, or use a policy

If OEMs can force a choice, what's to prevent OEMs from colluding with MS?

The EU can decide if this is OK, but if so, it can't be IE, or it presents and easy way around the ruling

If I were the OEM, I'd provide the binaries on disk for browsers

Look, the EU made the ruling - I'm talking about how to enforce it If you don't like the ruling, take it up with them

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

All of our admins use an image.

So your image has all users created beforehand, and every machine gets all users? The theory was that the ballot should be at user creation time.

If OEMs can force a choice, what's to prevent OEMs from colluding with MS?

The law. Are you suggesting that instead of punishing law breakers, that we punish everyone beforehand, just in case?

The EU can decide if this is OK, but if so, it can't be IE, or it presents and easy way around the ruling

The ruling isnt again the OEM's, or their customers.

If I were the OEM, I'd provide the binaries on disk for browsers

We all know what kind of binaries OEMs like to infect their customers with.

Look, the EU made the ruling

..against Microsoft.

I'm talking about how to enforce it

..by dictating to OEMs? I think you dont understand the law. The OEM's didnt have representation at Microsofts trial.

If you don't like the ruling, take it up with them

I am dealing with your stated method of enforcing it. I am taking that up with you.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

It's easy to throw stones. Good job. Now, present a solution or shut up.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

A solution to what?

I am not the one that decided that there was a problem. I just pointed out that OEMs get to do what they want. Since then I have responded to your "solution" to a problem that you havent even clearly stated, and that said "solution" tramples all over the rights of OEM's and end-users.

You have lept to the conclusion that there is a problem with OEM's doing what they want. Its not correct. The arguement in court was that Microsoft had used its influence over OEMs to penalize the inclusion of other browsers. Now they can't do that. Now OEM's get to do what they want.

Now please explain clearly what the problem is, and why OEMs, end-users, and admins should have their rights removed.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

Red herring. Tell us how the EU is to enforce the ruling if the OEMs can do as they please, including only provide IE. Go on, explain it. Or go away.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

Red herring. Tell us how the EU is to enforce the ruling if the OEMs can do as they please, including only provide IE. Go on, explain it. Or go away.

The ruling is against Microsoft. Microsoft will include a ballot screen or suffer consequences.

The red herring is that the EU must "enforce" the ruling. Thats not how it works. They make a ruling against Microsoft, and then Microsoft either complies or it does not. If they do not, they end up back in court.

OEM's still get to do what they want, such as choose the browser for the buyer of the computer. Additonally, and this is completely on top of your already irrational thought process, is that the OEMs are not a monopoly.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[julesh]

Much more likely that this screen will be required for all installs, including the final setup that OEM version do when you turn them on for the first time...

That's called the Out-Of-Box Experience.

Just thought I'd let everyone chuckle at the silly name.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

Let's see how this plays out. If the OEMs make IE the default, I predict confidently that the EU will take action to prevent it, and force the USER to select from a ballot.

Like it or don't like it, think it's fair, don't think it's fair, be my guest. In the end, if the default browser on a machine is IE, the EU will act to prevent it. THAT is the issue at hand.

Cloud it all you want, but the bottom line is that the EU acted to ensure CONSUMER choice in browsers. Not OEM. Not manufacturer. CONSUMER.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

Cloud it all you want, but the bottom line is that the EU acted to ensure CONSUMER choice in browsers.

No they didn't. You have made many things up so far, and this is another gem.

The ruling is not aboit choice, its about bundling. The consumers have always had choice, and will continue to have choice. If Microsoft had prevented choice it would have been an entirely different court ruling. Consumers the world over have been choosing other browsers, with Firefox being #1 in some countries and Opera being #1 in others.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

Read the ruling. And the commentary from the EU Commission. I know you don't LIKE it, but they don't care. MS has now said they will include the browser ballot in Windows Update! So clearly, even customers who already HAVE made a choice will have to make one again.

Sorry if this ruins your day, but so be it.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

Read the ruling. And the commentary from the EU Commission.

Why not quote the portions relevant to your opinion? Its harder than you are suggesting, as in impossible.

You are making things up again. I am *amazed* that you would do that immediately after being called out on the very same thing.

The ruling is about bundling.

Here is an actual quote for you, from the EU commission:

"As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal [to ship no browser at all] may potentially be more positive [...] It is noted that computer manufacturers would appear to be able to choose to install Internet Explorer--which Microsoft will supply free of charge--another browser or multiple browsers."

You might actualy want to read some of the material on the subject before you go ahead and make things up. At least that way, you wouldn't be so easily caught in lies.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

It's about the consumer:

In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

And the commission said MS actions may not be sufficient

The company said it would make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program. In response the European Commission expressed scepticism over the move and whether it would allay accusations of Microsoft abusing its market position.

AND, it said further

the European Commission said "it would also have to consider whether this initial step of technical separation of IE from Windows could be negated by other actions by Microsoft".

In other words, this may not be sufficient. Why? Because the issue is more than just tying - it's about ubiquity and lack of consumer choice due to lock-in. Or MS doing exactly what I said - finding a way to induce OEMs to install IE or otherwise trying to get around the ruling.

It would really help if you had a clue about this before opening your mouth to spew BS.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

Nothing you quoted backs up your arguements.

Care to try again?

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

It backs it up 100%. I'll trust the very words of the EU, the actions of MS and the reporting of the BBC over your claims. It's clear you got caught with your pants down, and now you're holding your fingers in your ears going 'nanananana' to avoid hearing what you know to be the truth.

Re:How the ballot box will work

[Rockoon]

Nothing you quoted backs up your arguement. I'll give you one last opportunity. Its funny that what you are doing, going 'nanaana', is what you accuse me off. Such deflections don't support your arguement, while the personal attacks only show that your arguement is very weak..

Re:How the ballot box will work

[malchus842]

I posted the quotes. You don't like them so you demand I produce something of your liking. Run along little boy. You're out of your league. The EU, BBC and MS all agree with what I said. Your continued stamping your feet and plugging your ears is pathetic.

Re:Self Interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Why thank you, Captain Obvious.

Will a ballot really be that effective?

[AnonymousIslander]

But what's stopping MS from simply putting IE as the first choice? Or in the case of Linux whatever the distro's favourite browser choice? While it's a nice idea, Lie seems to forget that a large number of people buy pre-configured systems, and even then there's a good chance they'd pick the first choice offered out of lack of awareness. Unless the organisations behind Opera, Firefox et al can whip up a major advertising campaign rivaling anything MS can pump out it's not as simple as putting a few choices on the screen.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[malchus842]

Well, if the EU is smart, they will impose some basic rules on the ballot screen:

1) No default selection

2) Random order of displayed browser choices

3) No MS propaganda on the screen.

That should do it.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[mabhatter654]

but now Dell can legally add Firefox, Opera, or Chrome right to the desktop and Microsoft can't sanction them for it! That's the REAL winner, because you are correct, people tend to use what's working and OEMS are basically banned from including anything pre-installed and on the desktop except IE.

For example my Acer Aspire One shipped with the full dock of Google apps preinstalled... Desktop, Gadgets, Earth, Picassa but under Microsoft's current iron fist they can't include Chrome without backlash. In another example IBM seems to like Opera for many of it's Linux/workstation machines as it's cross-architecture/platform embedded reader... again, they could "encourage" Leneovo to add that to thinkpads for their in-house teams. HP has pretty good ties with Apple still, they could ship PCs with iTunes/Safari ready to go and connect to their home servers for backup, etc, etc.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[bonch]

Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to put their browser as the first choice? Windows is their product, and Internet Explorer adds value to it. This whole idea is stupidly socialist. Nobody is forcing you to use Internet Explorer--you can download Opera yourself the moment Windows boots up using the very browser that is conveniently bundled with it.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Hunter0000]

This is the issue. The ballot box is idiotic and does not address anything anti-competitive (Really? you must include your competitors products with yours? How about the EU makes it illegal to not offer pre-installed after market parts for new car purchases instead of the manufactorer's version?) The real anti-competitive behavior here was punishing pre-installers for including non-IE browsers, thats what should be prevented, not Microsoft only including its OS with its browser.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[CSMatt]

That will only serve to confuse and anger most people, since the next button is disabled and they have no clue what option to select.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[malchus842]

Perhaps, but allowing IE to be the default mostly defeats the EU's directive and ruling

A simple, EU approved statement about browser choice would suffice to solve the 'confusion' issue for most people.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[CSMatt]

That really isn't going to help people who don't even know what a Web browser is, let alone those who don't know what the differences are between each browser.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[malchus842]

So I suppose your choice is to allow MS to continue what the EU has determined to be anti-competitive actions? Remember, we're dealing with a convicted monopolist here.

People can be educated. And ought to be.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[mgblst]

Yes, good point. Because it doesn't work in EVERY SINGLE SITUATION (car parts), then you should never apply it. What don't you people get, MS is doing this because the alternative is a huge fine. They don't want a huge fine, they want to do business in Europe. They have broken the law a number of times. And they aren't being allowed to control the internet as they have done in the past, simply because they have a monopoly in OS's.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[evilviper]

1) No default selection

2) Random order of displayed browser choices

3) No MS propaganda on the screen.

Yes, and the one with "Internet" in the name is guaranteed to be chosen by the clueless, 100% of the time.

After all, they don't want to go to the Opera, they want to go to the Internet.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[malchus842]

I'm hoping against hope that a bit of education is possible among the masses. I know, silly me. :-(

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[rdnetto]

Well, if the EU is smart, they will impose some basic rules on the ballot screen:

1) No default selection

2) Random order of displayed browser choices

3) No MS propaganda on the screen.

That should do it.

Random order seems annoying and unpredictable. Alphabetical would also make more sense, though it would give Google Chrome an advantage.

As for MS propaganda, they're going to have to explain what a browser is for those who have no idea, and will likely tell the user that IE was the default in previous versions of Windows. That's not propaganda, but would have the same effect.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not fucking "convicted monopolists" you drama queen. Jesus I wish people would quit using that phrase.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[IntlHarvester]

but now Dell can legally add Firefox, Opera, or Chrome right to the desktop and Microsoft can't sanction them for it!

That is already the case, in the US. However, the OEMs won't ship something unless they get paid to install it.

Your supposition that Acer can't ship Google Chrome is incorrect, they're probably just holding out for more money.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, well, good in theory... but iff this were to happen, Dell/HP/whathaveyou would be commiting suicide to actually report MS threatening them. Not only would MS get off with a slap on the wrist (if that, since this would be hard to prove...) but the OEM in question would get some *unrelated* cost increases in their Windows OEM prices...

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

but now Dell can legally add Firefox, Opera, or Chrome right to the desktop and Microsoft can't sanction them for it!

Can't sanction them in the EU for it.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Sinbios]

So wouldn't it be Opera's fault that it doesn't have Internet in its name? Why are "the clueless" responsible for being informed about obscure browsers when they don't really care? If the problem is really prevalent as you say, and Opera really wants to capture this totally-clueless-picks-browsers-based-on-the-name market, then isn't it Opera's job to change its name to say, Opera Internet Browser(c) or some such? After all, it's not the consumer's job to be informed about products and choices, it's the marketing department's job to inform their target market about their product.

Developers should take a lesson from this. I still cringe a little every time I open the GIMP.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole idea is stupidly socialist.

Bizarre. The whole idea is based on the competition laws essential to the functioning of free markets and capitalism. Microsoft repeatedly tries to subvert free market capitalism and people like you then claim that stopping them from doing so is 'socialism'. Well, if socialism brings us extra choices and freedom from abusive monopolies, then I'm all for it.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some Packard Bells shipped with the Google Apps packs, including firefox.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nitot/381859841/

Also Dell shipped firefox on some computers in the UK for a while.

I don't know how that experiment turned out.

I also don't know the deals between Microsoft and the OEMs (neither do you, so your post ist just speculation), but given this evidence, it seems to me if companies are doing it at all, then Microsoft isn't strictly forbidding it. What seems more likely is they already have all the support training in place for IE, and supporting another browser is an added cost on a system which is already operating at an incredibly low margin.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[omkhar]

In another example IBM seems to like Opera for many of it's Linux/workstation machines as it's cross-architecture/platform embedded reader... again, they could "encourage" Leneovo to add that to thinkpads for their in-house teams.

IBM more heavily embraces Chrome and Mozilla internally than Opera. And Lenovo's preload has nothing to do with the image that IBM uses internally, save the drivers.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[ceoyoyo]

The point is not to trick users into trying a browser other than IE. It's to remove some of the benefit that IE gets by being installed by default.

A ballot introduces the idea that there ARE other browsers (IE is not the Internet), and makes it easy for the user to get those other browsers. Many, perhaps even the majority have heard of Firefox et al, but actually downloading and installing them is a pain.

IE will probably be the first choice and I don't see that as a problem.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

but now Dell can legally add Firefox, Opera, or Chrome right to the desktop and Microsoft can't sanction them for it!

Theoretically this is true, but realistically, how do you know what they can do? One of the questions on the survey the EU sent to OEMs asked if MS was pressuring them to not ship with a different browser by default and after getting the results the EU decided to implement a choice that made such pressure irrelevant. And even if, MS were not to say a word to OEs about browsers going forward, years of criminal abuse has already resulted in tons of IE only Web pages which by themselves provide OEMs with direct financial motivation to ship IE by default. There's more to curing a stab wound than just removing the knife.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to put their browser as the first choice?

Because they broke the law.

This whole idea is stupidly socialist.

Antitrust laws are anything BUT socialist. Antitrust laws are there specifically to ensure that no one abuses the free market.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

Random order seems annoying and unpredictable.

Seriously, how often do regular people install Windows? Once in their lifetime?

As for MS propaganda, they're going to have to explain what a browser is for those who have no idea, and will likely tell the user that IE was the default in previous versions of Windows.

They would not have to tell people that IE was the default, no.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

Actually, they are. They have been convicted in several countries, including the U.S. and Korea.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

Actually, the ballot box does address something anti-competitive. Monopolists have been ordered to include competitor products in the past in order to restore competition in the market. Microsoft broke the law, now they must face the consequences.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

Easy solution: Call the alternatives "Opera Internet Browser", "Firefox Internet Browser", etc.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

Wow, all that text? The solution is simple. Just rename the other browsers to "Opera Internet Browser, "Firefox Internet Browser", etc.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[hkmwbz]

So you just call them "Opera Internet Browser, "Firefox Internet Browser", etc. And it doesn't really matter if everyone knows the differences. The point is that they will know that they have a choice.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[mabhatter654]

of course the EU did this thinking they were helping the end customer, but in reality they just played to Microsoft's hand as OEMS get ZERO choice and it's all back to what the EU makes Microsoft offer... leaving it up to the "customer" who's a sheep. (if only they'd all get a disease from all the sheep fucking!)

Microsoft lives to turn the trick like that. The US settlement was much the same way leaving Microsoft to deal with just one committee that reduces the influence of it's actual OEM customers concerns... it's the same game utilities play because it's "government" making the decision so it's "more legal" now.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[rdnetto]

Random order seems annoying and unpredictable.

Seriously, how often do regular people install Windows? Once in their lifetime?

As for MS propaganda, they're going to have to explain what a browser is for those who have no idea, and will likely tell the user that IE was the default in previous versions of Windows.

They would not have to tell people that IE was the default, no.

It's not just going to be used by 'regular people' - admins will use the same software, although they might have something like Group Policy for a large network.
And telling people what the default used to be would be a good idea for the user who has no idea what they used before. Even if it's not, it's certainly a justifiable one, so I doubt the EU would take MS up on it.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...of course the EU did this thinking they were helping the end customer, but in reality they just played to Microsoft's hand as OEMS get ZERO choice ...

That was the EU's intention. Since they believe the OEMs will be forced by MS and the broken market to make choices that will continue to hurt the market and themselves in the long term, the EU removed the choice from the OEMs so my can't use their leverage over the OEMs.

The US settlement was much the same way leaving Microsoft to deal with just one committee that reduces the influence of it's actual OEM customers concerns...

Excepting, of course, that the EU commissioners are not political shills appointed by people MS gives millions in campaign donations to.

Re:Will a ballot really be that effective?

[mabhatter654]

This is one of those cases where an individual customer is smart, an OEM is slightly smarter, but "customers" are sheep.

If an OEM chooses to move THEIR support structure to Firefox or Chrome they could install it on on all the PCs and just tell people to use it for support. Except that the "customer" gets to choose... so OEMS would have to "officially" support only one of the browsers because that's what "customers" as a herd will pick. It won't be a non-IE browser because too many middle managers are involved that won't move and OEMs won't have leverage to get "their" flock to move because they'd be different than the other "flocks". So the status stays "quo".

I only hope SVG spec doesn't mention transparency

[dvh.tosomja]

I only hope SVG spec doesn't mention transparency, otherwise, we're screwed!

Ubuntu

[SilverHatHacker]

Ubuntu already has one. Its called "Add/Remove..."

Re:Ubuntu

[d_jedi]

So does Windows 7.

Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[alvinrod]

Forget individual standards and other pointlessness, Microsoft should just give up on the browser wars and fork Firefox. They get a browser (largely for free) that's arguably better than there own efforts, even though they've been trying to do better. This nets them numerous benefits:

1) They can spend a lot less money developing their own competing product that's slowly hemorrhaging market-share regardless of what they do. There's not much money in the browser market anyway and they can make a few modifications to point the default search at Bing instead of Google.

2) They get all of the wonderful extensions that Firefox already has. In fact, they could have a few of the really nice ones enabled by default and claim that their browser offers more protection out of the box.

3) They can use it as an excuse to get the EU off of their back. It's not longer so much their browser as it is a rebranding of some other popular browser. Hell they could even include a version of Opera that defaults its searches to Bing.

4) If there's some horrible exploit released it will hit both Firefox and IE users so it can't be said that one is more secure than the other. This even gives Microsoft the added benefit of railing against the problems of Open Source software and claiming that their own closed source solution would be better, even though that's probably not true.

5) They can stop worrying about the browser market and actually focus on something that actually matters. If all browsers are standards compliant and have similar performance, does it really matter which browser a person actually uses? Microsoft hasn't been able to leverage any of its encoding formats through their browser. MP3 and AAC have completely outstripped WMA and I'm not aware of any major player utilizing WMV on the video side. That battle has been lost for Microsoft and to carry it on any further is futile and counter-productive.

6) They get to talk about how they're embracing open standards and open source so that they can appear like good guys when in reality the move would give them plenty of angles to play in the future and several ways to deride open source software.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see a reason for Microsoft not to make this transition. Formats are going to slowly slip through their fingers and they'll only end up loosing market share to superior browsers. If they would fork Firefox and toss their own interface on it so that it looks more like IE, then there's no real reason to use Firefox instead of IE. Neither is more or less secure and both would offer the exact same opportunities for customization and extension. Hell, a move like this could really hurt Mozilla which makes most of its money through their partnership with Google. Any exploits would also affect Firefox and someone is likely to have a decent patch available long before Microsoft would generally make one available. They would have to do a minimal amount of work and stay completely caught up with the Joneses.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they want to fork Firefox? It would make more sense to fork Chromium or just use Webkit. Performance and standards support are both significantly better there than with Gecko.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Darkness404]

Because Firefox is better known than Chromium. If you tell people "Hey this is the guts that power Firefox" you are going to get a lot more people to look at it than if you say "Hey this is the guts that powers Chrome".

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[pankkake]

They won't do it, because some websites work only with IE (ActiveX intranets and lousy javascript mainly) and they will want to keep it that way.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Targen]

Microsoft should just give up on the browser wars and fork Firefox.

4) If there's some horrible exploit released it will hit both Firefox and IE users so it can't be said that one is more secure than the other. This even gives Microsoft the added benefit of railing against the problems of Open Source software and claiming that their own closed source solution would be better, even though that's probably not true.

(emphasis mine)
My (limited and probably inaccurate) understanding of free software licenses tells me the GPL would probably not allow this except for some very slow and impractical trickery, but I'm not sure about the LGPL and MPL. How could they manage to do this?

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[larry bagina]

LGPL is only viral within the library/dll. The MPL only applies to the contents of the file itself (not other files that use it). So IE 2009 could be a closed source binary linked to the LGPL gecko/firefox libs, or a closed source binary (publishing any changes to gecko/firefox code).

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[farnsworth]

5) They can stop worrying about the browser market and actually focus on something that actually matters.

There is no browser market. There are two markets that Microsoft sells to: Average home users and businesses. They build IE to cater to both of these markets, and if you are honest with yourself, you will see that they have done a pretty good job of augmenting their platform with IE. They have always been focused on "something that actually matters", which is giving their customers what works for them. Whether or not those customers are making decisions that have a positive result or negative result in the long term is besides the point.

Microsoft may not achieve their goals in a way that aligns with the interest of the masses, but they are not dumb. It is said that Microsoft knew far more about, and better understood, Netscape's defects than Netscape ever did, solely to be compatible so that IE would meet the needs of their market.

Forking Webkit or Gecko would be in the interest of web developers and standards nerds, but it would not meet the needs of Microsoft's market. I still have to fire up IE 6 at work because we have brain-dead intranet apps that require it. Until web developers or standards nerds mean more to Microsoft than average home users and businesses do, there is not much for Microsoft to do other than PR work. That said, IE 8 is actually very good. I'd probably be happy to use it if it was the only browser available.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Tubal-Cain]

And they can't make an ActiveX plugin... why?

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[alvinrod]

If that's all it takes, they could easily include a legacy version of IE 6 with Windows for business customers that lives in a sandbox so that it doesn't crap all over everything else.

Now that IE 8 is actually more standards-compliant, that ship has sailed. If someone is having new intranet applications developed that will only work in IE 6, I'll politely inform them that they're an idiot for you. New development is going to aim for browser independence at least to the extent that it can conform to the standards that are widely supported. As long as the only place to get legacy support is on Windows through a bundled IE 6 browser, the businesses will tend to stick with it.

Microsoft could probably do more than just PR work if the company had a more clear plan for the future. Right now they seem to be throwing as many things against the wall as possible to see what will stick. I think they realize that at some point in the future, their core businesses are going to be irrelevant and that they need to find the next frontier. The internet browser is now largely irrelevant to the company and they can't use it to forward their other products as they had hoped to do once upon a time. It's time that they stop worrying about it and focus their efforts on something that will be important to the company several years from now. The Xbox might be one of those things; so might the touch screen table device that they've been working on for a while now. Whatever is their next big thing, IE isn't.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[barzok]

Don't forget about all of the applications that depend upon MSHTML.DLL and all of its oddities too.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Blakey Rat]

Microsoft already has an awesome rendering engine that makes Trident look like chopped liver. They use it in Expression Web, and Visual Studio. All it needs is some optimization and a Javascript engine.

But that's all besides the point; if Microsoft changed from Trident, they'd break compatibility with thousands of poorly-coded intranet apps which rely on proprietary Jscript and ActiveX bullcrap. If Microsoft even tried, their large corporate customers would politely convince them otherwise. (i.e. threaten to pull millions of dollars of business.)

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Please re-read the parent post:
"they want to keep it that way."

Merging two competing products such as FF and IE into a single code base is hard and smells of defeat that MS will have to explain the reasons of. Nobody likes saying "my product used to suck" unless they have a NEWER and SELLABLE "fork." See Windows 7.

Even just "extracting" ActiveX, a Windows-library dependent technology, into a standalone plugin would have the same self-neutralizing effect that rolling out a universal-ish available DirectX 10 suite. Macs, Linuxes and netbooks or anything you care to load the plugin under would have less reasons to pay for a windows license. Heck, most hardcore dual-booting posters who use Windows only sporadicly here have admitted Windows is there only for the 3D games.

Thus, the "[MS wants] to keep it that way" thing.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Z34107]

Those are good reasons, but I can think of a few reasons why it would be a bad idea:

Would rebranding Firefox really be seen as a "good thing"? Or would /.ers see it as stealing?

IE is in some respects a more technically sophisticated browser. I'm talking about each tab in it's own sandboxed process. Also, to my knowledge there is no Firefox ActiveX control or COM interface or .NET assembly - there is no drop-in way to use Firefox in a Windows application.

Now, if MS *really* wanted to do something positive, they could open source IE.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[mgblst]

Microsoft want to get into the internet big time. They have a lot of services, but aren't very popular.

Now they can increase their popularity by making a better product (though this isn't guaranteed), or by leveraging their huge OS market share. They seem to be doing both.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Tubal-Cain]

They made the .Net plugin unremovable at first. Could they make it impossible to (easily) disable, as well?

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[BitZtream]

1) Every windows machine in the world uses IE, even if you never open it. Firefox doesn't render like IE so you would break millions of internal HTML documents used in Windows apps and piss off everyione just to support your agenda. Not happening.

2) All the extensions ... yea ... just like all the ActiveX controls for IE? Just like all the toolbars that will appear? I realize that slashdot thinks Firefox extensions are 'safe' and has no freaking idea that a XPCOM based extension is EXACTLY THE SAME as browser helper object or non-scriptable ActiveX. Some extensions are just as unsafe as a poorly written scriptable ActiveX. I realize most people don't have a clue why ActiveX causes the problems it does or that Firefox extensions are only 'safer' because they are harder to install (i.e. they haven't yet allowed auto-installing,

3) Well maybe when Firefox doesn't suck complete ass for embedding into other apps, that can happen. As someone who embeds Firefox into other apps, I can tell you that Firefox is no replacement for dropping the IE control on a Windows form or a Webkit view on a Cocoa view. You have no idea how many apps use these other browsers and how much Firefox is asstastic as a replacement. There is a new API in the works but its a long way from being anything anyones going to use. The fact that they change the interface practically every week is yet another reason why Firefox isn't really all that useful to 'bundle' with an OS.

4) Great, so now that Firefox is a real target, and the malware guys are going after it, and it gets exploited monthly, then you won't have anything to do but bitch that its all MSes fault that its being exploited like every other popular product.

5) Do you browse the web? I've hit at least 3 news sites today alone that used WMV. Sucks when I'm not using Windows, but they most certainly gets used. Helps when you haven't had on your anti-ms blinders so long that you ignore half the web.

6) With SVG specifically, Firefox is fucking worthless. Its 'support for the standard' is about like IE3 supports XHTML. Yes, it might display, but I'll bet money if you're doing anything more than basic shapes its doing it wrong.

If Microsoft set their mind to it, they could have the most standards compliant browser. They have more resources than Mozilla has. Google has no real reason to try to beat them if they are making a standards compliant browser, the browser to Google is just a way to facilitate their web services. But ... why should they worry about it, they have a large chunk of the market already, even with it slipping they are STILL the leader by a large portion.

I realize you want to live in a nice little fantasy world, but there is no business reason to do anything you've said for Microsoft, and I'm afraid that if your fantasy was realized you'd be more than slightly disappointed with the result when it didn't turn out like you think it would.

I for one don't want my standards lowered to the mess of code and crappy presentation known as Firefox. I use Gecko in my own apps, but you won't catch me using firefox for anything other than possibly downloading Chrome or Chromium.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[sxeraverx]

Or they could leave IE as it is, and kill Trident. Interface with Gecko, instead, or WebKit, or KHTML, or anything even remotely standards-compliant. That is seriously my only issue with IE. I don't care about security, extensibility, what have you. Let people use w/e they feel like using. I don't care if Joe Public gets a virus on his machine. I *do* care about having to spend 90% of my time checking to see if things work with Trident, instead of actually developing.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[MemoryDragon]

Nice idea and makes sense, but Microsoft always had the not invented here syndrome, which means they will never do it!

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Sinbios]

Wait, so the solution to Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour is... to reduce competition in the market?

What happened to the long-toted problems of a monopoly becoming complacent and not improving their product, etc. etc.?

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

There is no browser market. There are two markets that Microsoft sells to: Average home users and businesses.

You don't know what a market is.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[hkmwbz]

There is no browser market.

You should tell browser companies like Mozilla Corp., Access, OpenWave and Opera that. I mean, they make a living out of browsers. I guess they just don't know that there is no browser market.

Re:Microsoft should just fork Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Firefox made the .NET plugin unremovable because it was a system-wide plugin.

SVG is GOOD for mobile and other devices !

[johnjones]

SVG tiny is a great thing for the whole of the web to actually support !

it enables mobile web browsers to show content regardless of the screen size and thats a GOOD THING

firefox just needs to support SVG tiny...

regards

John Jones

Re:SVG is GOOD for mobile and other devices !

[BZ]

Are you talking about SVG 1.2 Tiny, or SVG 1.1 Tyny? Firefox supports SVG 1.1 Tiny as well as or better than it does SVG 1.1 full. As for SVG 1.2 Tiny, parts of it conflict with CSS or the W3C DOM (as in, either impossible or very difficult to support those and SVG 1.2 Tiny at once). Still other parts are completely off-the-wall bonkers for a graphics language (an incompatible XHR replacement? A setTimeout/setInterval replacement? An incompatible window.location definition? Thankfully, the socket access APIs seem to have gotten cut at some point after all.).

Those parts of SVG Tiny 1.2 will likely never get implemented in Firefox, or any other SVG UA that actually has to deal with web content.

Re:SVG is GOOD for mobile and other devices !

[BitZtream]

You're comments show you haven't read the SVG specification. SVG doesn't have timer support, its scripting language does, which is open. My SVG render supports setTimer in Javascript, sorry yours doesn't.

I was going to go one but your post translates into 'Firefox support for SVG is absolutely ass-tastic' Stop. Thats it. Fix support in Gecko.

Re:SVG is GOOD for mobile and other devices !

[BitZtream]

It does support TIny... About as good as IE5 support HTML.

Re:SVG is GOOD for mobile and other devices !

[BZ]

> You're comments show you haven't read the SVG specification

Uh... Trust me, I have. See http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=from&hdr-1-query=bzbarsky&index-grp=Public_FULL&index-type=t&type-index=www-svg

> SVG doesn't have timer support, its scripting language does, which is open.

I have no idea what "open" means in this case. SVG 1.2 Tiny support would presumably include support for the SVG 1.2 uDOM (that's the only profile of SVG 1.2 Tiny defined section 1.2.1 of the SVG 1.2 Tiny specification) which includes the things I listed in my comment. The uDOM is a language-independent interface specification; there is no "SVG scripting language".

> My SVG render supports setTimer in Javascript

I have no idea what setTimer is (nor does Google, in the context of SVG). The SVG 1.2 Tiny timer object is created via createTimer on the global object (typically the Window). See http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/svgudom.html#svg__SVGGlobal_createTimer

Are you quite sure you've read the SVG 1.2 Tiny specification?

> I was going to go one

One what?

> your post translates into 'Firefox support for SVG is absolutely ass-tastic'

Firefox support for SVG 1.1 Full is sorta-ok (not great, by any means).

Support for SVG 1.2 Tiny is an explicit non-goal for every single browser implementor, because of the issues I mentioned. Given that when the browser implementors raised precisely these concerns during the standardization process the SVG Working Group basically told them that they weren't meant to implement this specification, I'm not sure why you're suddenly demanding that they do.

Now SVG 1.2 Full, which is being worked on, is a very different beastie. We'll see how it works out. It's probably a few years from being in CR (and hence call for implementations) at this point.

Why?

[Darkness404]

Lie would also like to see Apple and Linux makers follow suit with browser ballot boxes of their own."

What would this accomplish? For one, it makes it a heck of a lot easier if Ubuntu has to only support one or two browsers, especially when there are multitudes of browsers available. Then there is Apple which a non-Apple browser would again, ruin the unified experience. If Opera wants to be used then release the code if you want your rendering engines to be accepted release the code. Don't start complaining about how much you want open standards to be followed when your browser itself is the most closed browser next to IE.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. Open standards are not at all the same as open source.

Re:Why?

[Rockoon]

For one, it makes it a heck of a lot easier if Ubuntu has to only support one or two browsers, especially when there are multitudes of browsers available.

..and it would be a heck of a lot easier for Microsoft to only ship one browser, and even easier still if it was their own browser.

Do you think that Ubuntu doing what Microsoft has been doing, is acceptable because it is a "heck of a lot easier" for Ubuntu?

Re:Why?

[Darkness404]

The difference is, MS doesn't make most of its money with support. MS makes most of their consumer sales by sale of the OS and applications alone. Ubuntu makes all of its money with support.

Re:Why?

[Rockoon]

The difference is, MS doesn't make most of its money with support.

What you are saying is that the people who make money providing support should provide less, while the people who spend money providing support should provide more.

Did you actualy think about it?

Re:Why?

[vondo]

Yes. The word you are looking for is "Monopoly." Microsoft is not allowed to do things that other companies are because it is a monopoly.

Re:Why?

[Rockoon]

What are the limits to this assertation?

Can Microsoft bundle a single text editor, which it makes?

Re:Why?

[vondo]

It's not an assertion, it's a finding of courts. I have no idea what criteria they use to determine what MS can bundle and what they can't and what they have to provide alternatives for, but browsers are not one of the things they can do whatever they want with. I believe in the EU media players are the same.

But Mac and Linux (all 10,000 flavors) are essentially free to ship or not whatever they want because they have such a small market share.

Re:Why?

[RightSaidFred99]

Stop lying. The fact that they have been labeled a monopoly does not mean they can't do the same fucking thing other companies do. This idea that Microsoft can't follow basic, accepted business practices that other companies do like including a browser with the OS they sell is a disgusting perversion, Yet you Linux windbags trot it out every time someone asks why it's OK for every other OS to include a browser but not Microsoft.

Unless it's applied to physically limited resources which pose grave societal danger, monopoly laws as interpreted nowadays are fundamentally stupid. But I'll play along and pretend they're internally consistent. You would have a rule like "MS can't threaten to hack up an OEMs prices because they sell non MS OS's." or "MS can't threaten to buy a competitor's company and spend a ton of funding to ruin an OEM who won't agree to enter in to some business deal".

Those would be the kinds of things a monopoly can't do. Telling someone they can't do something _every other vendor_ does is stupid. It's just thinly veiled socialism - when someone excels, hamstring them so everyone else can compete

Re:Why?

[onefriedrice]

Oh, so it's a bonus for Canonical. Increased support costs... decrease software quality... more support contracts... profit?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome the return of one of slashdot's most famous pretend MS shills, whose pathetic juvenile insults and hilarious attempts to pretend they don't understand competition law fall so flat that they can only be a true MS hater at heart.

Re:Why?

[hkmwbz]

The fact that they have been labeled a monopoly does not mean they can't do the same fucking thing other companies do.

It does, and you know by now because knowledgeable people have told you. Stop pretending to be an idiot. You are a Microsoft shill.

Re:Why?

[RightSaidFred99]

It only means this by some retarded, angry socialist interpretation of the laws.

Re:Why?

[hkmwbz]

So the republicans in the U.S. government are "retarded, angry socialists"?

Gentoo's already got them covered

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentoo doesn't come with ANY browsers by default, not does it prompt you to install one at all.

Now everyone just ignore that appearance of epiphany in "emerge gnome"'s output.... /insane pe

It's not about media formats

[benwaggoner]

Microsoft hasn't been able to leverage any of its encoding formats through their browser. MP3 and AAC have completely outstripped WMA and I'm not aware of any major player utilizing WMV on the video side.

Media formats are pretty orthgonal to the browser; most playback is via plugins, and there are WMV playback plugins available for all major browsers. Microsoft has a NSAPI implementation for Firefox, Distributes Flp4Mac for free. And of course Silverlight supports WMV (along with MP4 and MP3), and is supported in the codec pack for Moonlight.

WMV is quite widely used for premium content where the studios require DRM, as Windows Media DRM and PlayReady is the only widely deployed DRM available for license (Apple's FairPlay is only available to Apple as a publisher and Apple as a device vendor). So WMV is used for Netflix, Blockbuster, and other services in the USA, and it's used even more widely in Europe and Asia's video services.

But again, nothing to do with the browser.

With Silverlight supporting H.264 and AAC now, the actual codecs and media formats aren't the interesting point of competition. The big differences between Silverlight and Flash today are much more systems layer stuff like adaptive streaming and rich presentation layers. HTML5 is interesting, but even the proposals are well behind what Flash and Silverlight have already deployed for complex players.

Preening?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Given the context, I expect "gloating" or "crowing" or "celebrating" would've been a better fit.

Signed,
Your eight-grade English teacher

Re:Preening?

[lfaraone]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Given the context, I expect "gloating" or "crowing" or "celebrating" would've been a better fit.

Signed, Your eight-grade English teacher

*eighth*, anyone?

Re:Preening?

[VGPowerlord]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Given the context, I expect "gloating" or "crowing" or "celebrating" would've been a better fit.

Signed,
Your eight-grade English teacher

Main Entry:
        preen
Function:
        verb
Etymology:
        Middle English prenen, alteration of proynen, prunen, from Anglo-French puroindre, proindre, from pur- thoroughly + uindre, oindre to anoint, rub, from Latin unguere -- more at purchase, ointment
Date:
        14th century

transitive verb
...
3: to pride or congratulate (oneself) for achievement

Signed,
Merriam-Webster

Re:Preening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they're sprucing up the version of Opera they intend to put on the ballot, making sure it won't be a disappointment if someone chooses it.

Re:Preening?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "Your eighth-grade English teacher."

I'm not being a simply grammer nazi. I've been waiting my entire life for this moment.

Re:Preening?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a simply"?

Re:Preening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but as Merriam-Webster notes, it is a transitive verb, while in the original article, it is used without an object.

That's why "gloating" or "crowing" would have been better.

Signed,

A. Pedant

opera forced plugins (ever?)

[spottedkangaroo]

If IE is forced to support SVG (yeah right); then maybe opera will be forced to finally accept plugins? The browser is really nice, but it's pretty much worthless if you're accustomed to plugins.

Re:opera forced plugins (ever?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Plugins? Meaning Flash, Java, etc? It has those, lol. If you mean extentions, it has widgets.

Re:opera forced plugins (ever?)

[ledow]

Probably means that security nightmare of "generic ActiveX control being used in a webpage". Yeah, cos I *want* that in a browser.

Re:opera forced plugins (ever?)

[Anonymous Coward]

If IE is forced to support SVG (yeah right); then maybe opera will be forced to finally accept plugins? The browser is really nice, but it's pretty much worthless if you're accustomed to plugins.

what necessary plugins can't you use in Opera? (other than ActiveX of course)

Opera runs plugins just fine.

Re:opera forced plugins (ever?)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's upset Opera can't put Winamp's play/pause/next buttons next to the browser's status bar in less than two clicks.

Re:opera forced plugins (ever?)

[hkmwbz]

Dear child... Opera does support plugins!

Re:opera forced plugins (ever?)

[Anonymous Coward]

It does support plugins (they're called widgets), and I don't get the "accustomed to plugins" stick. Most of the functionality provided by the more popular firefox extensions is built into Opera - who gives a flying fuck weather the functionality is provided natively or via a plugin framework, if the functionality is there one way on another?

Oh, and IE does support SVG, just not natively, and the SVG plugins destroy the native support in Chrome, Firefox and Opera in terms of performance (and conformity to the spec, no less!).

Works for postscript. . . . . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

NT

A browser ballot is stupid

[bonch]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer. People are free to download Opera on their own, and if Opera's CTO wants more people to know about Opera, they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance. If that still doesn't get more people using Opera, then that's just life.

Some people have adopted this crazy idea that there is supposed to be balanced competition at all times, enforceable by the government. The point of competition is that someone is going to end up on top, and the others have to fight to compete. The government should only be stepping in when the competitor on top is illegally affecting the market in some way, but that's not the case here. You can download Opera the moment you start up your Windows PC for the first time.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[capnkr]

I mostly agree with your post, but this part:

Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer.

Har! That's a joke, right?

If you don't think so, then I could suggest some reading for you that would show you that Microsoft pretty much does everything it can to force people to use IE.

AFA TFA, if this ballot box can make IE + MS even more standards compliant, I say go for it. It's been the other way for far too long.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Weedhopper]

You can download Opera the moment you start up your Windows PC for the first time.

Can you do it without using Internet Explorer?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[slazzy]

I disagree. Many or even most Windows users aren't smart enough to know that another browser exists or even that it is possible for another browser to run on their computer, after all - how can you explore the internet without internet explorer? I feel that when your company is a large monopoly, the free market is not capable of competing. Cellular and broadband internet are good examples of this problem in many areas too.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[derGoldstein]

Yes.

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP: instructions.

Step 2) Use Firefox to download Opera.

(you can probably use the method above to directly download Opera, but I'm too lazy to figure out how right now)

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[m.ducharme]

What does capitalism have to do with the free market?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice idea except, for example, Windows 95 did not ship with an FTP client; and once the FTP client become essential again, 3rd party FTP client authors will want the same treatment as HTML viewers...

My favored Car Analogy for browsers is Tires. It's hard to drive to the tire store without a set being preinstalled, and it's hard to get a browser without already having one.

IE is just like the usable, but not particularly great tires that come with many cars. It works, and most won't bother to replace it until there is a problem.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[retchdog]

OK. How do I read the instructions? Lynx?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[siloko]

or . . .

step 1: download virtualbox
step 2: download an iso of your favourite [debian based] distro
step 3: install iso retreived through step 2
step 4: launch distro
step 5: launch commandline
step 6: apt-get install opera
step 7: realise step 1 requires IE
step 8: slap self on forehead
step 9: reap multiple +1 funnies
step 10: wonder why they mysteriously always finish at +4

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, USB drive?

I swear, I thought people around here were smart.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[itsdapead]

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP

100 million typical PC users just heard you say "Download Firefox by re-routing warp power through the starboard deflector array and initiating an inverse tetrion pulse".

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Volante3192]

And the copy on the USB drive came from...

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[msuarezalvarez]

While that is wrong---you must be new here...---it is also irrelevant, as the proportion of people 'around here' is negligible...

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Tubal-Cain]

It happens so often Starfleet needs to consider using shell scripts.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[derGoldstein]

It was supposed to be a joke, and yet most responses here nitpick that it's not a practical solution...

Next time I'll add:
</humor>

JK ;)

LoLz!

And imagine a beyowulf cluster of these!

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[LaskoVortex]

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP: instructions [boutell.com].

So you need to know of FTP to use anything but Explorer? So basically, anyone that doesn't already know about FTP is forced to use Explorer just because they run Windows. Is it now Microsoft's responsibility to educate the user about FTP? Of course you would say not. Me too.

Microsoft's mode of operation hinges on the strategy that the best way to win and be competitive and capitalist is to keep the customer ignorant of the options, even if those options *might* be superior. That is not winning with a superior product. That is using an *overwhelmingly* dominant market position to suppress competition by limiting (passively or not) marketplace knowledge.

To me, that is not healthy for capitalism, in fact, I don't consider it capitalism at all. It's market manipulation. Microsoft can manipulate the market in this way precisely because they are so dominant. That is why laws that enforce competition exist.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[CSMatt]

Not quite. IE is like a set of tires that won't come off the car unless you tear off the entire axle as well.

To be fair, the same analog applies to Safari in Mac OS X, and Firefox in Ubuntu.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[itsdapead]

It was supposed to be a joke

Why? Its a perfectly reasonable solution for a /. type who has a second computer to look up the FTP address and can't be arsed to mess about with a USB stick. I've certainly used CLI tools to download and install software... usually wget on Linux, though, not FTP.

I did wonder exactly who the author of those instructions thought his audience was going to be :-)

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[hedwards]

It's not a crazy idea it's the logical extension to capitalism. If we're supposed to rely upon market forces to ensure us the best deal, then it follows that there needs to be somebody making sure that it's a balanced playing field.

Just because there's a lot of Libertarians and free market junkies that don't understand the system they're opining about does not mean that the assumptions work. A market run in that fashion will never serve the customers well because quite frankly it's not in the best interest of a company to serve its customers well. It's always more profitable to monopolize the market space and deliver the sheer minimum quality necessary to maintain. Theoretical arguments to the contrary just don't bear out in any sort of consistent or reliable fashion.

In this case, they're not being required to ship a competitors product, they're being forced to provide a fair playing field between the different web browsers. Having dealt with the consequences of MS' incompetent browser business for some time, I think that it's naive to say the least to suggest that it's been in the interest of really anybody else. As long as there are serious constraints to switching based upon the tying of IE into the OS, there's going to be a legitimate reason to demand that MS knock it off and level the playing field.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[TheRaven64]

I may be wrong, but I believe that Windows Explorer is capable of functioning as an FTP client. If you enter ftp://ftp.opera.com in the address bar, you should go to the Opera FTP site, from where you can download Opera. It's a bit difficult to tell where Windows Explorer ends and Internet Explorer starts, so it may be in the IE part.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the heck would you need to look up the FTP server for Mozilla?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[rohan972]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.

they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance.

My government only releases it's tax return software for windows. Even when you can get it running on wine, the help files don't work. I'd much rather have the government make their services platform independent than try to enforce competition.

Either that, or people without MS windows are exempt from reporting income and paying tax, whichever is easier!

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Blakey Rat]

I disagree. Many or even most Windows users aren't smart enough to know that another browser exists or even that it is possible for another browser to run on their computer, after all - how can you explore the internet without internet explorer?

At one time, that applied to Xerox, Band-Aid, Rollerblades, and GM/Ford/Chrysler too. What changed? Why can't Opera sell their browser the same way that, say, Canon sells photocopiers?

I'm not saying it's not a challenge, but it's obviously possible and Opera isn't even trying. They just sued.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[witherstaff]

Wow there's a lot of MS supporters on this article marking everything anti MS a troll. I guess the US and the EU findings of MS being a monopoly doesn't matter to those people. Besides, your car analogy was spot on.

I'm mostly a hands off as much red tape as possible for companies but monopolies are horrid things. I spent 10 years with an ISP fighting the hassles of monopolies in the telco world. It slows innovation and it hinders the entrepreneurs of the world. Microsoft finally getting slapped for their anti-competitive behavior is good news. Just maybe the web can start improving if we're not locked into whatever MS ships as the most common denominator (Such as IE6 still being used by 15% of web users)

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed and LOL.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the discussion is about Windows 7, I'll tell you how it is in the final RTM: they actually have separated IE and Windows Explorer - particularly because you can actually remove IE in Win 7, rather than "turning it off" it like in XP, which just deleted the shortcuts. Typing an ftp:// address in Windows Explorer opens the site like a folder on your computer, typing an http:/// address launches your default browser. Nice - makes sense, FTP is just file transfer, and doesn't need to render anything - nice functionality to have in WE.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Tacvek]

As of Internet Explorer 8 (and I believe also I.E. 7) both Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer support ftp. The Windows Explorer support is better (same interface as back with I.E. 6), but for just downloading the Internet Explorer interface is just barely sufficient.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The government should only be stepping in when the competitor on top is illegally affecting the market in some way, but that's not the case here.

Nice try, you moron. That's exactly the reason why they're doing it, dipshit.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP

100 million typical PC users just heard you say "Download Firefox by re-routing warp power through the starboard deflector array and initiating an inverse tetrion pulse".

So the typical PC user is unaware of FTP _and_ delusional?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Pulse_Instance]

step 10: wonder why they mysteriously always finish at +4

I was wondering that and have decided that it is likely because the default viewing mode adds a +1 to anyone with good karma so your +4 post looks like a +5.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete fucking idiot. Anti-capitalism? You do realize that left unregulated, capitalism results in a single entity controlling everything, right? And I don't mean the private sector, government too. We've already seen MS buy their way out of one investigation. Maybe if you lean a little farther right in your views you will decide that a dictatorship is the best way too? Fucktard.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP

100 million typical PC users just heard you say "Download Firefox by re-routing warp power through the starboard deflector array and initiating an inverse tetrion pulse".

Whats so hard about that?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Exception Duck]

God help us if we do something "anti-capitalism"

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you remove FireFox from Ubuntu, will the world implode or something?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

*tetryon

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[hotfireball]

The problem is however, that this pre-installed set of tiers is a part of your car engine. So at the end it renders that you need to add 4 more wheels and a whole wheel system in order to change a tiers by just disabling 4 previous wheels. So actually you have 8 wheels, just use half of them. By an accident you use other 4 and they are asking you to be default wheels. To avoid this, you have to setup a nice little knob in your driving place, labeled as "Make my 4 wheels default" and use it every time you got raped by original 4 wheels.

Nice Lexus, man! :-)

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[stms]

What does capitalism have to do with the free market?

The free market is the most common interpretation of capitalism. Next time instead of asking on a semi-random slashdot article check wikipedia thats all I did.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[node 3]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.

Microsoft is anti-capitalism. Forcing MS to do things is generally done to minimize MS's negative impact on the market.

I'm using "capitalism" here in the idealistic "free market, competition is good for the consumer" sense. Modern American-style capitalism is often more MS's style of "greed is good, take whatever you can, damn the consequences."

If you're using "capitalism" in the same sense as I am, you should be for the sanctions imposed on MS. If you mean the other kind of capitalism, then I sure as hell hope these measures are anti-capitalism!

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[s4m7]

So the typical PC user is unaware of FTP _and_ delusional?

you seem surprised by this information.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[node 3]

Wow there's a lot of MS supporters on this article marking everything anti MS a troll. I guess the US and the EU findings of MS being a monopoly doesn't matter to those people. Besides, your car analogy was spot on.

This has been plaguing Slashdot (and a few other sites) lately, which smacks of an astro-turfing campaign.

The ratio of pro-MS moddings to anti-MS moddings is seriously out of whack with people's perception of MS as a company (most people *buy* MS products, but few actually *like* MS). This is doubly true for a site like Slashdot with its natural Linux and Apple (i.e., geek) demographics.

I'm mildly curious as to how this post will fare. This isn't a troll, nor is it flamebait. It might be insightful (but far be it for me to say so), at the very least it ought to be interesting.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[node 3]

or . . .

step 1: download virtualbox

step 2: download an iso of your favourite [debian based] distro ...

I'm pretty sure step one is cut a hole in a box. As for step two, well, you're totally doing it wrong...

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[node 3]

Why? Its a perfectly reasonable solution for a /. type who has a second computer to look up the FTP address and can't be arsed to mess about with a USB stick. I've certainly used CLI tools to download and install software... usually wget on Linux, though, not FTP.

Are you saying the typical "/. type" wouldn't think to just fire up IE to download Firefox?

Not that I'm saying you're wrong...

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer. People are free to download Opera on their own, and if Opera's CTO wants more people to know about Opera, they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance. If that still doesn't get more people using Opera, then that's just life.

Some people have adopted this crazy idea that there is supposed to be balanced competition at all times, enforceable by the government. The point of competition is that someone is going to end up on top, and the others have to fight to compete. The government should only be stepping in when the competitor on top is illegally affecting the market in some way, but that's not the case here. You can download Opera the moment you start up your Windows PC for the first time.

what a crap argument is this guy making. Is this person living in this world or some where else ?????

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[siloko]

I was wondering that and have decided that it is likely because the default viewing mode adds a +1 to anyone with good karma so your +4 post looks like a +5.

If that's the case I'm sensing a serious design flaw. Sortalike having your speedometer showing 10 miles an hour quicker than it is and wondering why you never seem to add to your collection of speeding tickets. Err wait . . .

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[node 3]

I disagree. Many or even most Windows users aren't smart enough to know that another browser exists or even that it is possible for another browser to run on their computer, after all - how can you explore the internet without internet explorer?

At one time, that applied to Xerox, Band-Aid, Rollerblades, and GM/Ford/Chrysler too. What changed? Why can't Opera sell their browser the same way that, say, Canon sells photocopiers?

I'm not saying it's not a challenge, but it's obviously possible and Opera isn't even trying. They just sued.

All of your examples are things that people go out and buy, so they are choosing one over the other. Few people are choosing a browser because their computer comes with one already. They're not getting to the point where Opera (Firefox, Safari, Chrome, etc.) is even an option.

At least with all of your examples, the alternative brands have a chance. It's absolutely absurd to think that IE is so good that it really deserves an 80+% market share. IE 8 is pretty good, but really, if it wasn't bundled with Windows, it would have a 40% market share, tops.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[supernova_hq]

Firefox is NOT deeply rooted into ubuntu, not by a long shot!

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Yetihehe]

MS doesn't really limit your knowledge. Ever seen advert of a browser in tv or somewhere on internet? I didn't.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[TheP4st]

Recommended reading (PDF)

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Zontar The Mindless]

No problem, amigo -- I know where there's a whole World of Tiers to choose from. :D

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[TheP4st]

They just sued.

No they didn't. They filed a Antitrust complaint, big difference.

http://www.css3.info/opera-files-antitrust-complaint-against-microsoft/

However, Opera have in the past threatened to sue Microsoft a but Microsoft settled before it ever reached court.

The background to the suit were that if you visited the MSN website with Opera identifying itself as Opera you got served a broken web page, this is what lead Opera to introduce the feature of identifying itself as other browsers. The reason for this change were that if visiting the very same site with the very same version of Opera but identifying as IE the page displayed correctly!

A fact that unfortunately is omitted in the below article, but I'm sure you are capable of doing the research yourself in the case you don't bellieve me.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39155572,00.htm

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[shutdown -p now]

In this case, they're not being required to ship a competitors product, they're being forced to provide a fair playing field between the different web browsers.

How, exactly, is it going to be a "fair playing field", if they will cherry pick the browsers to appear on the list? And they'll have to - if you don't want to end up with all Mozilla forks on the list!

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[remmelt]

> anti-capitalism

What has capitalism brought you?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Psicopatico]

100 million typical PC users will have the chance to read a page (or two) of simple instructions on how to use the commandline FTP.
Don't you think this will make them "better" users?

And, as a bouns, a tiny fraction of them may like the idea, and may study the issue more in depth.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Necroloth]

I find it more of a karmic balance after waves of anti-MS moddings as trolls and flaimbaits, even if it's just a disagreement to an opinion.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Jared555]

Slashdot interface was causing my system to lag, accidently modded parent redundant

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[ChienAndalu]

How do you call the economic system that allows people to trade goods without government regulation?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear!

Here's one for the libertarians: there's a difference between a free market and a laissez faire market, for the same reason that personal freedoms (liberties) cannot be secured in an anarchy.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[DrXym]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.

Capitalism should be about products competing on their merits, not about companies abusing monopoly powers to force competitors out of business or inflicting an inferior product onto people. The EU recognizes this and so does the US.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[itsdapead]

Are you saying the typical "/. type" wouldn't think to just fire up IE to download Firefox?

What? risk letting Microsoft register a hit to their news service before you had a chance to change the home page to about:blank? :-)

Anybody truly worthy of /.hood, faced with the simple task of downloading and installing Firefox would use FTP to download all the requisite gubbins to compile "wget" or "curl" from source, waste an afternoon on the forums arguing which was better, spot a comment about a new browser called EarthMarmoset and spend until 3am trying and failing to build it from the latest CVS, bork the registry by accident and decide to get up at the crack of noon the next day to re-install Windows from scratch. Then they'd still need to install Firefox.

It would be a shame to see these great traditions die.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[h4rm0ny]

Wow there's a lot of MS supporters on this article marking everything anti MS a troll.

I think there's mainly a prevailing view that two wrongs don't make a right and that Microsoft's worst behaviour (e.g. messing up Javascript standards, etc.) is in the past (for now, at least). IE8 appears to be a pretty good browser and to handle web-standards quite well. And there are problems with not including a default browser with the OS that make the "cure" a problem in itself. Not to mention the double standard of other Operating Systems coming with default browsers of their choice (Macs, Ubuntu both do). I guess also that people no longer feel Microsoft is the unshakeable monopoly that it was. Macs keep sneaking in for a start, so people are more sympathetic to what seems mere witch-hunting.

I don't think it's a case of being pro or anti- Microsoft. I think it's just a general feeling of an old battle not justifying present wrongs.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Bert64]

That would be fine, if you could remove the default browser, which you can't...
Also, they are illegally affecting the market by getting other things tied to their browser, thus harming competition without improving their own product.

Competition is supposed to promote improvements and decrease prices, not allow one player to rise to the top by nefarious means and then do everything they can to prevent any future competition.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[h4rm0ny]

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP: instructions.
Step 2) Use Firefox to download Opera.
(you can probably use the method above to directly download Opera, but I'm too lazy to figure out how right now)

You know, it was a lot easier for me to download and install Opera when I could use IE to do it.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Bert64]

I was able to install ubuntu, remove firefox and install another browser (in this case epiphany) without ever starting firefox...

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Bert64]

Maybe if windows actually had a package manager like everything else does, then you could just use that to install a browser easily.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Bert64]

Unregulated capitalism will ultimately lead to fascism, where sufficiently powerful corporations will become or control the government.

Free market capitalism is far better for everyone else. And if a competitive market doesn't happen on its own, then the government should force competition and prevent corporations from becoming too powerful.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[m.ducharme]

The "free market" is a model that economists use to test and evaluate their theories. The problem is that the "free market" is a purely theoretical model, in that it is based on assumptions that are clearly untrue, and may never come to be, ever. Capitalism is a real-world economic practice, and as such is not at all equivalent to the free market. If you rely on an encyclopedia for your knowledge, you will learn much, and miss more.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Bert64]

Also, you won't be at a disadvantage by choosing one of these alternative products... You won't buy a canon photocopier, only to find that people send you "proprietary xerox paper" that the canon can't copy... You won't find yourself in gas stations selling proprietary ford-specific fuel, and you won't find yourself trying to drive on ford specific roads.

All of these products operate in open markets dominated by standards where any supplier can produce a compatible product, and you have the freedom to choose the one that provides you the best value.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[SgtChaireBourne]

Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer.

Har! That's a joke, right?

Nope. It's a troll, a distraction, from the old troll Bonch.

The illegal part in the EU and the US comes in by MS illegal bundling MSIE with its desktop OS monopoly. MS executives have been illegally leveraging the desktop monopoly to cause problems in the audio/video markets, then productivity software markets and the browser markets. Adding a second, third or fourth browser to the mix does nothing to address the bundling or illegal tying. Only removing MSIE from the OEM distributions of desktop systems will do that. And that's something Bill's astroturfers try to distract from.

M$ boosters and users are causing harm to your nation, your economy. Where is your national defense? How many have to lose their jobs first?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[m.ducharme]

I would call it

1) Anarchy.

2) non-existent.

As I replied to another person in this thread, the "free market" as it's known today is a theoretical model, some of the assumptions of which are patently untrue and are unlikely ever to come to exist. Capitalism is particular system of laws that govern the markets and other economic activity. There's a very eloquent post attached to mine above that explains this much better than I can.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[thunrida]

People modding you insighful shows lack of understanding. Preventing monopoly abuse is anti-capitalism? It seems to me USA with it's monopoly abuse protection (they do nothing about it) is becomming communist in a sense. It's not government based, but still government approved and result is the same.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[m.ducharme]

I don't understand your distinction between unregulated and free market capitalism. The proponents of "free market capitalism" model espouse a marketplace that is unregulated, as far as I know, and as you correctly stated, real-world examples of unrestricted markets have lead to the society moving toward fascism.

Capitalism itself is simply a system of market regulation in which the rich and powerful work to keep and grow their riches, while trying (successfully) to keep the poor and powerless from coming to take it back. Much like Communism, in fact.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism...

Great

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Blakey Rat]

So? 99% of the people who buy cars use the steering wheel that comes with the car. Of course an aftermarket exists for steering wheels, but you don't see the car dealership presenting you with a long list of possible steering wheels for your car purchase when you buy it. And somehow nobody has any problem with this.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Blakey Rat]

No they didn't. They filed a Antitrust complaint, big difference.

No there's not.

Both of them involve hiring lawyers, and NOT writing better software. At best it's a trivial difference. Call me crazy, but I'd rather see Opera compete with Microsoft by writing better software.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[raynet]

Theoretical?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Nerdposeur]

So? 99% of the people who buy cars use the steering wheel that comes with the car. Of course an aftermarket exists for steering wheels, but you don't see the car dealership presenting you with a long list of possible steering wheels for your car purchase when you buy it. And somehow nobody has any problem with this.

Wow. That is a terrible car analogy.

First, it's impractical to offer you a choice of steering wheels. It's easy to offer a choice of browsers - and browser have functional, non-cosmetic differences.

Second, your steering wheel choice affects nobody but you (unless it's so bad you can't steer). Having everyone on IE makes the whole internet subject to Microsoft's decisions instead of web standards, and costs tons of developer time. It also gives Microsoft the advantage in promoting their development platforms and tools. After all, if everyone uses Windows and IE, why not use Windows Server and IIS and .NET and Silverlight and ActiveX and blink tags? Even a free browser can steer people back towards Microsoft products.

Take a look at how slowly the web developed while IE was a monolith, and how fast it's developing with a lot of browser competition. In a couple of years you'll be playing FPS games in your browser, dragging and dropping files in and out, playing games that don't depend on any plugins, and more. All thanks to IE losing market share.

Even if you feel like MS is being meddled with, it seems pretty clear that it's going to create more competition and be a good thing for the web.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Miseph]

Astro-tirfing may or may not be happening, but I seriously doubt that is the only cause. A lot of people simply don't care for endless anti-MS whining that doesn't have any point or make any sense. I've noticed far fewer down-mods of posts that make legitimate, novel and insightful criticisms of MS products and business practices than posts that whine about having to use IE for 30 seconds on a fresh install in order to download Firefox (or Opera/Safari/whatever) or do nothing more than remind us for the umpteen-millionth time that MS is a convicted monopoly.

I've been up and down-modded for both, and while the latter seems to be getting *slightly* more common, the former still works fine. My only sore point is that any time I talk about what a crappy experience the Win7 Beta was for me, I get downed... maybe they're running an astro-turf just to keep those stories from getting out, but I kind of doubt it.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[h4rm0ny]

So basically, your question was just an excuse to answer yourself, ideally "correcting" someone else's reply while you did so. You realise you could have just posted your definition first and saved someone their time in typing an answer you would reject?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[h4rm0ny]

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see Opera compete with Microsoft by writing better software.

Opera already write very good software (ime). Anti-trust actions are about enabling people to make their choice based on the best product, rather than it being a factor of leverage in other markets. Which is exactly what you say you want.
H.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[m.ducharme]

Except that I didn't want to just give my definition, I wanted to see if the poster thought the terms were interchangeable, or had just missed the exact wording in the parent's post.

Incidentally, I got four or five replies to that, not just one. Each reply was different, most had something important to say, and led to more conversation, including this conversation. What exactly is wrong with that? We're here to waste time, not to be efficient purveyors of definitions, after all.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[binkzz]

Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer.

Yes they are. How would you download another browser without using Internet Explorer on a new system?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[rawr_one]

And I say,
Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
That's the way we do things, lad, we're making s*** up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us
'cause if we find we're in a bind, we just make some s*** up

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Blakey Rat]

Opera already write very good software (ime).

Then how come they have the lowest market share even among alternate browsers? They must be doing *something* wrong. I know that I've tried and rejected it.

Anti-trust actions are about enabling people to make their choice based on the best product,

People can do that RIGHT NOW, though. What's stopping them? Nothing.

Which is exactly what you say you want.

And is exactly what we already have. Opera can't get people to use their browser because their browser is flawed in some way, or they lack marketing resources to advertise it. But Microsoft has nothing to do with it.

How popular is Opera on OS X? A platform where Microsoft holds practically no influence at all?

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Blakey Rat]

Wow. That is a terrible car analogy.

Probably, yes.

It's easy to offer a choice of browsers - and browser have functional, non-cosmetic differences.

Really? ... like what?

I guess most browsers allow add-ins, but some don't. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Oh and I guess a couple browsers run tabs in different processes for stability, but IE8 already has that.

Of course, this being Slashdot, you're probably going to come back at me with a long list of features IE6 lacked, without realizing that IE's current version is actually 8.

Having everyone on IE makes the whole internet subject to Microsoft's decisions instead of web standards, and costs tons of developer time.

Except:

1) It doesn't. IE8 is on-par, standards-wise, with all other browsers. (No, Microsoft doesn't have a time machine to fix IE6, and no, Microsoft doesn't have a hypnosis machine to get large corporations to stop using IE6. So no matter what you do, the IE6 problem remains, you'll just have to cope with it.)

2) Since there's nothing to stop people from using alternate browsers now, this decision does absolutely nothing to change things.

It also gives Microsoft the advantage in promoting their development platforms and tools. After all, if everyone uses Windows and IE, why not use Windows Server and IIS and .NET and Silverlight and ActiveX and blink tags?

That's a stupid statement. As if there's some inherent difference between a webpage served from IIS and one served from Apache. Or one generated using JSP and one generated using .NET. If Silverlight is chosen, it's because it's a good technology.

Oh, and ActiveX-- Microsoft *already* does everything they can to discourage its use. (See above comment about lacking a time machine.)

Take a look at how slowly the web developed while IE was a monolith, and how fast it's developing with a lot of browser competition.

And why was it a monolithic environment? Well, let's see: Netscape/Mozilla fucking gave up.

News flash: when you don't release a product for 3 years, all your market share disappears! News flash: products with no competition aren't developed! Of course the market stagnated; blame Netscape/Mozilla as much as Microsoft. What did they *think* was going to happen?

In a couple of years you'll be playing FPS games in your browser, dragging and dropping files in and out, playing games that don't depend on any plugins, and more.

Just FYI, you could do all that 5 years ago using ActiveX. OH SNAP!

Even if you feel like MS is being meddled with, it seems pretty clear that it's going to create more competition and be a good thing for the web.

Government sticking its filthy nose in business is *never* a good thing. Whether it involves the web or not is irrelevant.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[shish]

Step 1) Download Firefox using FTP: instructions.

Alternative step 1) Use whatever browser the OEM has chosen to pre-install for your convenience

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[shummer_mc]

Bert is right. I'll try to help the conversation:

Let me see if I can remember: Free market - no barriers to entry or exit (people are free to participate without having to fulfill a bunch of check-boxes (e.g. licensing, large capital outlays for equipment, etc). Also, the consumer has perfect information, meaning that they understand what the value of a product is when compared to every other similar good. There was something else, too, but I can't remember it. You can see why it's theoretical.

Anyhow, "unregulated" means that there are no rules. Think about a situation where MS could force the industry in whatever direction they wanted - not too hard to imagine, actually. It could be argued that the defense companies have already bought half of our political system and the insurance industry has bought the other half. (We're nearly there!) These industries, controlled by an interlocking directorate, would control the country. It's easy to see why that's fascism.

This, I think, is where you got lost: Corporations don't want an absence of regulation either, as they like the rules that they create. Every company/producer will ALWAYS try to create barriers in the market so that the fundamental rule doesn't apply: "There are no long-term profits in a free market." We see profit degradation most in businesses more closely affected by the Internet for these reasons. The Internet provides much closer to 'perfect information' to the consumer. The rules that "free market capitalists" abhor are those that seek to create (closer to) perfect markets, limit the "capitalist's" influence, or keep them from limitless profit.

As an aside, the record industry has been 'hammered' by the fundamental rule - and I like it. They tried to stop it (DMCA) with their rules, but didn't succeed because the draw was too strong to the free market. Incidentally, they're busy PRing themselves back to profitability ("but, we DESERVE profits..."), which proves that greed is a much larger part of human nature than Adam Smith thought.

As far as I understand it, a long-term, perfect, free market is very close to socialism. There are no profits, just people making a living and paying what an item costs to produce. The difference from communism is that the people, not the gov't, run the companies.

The obvious question in your mind is probably about incentives to participate. The incentive (if it's profit that is the incentive) is in the short-term in new industries. There, the profits could be high for a long time. In the US, profits are a right, though. No one thinks anyone will work unless there's something in it for them. I, personally, think that's BS.

Greed is the real enemy of the free market; greed causes class stratification, strife, and (eventually) revolution.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[m.ducharme]

Actually, the question in my mind was about whether a free market is regulated or not. Many people believe that a free market means a market without rules, which is why I was asking for a clarification from Bert. I must confess that I thought that way myself, despite my reading on the subject. If I understand correctly, in your conception (which I agree with by the way) a free market would be regulated exactly to the extent that the regulations preserved or brought about the axioms of free market theory.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[node 3]

So? 99% of the people who buy cars use the steering wheel that comes with the car. Of course an aftermarket exists for steering wheels, but you don't see the car dealership presenting you with a long list of possible steering wheels for your car purchase when you buy it. And somehow nobody has any problem with this.

That should be your clue right there that your car analogy is flawed in some deeply fundamental way.

No one is complaining about steering wheels the same way no one is complaining about Notepad, or chkdsk.

Browsers, on the other hand, are seen as unique products. And what's worse (and is generally considered to be the thing that pushes the Windows+IE bundling over the edge) is that MS is using one monopoly position (Windows) to push another product (IE). Further, IE is widely considered to be inferior to the competition.

Your car analogy has none of that.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[h4rm0ny]

Incidentally, I got four or five replies to that, not just one. Each reply was different, most had something important to say, and led to more conversation, including this conversation. What exactly is wrong with that? We're here to waste time, not to be efficient purveyors of definitions, after all.

Very well - you win this round, m.ducharme, with your fair points and your reasonable argument. But we will meet again, mark my words!

H.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Nerdposeur]

I guess most browsers allow add-ins, but some don't. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Well that's a pretty big one, don't you think? Considering that the whole point of add-ons is to add features. And that Firefox, for example, has thousands of add-ons.

Frankly, I think it's silly to have to argue that different browsers have different functionality. Google it.

Government sticking its filthy nose in business is *never* a good thing. Whether it involves the web or not is irrelevant.

So you favor a country where companies can pay pennies for hazardous jobs, lie about food ingredients, sell toasters that burn your house down and cars that explode on impact, spam and telemarket freely, advertise cigarettes on Saturday morning cartoons, etc? Or maybe you didn't mean *never*.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Blakey Rat]

Well that's a pretty big one, don't you think? Considering that the whole point of add-ons is to add features. And that Firefox, for example, has thousands of add-ons.

So does IE. What's your point?

The greatest PR victory of the Mozilla camp was somehow convincing tons of people that IE doesn't support add-ins when, in fact, IE has supported add-ins for longer than Firefox has existed. Someday I hope to debate with an IE hater who actually knows what features IE actually has, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[hkmwbz]

Then how come they have the lowest market share even among alternate browsers?

They don't. Opera is the #3 browser worldwide and in Europe. In fact, it's bigger than Safari and Chrome combined in Europe.

People can do that RIGHT NOW, though. What's stopping them? Nothing.

Except for browser sniffing and browser discrimination. Which also happens to other browser than Firefox that are based on Gecko. Just because of their UA string, a lot fewer sites work in those browsers even though it's the exact same engine as Firefox.

Opera can't get people to use their browser because their browser is flawed in some way, or they lack marketing resources to advertise it. But Microsoft has nothing to do with it.

Microsoft has a lot to do with it, as is evident from the state of the browser market.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[hkmwbz]

Both of them involve hiring lawyers, and NOT writing better software.

Actually, Opera merely reported a crime to the authorities. That is as far from a lawsuit as you can get. Otherwise, witnesses to a crime who call the police would be considered to "sue" the criminal, but they don't. The police prosecutes them if they find evidence of wrongdoing. And there is ample evidence of wrongdoings in the case of Microsoft.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see Opera compete with Microsoft by writing better software.

They already do write better software. But the browser market is broken because of Microsoft's illegal actions.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[hkmwbz]

The browsers are not cherry picked. It's based on market position during the past 6 months. And in reality, there are only 5 "main" browsers out there. The rest are too specialized or just shells around another browser engine.

Also, this will help other browsers a lot because sites will become more standards compliant, so there will be a lower barrier to enter the browser (engine) market. No more spending most of your time reverse-engineering IE.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Lost Engineer]

I am a libertarian. We recognize that it is in the purview of the federal government to take limited sets of action to encourage competition in interstate commerce and prevent market abuses. Well maybe someone out there doesn't, but it's not like it's in the party platform.

Actually I would have broken MS into several companies a long time, either by separating Windows from Office from IE. Other people would make a more parallel split, but encouraging competition is the goal in any case.

What's stupid is allowing the monopoly to continue to exist while pretending to do something about it with imaginary fines and toothless regulations.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Bonobo_Unknown]

If you don't think so, then I could suggest some reading for you that would show you that Microsoft pretty much does everything it can to force people to use IE.

Microsoft certainly doesn't respect your choice of default browser... if you have set it to Firefox or another non ie option, Windows still opens pages from things like messenger and windows update in an ie instance.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[hkmwbz]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.

Your ignorance is astounding. Enough said.

The point of competition is that someone is going to end up on top, and the others have to fight to compete.

Microsoft ended up on top because they broke the law.

Re:A browser ballot is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, doesn't Firefox allow addons to stick their tendrils far further into the browser than IE does? Of course, whether this is a good thing or not is debatable.

There is a marketing term called "Brand Awareness"

[pizzach]

"Brand awareness is a marketing concept that refers to a consumer knowing of a brand's existence; at aggregate (brand) level it refers to the proportion of consumers who know of the brand." [Reference] Most businesses put an extreme amount of weight into brand awareness...it is one of the very important foundations of the meaning of commercials. ...but they all could very well be wrong.

In Opera's case, users may not decide on it the first time. But the next time they see the icon, the more likely they are to try it out because they recognize it.

cheers

IE6 almost did support SVG

[Dracos]

...or so I heard. It was supposedly removed a couple weeks before release for reasons unkown to me.

Re:IE6 almost did support SVG

[asdf7890]

...or so I heard. It was supposedly removed a couple weeks before release for reasons unkown to me.

My memory of that rumour is that MS's XML plugin was just not nearly ready for release (too slow and buggy) so it was decided it would be less embarrassing to not include it and encourage people to use Adobe's plugin for IE instead. Development was going to continue for inclusion in later IE revisions, but as IE development was sidelined the SVG project was canned completely.

Random Order

[jefu]

While random order would be nice, it is hardly likely. More likely will be IE first, Opera second (after all they have money to spend to put it there), then Chrome (Google has money too) and then Firefox, with other low penetration browsers following.

Please do suggest said reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I might be forced as an employee at DumbCorp to use IE because they rely on ActiveX elements. But that's not Microsoft forcing me, that's DumbCorp forcing me by not hiring coders to re-write the things.

I know I might be forced by StupidBleedingCustomersBank to use IE because -they- rely on ActiveX elements. But, again, not Microsoft. Dumbass bank and most likely I'd tell them the reason I'm leaving them for another bank.

But, please, do go ahead and post a list. I'm genuinely curious.

Just to note - please prune any and all arguments regarding the -engine- (Trident etc.) being used by, say, help files or in-app browser screens. That's -not- IE the browser (and on top of that, the help file / app authors -could- have chosen to use a different format (PDF) or even html rendering engine. Just 'cos they found the one readily available on Windows easy to implement doesn't make it that Microsoft is forcing them to use it, or -me- to be subjected to it.

Thank you.

Re:Please do suggest said reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right-o, I have your list ready for the sending. Please post your email address for me to send it to.

BTW - I only need the username - I already have the "@microsoft.com" part figured out.

Re:Please do suggest said reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, poor baby. Your cheap knock-off software didn't work. Who gives a shit? Fuck DOS, it's been dead for a long ass time. Why do you Linux faggots continue to piss and moan about the past when you are free from Microsoft? Go play with your tarballs and do something that Linux trolls can't ever seem to do: Shut the fuck up.

Re:Please do suggest said reading...

[node 3]

Just because MS isn't forcing people to use IE in the, "MS is pointing a gun at your head" sense, that doesn't mean they aren't forcing IE onto people.

They are forcing IE onto the computers people are buying and are forcing IE into the position of default browser. So while they aren't forcing people to use IE, they don't have to, they've already gotten into that position by force, so they don't have to take that last step, which makes for a convenient, "hey, they aren't forcing people to use IE!" defense.

Re:Please do suggest said reading...

[notforu]

Hmmmm, obvious fanboy response. You getting paid ?? or your dating Bills daughter ?? (your hand 'dickhead')

Re:Please do suggest said reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

hi, GP anon here (nope, not working for Microsoft),

You're right, MS -aren't- putting a gun to people's heads. Ergo, they're not -forcing-.

Back before Internet Explorer 1.0, people would - most likely - have been using Netscape Navigator.

Heck, even with IE1, people used NN.

It wasn't until NN started to suck major donkeyballs (slow rendering, reloading pages when not needed, crashing, etc.) at a time that IE was becoming usable (IE4) that people en-masse decided that they might as well use the browser that came with their system.

But even with NN sucking, people had a perfectly good choice. Just because people made the choice to use IE - even if the reason was "well it already came pre-installed", there was -no- forcing by Microsoft.

The -only- reason for people to still use IE 6 now -is- things like ActiveX, and people can blame Microsoft for making something that developers (legit and malware authors alike) loved for all sorts of reasons, but in the end it was those people actually making use of it... and companies using those elements for -still- using them.

If you really, really, REALLY want to blame Microsoft, blame them for not making an easy ActiveX to, say, JAVA converter seeing as they're all-but giving ActiveX in IE the boot anyway. But the onus really isn't on Microsoft.

football mentality?

[reiisi]

The point of competition in the marketplace is not to provide some sort of forum for some partially random team to crow, "We're number one!" for a season, although that would be a much better state of affairs than what we have with Microsoft.

There are (broadly speaking) two kinds of fair competition. One is a sporting kind, where a rather arbitrary yardstick is set up for competitors to test themselves against. It can be useful, in the sense of providing an environment that encourages testing and refinement.

There was an implicit assumption that the skills, techniques, etc., being tested and refined are meaningful, if not useful, but it is often easy to lose touch with that concept in the heat of the battle.

There is also an implicit assumption that sports are a less destructive substitute for war, which assumption is also easy to lose track of, apparently.

The other kind of fair competition is where you let people who have needs go out and seek their own solutions. The providers of solutions can compete, on a case-by-case basis to provide the best solution for each person's set of needs, as determined by the individual "customer", him- or herself. The customer should even be free to choose to provide his or her own solution.

The whole purpose of free-market competition is to allow needs to be met if possible, from the possible candidates in the market.

This is as opposed to forcing everyone to buy some single product chosen by some government or quasi-governmental body, or by some institution that has amassed the power, charisma, presence, or other proxy for authority to push its ideology or other agenda.

I don't like Opera

[flyingfsck]

and I suspect that there are many other people out there that don't or won't like Opera either.

I have tried it a number of times, but it feels clunky compared to Firefox and it really doesn't work any better. Adobe Flash makes Opera hang just the same as Firefox.

Gloating? Really?

[Sinbios]

That's funny, because I actually had to deploy some SVG-based webapp last week. Specifically, it was outputting scatter plots with some few thousand data points. I tested SVG performance in Opera, Safari, Chrome Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer with Adobe SVG Viewer 3.03, 6 (alpha? pre-alpha? No one knows...), and the RENESIS plugin for IE.

Here are the results:

Opera - Easily the slowest of the bunch. Took about 15 seconds to render the graph.
Safari - Got confused about the app's filetype and kept trying to save it.
Chrome - Pretty fast, took about 2 seconds to render the graph but strangely starts rendering the datapoints in small chunks after (it'd draw the first half of one series, the the next half, then the next series, etc).
Firefox - Not much faster than Opera.
Adobe SVG 3.03 - About as fast as Chrome but was missing some features, like changing the cursor display when you hover over interactivity points.
Adobe SVG 6 - The snappiest of the lot, and supports the cursor changing feature, but likes to draw erroneous datapoints. Too bad Adobe dropped development on this.
RENESIS - A little faster than Chrome but not as fast as SVG Viewer 6. No errors and wasn't missing any features as far as I could tell. This is what I ended up going with.

So, why is Opera "gloating" over IE when they themselves has a LOT of work to do on their own SVG support, to say the least, while there are free plugins for IE that pretty much trounce the competition? Does IE really need built-in SVG support when this is the case? Maybe it needs built-in flash support too?

To me, this just looks like another case of unwarranted smugness over "omg IE doesn't conform to standards!!1".

Re:Gloating? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this Opera 10b2 you tested on?

Re:Gloating? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

... but likes to draw erroneous datapoints. Too bad Adobe dropped development on this.

Yeah I really needed some erroneous data points added to my flow data app. It's too bad. Please mod sarcastic.

Re:Gloating? Really?

[gaspyy]

I know I'll be moderated down for saying this, but this is the exact reason Flash [blashpemy!] is still the choice for this kind of stuff. You can do it in SVG, something that kinda works across browsers and often requires a plugin anyway, or you can do it in Flash, which is rendered faster, works the same across browsers and platforms and it's already installed!

The same goes for HTML5/Video (how many content providers will want to encode to both H264 and OGG rather than just to H264 and use a flash player?) and web fonts? (TTF vs. EOT).

But this is Slashdot. Microsoft is the devil, Adobe/Flash is evil, Opera is slightly less evil, Apple is good and Google is a saint.

Re:Gloating? Really?

[hkmwbz]

Flash is "the" choice because Microsoft has successfully been holding back the web for many years.

Remember the latest Flash exploit with no patch, leaving 90% of the world's desktop computers wide open to attack? Yeah, Flash must die. And we can thank Microsoft for these single points of failure.

Re:Gloating? Really?

[hkmwbz]

So, why is Opera "gloating" over IE when they themselves has a LOT of work to do on their own SVG support

Because your single experiment in no way represents the overall conformance to SVG. Opera has the best SVG support of any browser, period. But if they didn't have to waste most of their time emulating IE bugs in order to work with various sites, it could have been much better still!

Re:Gloating? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who read this as "Opera: too slow, but the only one to draw it correctly"?

Why Opera?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the fastest browser anymore. It's not the lightest browser. It's not very customizable. It's not open source. It has fallen years behind in HTML5 support -- it doesn't even support video. Other than on mobile, why would anyone want it?

That would be quite some ballot box

[flyingfsck]

Supporting Internet Explorer on Linux would result in a rather complex ballot box application I would think...

Re:That would be quite some ballot box

[s4m7]

meh, ie7 works pretty well in Wine.

Re:That would be quite some ballot box

[s4m7]

sorry to comment on my own post, but by "pretty well" i mean "pretty well like it does on windows" which is to say, not all that well at all.

And now that this happens...

[tengeta]

Once the ballot box doesn't get any more people using Opera (I mean seriously, people will probably check out Safari before that) they will begin suggesting that it forces Opera over the other browsers instead of asking, because dammit they asked you nicely the first time, they slightly forced you the second time, and if you still aren't using their crappy browser then your going to HAVE TO.

Re:And now that this happens...

[hkmwbz]

Of course more people will start using Opera. A certain number of people will be curious about it. Most people have never heard about other browsers than IE, remember.

Riiight

[saikou]

Weren't they the guys who claimed users will gladly flock to the Most Standard Compliant Browser Ever? (*cough* them *cough*)

I think after some time with the ballot and still no noticeable market share growth (and by noticeable I mean really noticeable, like 3-5% in absolute numbers) they will have to rethink this whole "standards make the world go round" mantra.

Yes, they are technically correct, it's wonderful to have NEW sites to be standard compliant. It's usually not economically feasible to re-do everything if it's already there, supports IE/Firefox but doesn't work with Opera.
No, other than developers and some beurocrats, regular users don't care if site is standard compliant. They care that it "works" or doesn't work in the browser. And even if they select Opera on the ballot, after a few failed "web experiences" they probably either switch to Firefox, or back to IE. Which is fine with me.
One less set of quirks to support.

But Opera will probably sue Microsoft because of not getting more users anyways :)

As for vector graphics, I don't think it matters if browser supports it natively, or if it evolves into Flash situation, where most browsers don't do it themselves, but everyone installs it as soon as they hit YouTube or other flash based site.

Re:Riiight

[hkmwbz]

Weren't they the guys who claimed users will gladly flock to the Most Standard Compliant Browser Ever?

Really? When and where? Source, please.

I think after some time with the ballot and still no noticeable market share growth (and by noticeable I mean really noticeable, like 3-5% in absolute numbers) they will have to rethink this whole "standards make the world go round" mantra.

Opera was built from scratch to handle broken sites, so clearly this "mantra" is something only ignorant people or liars are talking about. There was no such mantra from Opera.

Not quite the same

[Midnight Thunder]

SVG is file format, where Canvas is an API. The difference is important, since without Javascript Canvas won't do anything. You can add Javascript to SVG, but that is like adding Javascript to HTML.

Tetrion pulse

[tepples]

100 million typical PC users just heard you say "Download Firefox by re-routing warp power through the starboard deflector array and initiating an inverse tetrion pulse".

Tetrion pulse? You mean like this?

Oh, you mean an inverse tetrion pulse.

How much you wanna bet...

[hairyfeet]

That despite MSFT giving them EXACTLY what they ask for they will STILL be hit with a crazy payoff.....err I mean fine? And I'm sure they'll find another reason to have a royal shitfit when forcing a ballot screen doesn't change a damned thing. Those that want something else have a myriad of choices Opera, Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Kmeleon, Flock, Seamokney, etc. The rest will be either sticking with the one they heard of (IE) or will be looking to get IE the first time they run into a banking site or one of the plenty of other older sites that still render like shit in anything other than IE.

The nice thing about this is it should prove whether or not the Eu commission is just a cash grab or not once and for all. here we have a company doing exactly what they are told, and loading a menu of other people's products on their own OS. If the EU demands cash anyway we will know once and for all that they are simply lining their pockets with other people's profits. After all these stupid cash grabs....errr I mean fines, hurts all of us as MSFT will pass those costs of doing business to everybody, not just the EU. Now if MSFT only passed the costs onto the EU I'd be all for it. Let the people of the EU have a shitfit when their next box costs hundreds more than anyone else because they are paying for the EU commission. But sadly we will all get boned over this socialist crap.

Opera if you want to compete, get off your lazy ass and do it! Firefox is growing, so is Chrome and Safari and without ANY help from the nanny government! It is called advertising and word of mouth. Maybe instead of putting dumb ass P2P crap into your browser and ensuring that no business will let Opera anywhere near their machines you might want to.....oh I don't know, actually ask the people what they want and give it to them! I know, it is a strange idea, but if you try it, hell it just might work.

Re:How much you wanna bet...

[hkmwbz]

Opera if you want to compete, get off your lazy ass and do it! Firefox is growing, so is Chrome and Safari and without ANY help from the nanny government!

As is Opera. Its desktop user base has doubled in less than two years. They reported having more than 40 million users a few months ago, and it just keeps growing. They also have 20-30 million Opera Mini users (not counting users from preinstalls).

Also, Opera is currently bigger than Safari and Chrome combined in Europe (and also the #3 browser worldwide, but that's less relevant to the EU case.).

Also, why are you whining like a little crybaby over Opera? Both Google and Mozilla joined the complaint, and helped advise the EC, just like Opera did.

Maybe instead of putting dumb ass P2P crap into your browser

What "P2P crap"? Is Slashdot "P2P crap"?

Re:How much you wanna bet...

[hairyfeet]

I love how I get modded down for daring to say something that isn't anti MSFT. That is funnier than shit. I got karma to burn baby, yeah!

As for "what P2P" where have YOU been? That is the big thing Opera has been pushing with Opera 10! Which of course has meant that my oldest who happens to prefer Opera won't be allowed to have Opera 10, because I don't allow P2P on my families network, and any business would have to be nuts to let an employee have Opera now. And the reason I said Opera should "get off their asses and compete" is because of this from the CTO of Opera now wanting Linux and Apple to have ballot boxes too!

Look, the question is simple: with a market absolutely flooded with competition, where exactly will this end. Will the EU demand that ALL have a "ballot box"? They have already wanted WMP and IE gone, what is next, notepad? How about the file managers? After all, there are plenty that sell Norton Commander style file managers and it isn't fair that there is one built in for free when they could be paying for one. Think of the competition!

The simple facts are these: Microsoft owns Windows, don't like it? Hey there is 400 flavors of Linux, there is half a dozen of BSD, there is OSX, there AROS and Haiku and eComstation and dozens of others that you are free to choose from. If you buy one with Windows on it you can even give the manufacturer the license back and they will give you the OEM price back, so no problems there. With browsers there are literally more than half a dozen I can name without even opening Google: Chrome, Firefox, Kmeleon, Flock, Seamonkey, Opera, Safari, etc. There has never been more competition in that market in all of computing history. But I oppose government bodies telling what a company can and can't include in their own product, just as I opposed becoming the owner of GM and a bunch of failed banks.

If a person wants to switch they see a nice ad for chrome Every. Single. Time. they Google anything. So it isn't like Joe Average hasn't at least heard of it. So either he doesn't want it or he doesn't care. And if this stupid "ballot box" idea doesn't magically spur "competition" what then? Will MSFT be forced to remove their entry on the ballot box to force "free choice" onto the consumer? I'm sorry, but whether you hate MSFT or not this is just bullshit. And I would LMAO if they ended up forcing Apple and Linux to jump through the same hoops like the CTO of Opera would like to see. Then we would see the anti-MSFT crowd have a real shitfit and maybe they would realize this government interference into a market with heavy competition is just bullshit trying to make the market lean the way that they think is best, not what the actual consumer really wants. Just see how they could give away Windows N as an example.

Re:How much you wanna bet...

[hkmwbz]

I love how I get modded down for daring to say something that isn't anti MSFT.

You get modded down for making dumbass comments that are nothing but ignorant nonsense.

As for "what P2P" where have YOU been? That is the big thing Opera has been pushing with Opera 10!

Actually, it's just a built in web server, not a P2P app as you would normally consider them. The "file sharing" thing is just over-simplified nonsense.

And the reason I said Opera should "get off their asses and compete" is because of this from the CTO of Opera now wanting Linux and Apple to have ballot boxes too!

Actually, he said that it might be a good idea, not that he demanded that they do it. Pay attention. Once again, Microsoft shills base their comments on ignorance and knee-jerk reactions.

Look, the question is simple: with a market absolutely flooded with competition, where exactly will this end. Will the EU demand that ALL have a "ballot box"? They have already wanted WMP and IE gone, what is next, notepad?

That depends on whether Microsoft broke the law with Notepad or not. Considering that Notepad reads and writes standard text files just fine and doesn't lock people into using it, I doubt that.

The simple facts are these: Microsoft owns Windows, don't like it?

It doesn't matter if I like it or not. Microsoft still dominates, and has illegally abused their dominance in the OS market to undermine competition in the browser market.

But I oppose government bodies telling what a company can and can't include in their own product

You break the law, you face the consequences.

I'm sorry, but whether you hate MSFT or not this is just bullshit.

It isn't bullshit. It is just you who are ignorant, bigoted and hypocritical. Even Microsoft fully supports and embraces EU competition law.

And I would LMAO if they ended up forcing Apple and Linux to jump through the same hoops like the CTO of Opera would like to see.

Please stop lying. He said it might be a good idea, not that they should be forced to.

a market with heavy competition

Ignorance is bliss.

trying to make the market lean the way that they think is best, not what the actual consumer really wants

So you know what the consumer really wants, and that's IE?

Re:How much you wanna bet...

[hkmwbz]

You didn't answer this, BTW: Why are you whining like a little crybaby over Opera? Both Google and Mozilla joined the complaint, and helped advise the EC, just like Opera did.

Re:How much you wanna bet...

[hkmwbz]

How about replying for once?

Intranet Explorer

[tepples]

Forking Webkit or Gecko would be in the interest of web developers and standards nerds, but it would not meet the needs of Microsoft's market. I still have to fire up IE 6 at work because we have brain-dead intranet apps that require it.

Then perhaps Microsoft should keep IE 6 but rename it to Intranet Explorer.

Great, so one more browser with shitty SVG support

[BitZtream]

Yes, Mozilla supports SVG. Yes, WebKit supports SVG. Yes Opera supports SVG. They all support proper SVG rendering about as good as IE 4/5/6 support HTML standards. No ... no ... IE is WAY better at HTML than any browser is at SVG.

THEY ALL FUCKING SUCK AT IT. If you do anything more than a basic shapes they fall to pieces. ALL OF THEM. Font support is ass-tastic. Filters suck, no one supports text flows in any way that matters. Animation, yea, good luck with that. Scripting? You're joking right? If you throw any of the browsers against the test suite provided by Apache Batik none of them will get more than 25% even close to correctly rendered. The ones that close are far enough off that you can't actually depend on that feature to work if you use it on a regular basis.

So whoop-dee-do, IE might support SVG ... great, now we have one more browser with useless SVG support so Adobe can come along and say 'SVG sucks in browsers, use Flash!' And anyone who wants their stuff to work correctly will continue to use Flash.

The closest thing to a working solution for SVG in a browser is to use throw Batik into a browser applet, at least your SVGs will likely look close to the way the are supposed to.

Before Opera gets all high and mighty, why don't they make their own shit not stink. I for one welcome proper SVG support in browsers, I have no use to be locked into Adobe's bullshit so they can force more upgrades and exploits on people.

The reality of it is however, until there is an SVG editor that doesn't suck ass (Inkscape and Sketsa, the best out there, suck and are missing support for so many features its not even funny. WTF isn't there a flash like editor for SVG yet?), and browser support that doesn't suck ass, theres no point in trying to get IE to support it. The browser guys who are ranting about it dont' even support it properly, why the hell would MS? Enter irony ... IE at least has a plugin with half way decent support for older versions of the SVG standard, too bad Adobe discontinued that.

Dear Opera, fix your shitty SVG support before you talk shit to others.

Yes, if you are wondering, the state of SVG support in browsers pisses me off.

Id be happy if Openoffice supported SVG

[voss]

No weird half-ass plugins or scripts, support SVG in a way that "just works"

Open clipart collections has been around for a couple years now, and it would be nice if Openoffice could actually use it.

And how about other W3C Standards?

[leighklotz]

It would be nice of both Opera and IE supported other W3C standards that are necessary for Rich Internet Applications.
The HTML5 crowd likes to position XForms against HTML5, but that's not really the case. XForms uses a model-view-controller architecture, and lets you bind data to presentation, with a logic layer in between. It's the same architecture used in Flex and Silverlight, which are the the real competition for RIA applications. Even Ruby on Rails has an MVC architecture, though it's defined as a split agent (between server and browser). XForms allows split-agent implementations, but the content you author is the same whether the agent is all on the client or split with a partial server-side implementation.

It's not about the browser

[DavidApi]

This ruling is a special case. It's not because IE has a large market share that the EU is forcing this requirement. It's because IE doesn't (historically) follow the standards properly or implemented its own features, and so began to fork the Web. Forking the Web and taking the majority of web users with it, would have given Microsoft too much control on the Internet (content). And that would have forced other browser vendors to allow Microsoft to dictate the standards (or cut them out altogether). It would have been another case of Word and Excel formats winning the document format wars.

So a good move, although I too dislike the implementation. It would by far be preferable for the average consumer to realise there is choice, and download their preferred (standards compliant) browser.

Debian does have non-free software

[deek]

Debian can use non-free software packages. You just have to enable it. It's not in there by default.

You have three different sections in a Debian online archive:

• Main : This is the section included by default in all installations. All software MUST adhere to the Debian free software guidelines. All software MUST not depend on any other software in other sections.
• Contrib : Must be OK with the Debian free software guidelines, but can depend on packages in other sections.
• Non-Free : Everything that doesn't fit into the previous two sections. Lots of firmware, docs, and drivers here. Sun java is also present.

GNU software, like GNUplot and ghostscript, is included in the Debian main archive. Pine and pico are also available in main, under the new name of "alpine".

Re:Debian does have non-free software

[mysidia]

Didn't Sun GPL Java?

Anyways, while non-free packages are available from a non-free online archive, they are not distributed with Debian, and they are not officially supported.

For example, if you get a set of Debian install CDs, you will not find any of the non-free packages anywhere on any of the CDs.

IE and HTML 5

[abigsmurf]

The problem Microsoft have with implementing HTML 5 is that there's so much that isn't fully decided yet. Suppose they try to implement it based on what they predict will be in it and the spec changes. You'll end up with things like IE6's implementation of the box model (which I still actually believe is better than the 'proper' one. If I change the border of one element, I don't want to have to adjust the sizes of 15 other elements to compensate). If they jump the gun and their implementation doesn't become standard, they get accused of undermining standards. As such, their only choice is to wait for a standard to become fairly set in stone.

Firefox doesn't seem to get the same flak when it's non-standard (doesn't like negative z-indexs, it may not display 100% valid RSS feeds, needs a custom command to switch the box model).

I agree

[RotateLeftByte]

I can't remember the last time I used Safari on my Mac (if ever). As I also use Windows & Linux, I use Firefox & Thunderbird. They might not be the highest performing apps but they work the same on all the platforms I use whichj is for me, the highest priority.
Plugins like Adblock+, NoScript are worth their weight in gold.

Capitalism != Market Economy

[Geof]

What does capitalism have to do with the free market?

Thank you. I am so happy to see you write this, and to see Slashdot moderators recognize it as an important point.

Obviously there is significant tension between capital and the market: capitalists always want to circumvent or break the market in order to stave off competitions' downward pressure on profits. But until reading Fernand Braudel's fascinating Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century (I haven't yet finished), I was unaware how far back this antagonism went. Illegal international monopolies on vital goods were a problem in the 17th century just as they are today. In fact, opposition to the market was baked right in to the birth of capitalism.

Capitalism arose where there was a need for capital and a potential for large profits. Originally, this was in long-distance trade, where large outlays of money (for ships and goods) and long turn-around times meant both significant risk and huge profits (hundreds of percent in many cases). Capitalists were traders. They simply weren't interested in other areas: for a long time they did not expand significantly beyond a few specialized activities making up a small part of the overall economy.

The market, on the other hand, actually existed in physical marketplaces. This was where producers of goods (e.g. peasants from the countryside) came to sell them. Then traders started to interfere. These traders would go out of the city and buy up the goods directly from producers. These they would bring them into the city, where they could charge a higher price because they had consolidated the supply and thus were less vulnerable to market competition. This practice was actually illegal: governments banned it in order to protect consumers. (In those days spending over half your income on food - and still starving - was not unusual, so one can imagine why even pre-democratic monarchies would want to make sure people could afford bread.)

So yeah, capitalism is one thing. The market is another. And there is great tension between them.

The pinnacle of capitalism then, as now, was finance. As soon as they could, these early capitalists got out of trade. It was too risky, and it was socially looked down upon. They insisted on a distinction between ordinary merchants, who actually did the work, and more prestigious deal-makers who only provided money. The moment they could, they placed themselves in the second group where they could make tremendous low-risk profits in finance, and pretend that neither they nor their ancestors had ever been merchants at all.

Opera better stay closed source for the moment

[Ilgaz]

So what if it is not open source? It supports standards to a point that it costs it market share right? In fact, it supported standards way before anyone ever considered supporting them.

I use Opera 10 beta on OS X right now writing this message and I have no clue how more you can integrate to the OS. They can't integrate to a point that they would require 10.4.11+ only since it is also against their tradition to drop support to older OS without meaningful reason which your lovely open source browser happily did.

Gloating? No, the summary author just implies this

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera never claim to be 'gloating'.

P.S. I like how the fact that Mozilla and Chrome supported this decision is still widely ignored. This is not just an Opera victory.

Newsflash!

[proton]

The government should only be stepping in when the competitor on top is illegally affecting the market in some way, ...

Maybe its breaking news to you but Microsoft was convicted in court for using their monopoly in the operating system market to gain a monopoly in the browser market. I'd wager that meets your criteria of "illegally affecting the market".

Its just too bad the US government didnt have the balls to step in and do something about it. EU shows the way.

What's so great about the free market?

[insllvn]

Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.

Forcing MS to give consumers a choice on browsers is pro-consumer, pro-competition, and good for web standards. It may fly in the face of Capitalist thinking, but Europe makes no such hypocritical pretenses. Like the USA, they are social democracies with mixed economies. Unlike the USA, they are not so ashamed of it they feel compelled to lie or pretend otherwise. Of chief concern there is the effect on the citizens (not the consumers mind you) and not of the large corporation that may lose a concept as insidious as mindshare.

Some people have adopted this crazy idea that there is supposed to be balanced competition at all times, enforceable by the government.

I, on the other hand, have noted that many people have begun to worship the invisible hand of the market. I used to be one such person, when I believed that capitalism was a more efficient system of distributing resources. I was a capitalist because I thought it worked best. Recent evidence has shown that a measured form of rights-based socialism, as is enjoyed in the majority of the EU member states produces healthier economies and higher standards of living. So, if socialism works demonstrably better, why are so many still convinced capitalism is somehow better or sacred or holy? I think it is because many people, at least in the US, combine the concept of the invisible hand and god. If you are prone to flights of fancy, and are told the principles and forces of the market are directed by an invisible hand, well, god is invisible isn't he? That must include his hands. Who else has large enough hands to steer the entire economy?

My point is, the hand of the market is not benevolent, it is a metaphor. The hand of the market refers to the collective wisdom of those involved in the game of finance. For other examples of collective wisdom see controversial pages on wikipedia, digg, and the implosion of the mortgage and credit industries.

Google is also forcing SVG into Internet Explorer

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is also forcing SVG into Internet Explorer through a JavaScript+Flash implementation.
Which will be one of the many interesting presentations at SVG Open 2009