Microsoft Tweaks Browser Ballot As EU Deal Nears

CWmike writes "Microsoft has revamped the browser ballot screen demanded by European Union antitrust regulators and may get final approval as early as Dec. 15, a source familiar with the case has told Computerworld. As first reported by Bloomberg, Microsoft modified the ballot screen after rivals, including Opera Software and Mozilla, demanded changes. Last month, Opera, Mozilla and Google submitted change requests to the European Commission, asking that the order of the browsers be randomized and that the ballot be displayed in its own application, not in Internet Explorer. According to the source, who asked not to be identified because the terms of the settlement have not been officially approved, the top five browsers — IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari — will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed."

Comments

Nice hair!

[Itninja]

If they appear one at a time in random order, and assuming the browser names' first letter is the first thing in each line, we could occasionally get COIFS!

the way they want ballots to work in Redmond

[Anonymous Coward]

<ul>
<li><small>Opera
<li><small>Firefox
<li><large><large><large>IE
<li><small><small><font color=white>Chrome
<li>Safari
</ul>

Heh heh -- Newall

Re:the way they want ballots to work in Redmond

[janwedekind]

Can you please post a corrected version for us so that we can learn from you?

Re:the way they want ballots to work in Redmond

[HTH NE1]

Can you please post a corrected version for us so that we can learn from you?

"Corrected" depends on what the original poster expected. The provided markup is invalid. I can give four specific answers:

1. Assuming implied closure of tags and <big> was intended instead of <large>:

   <ul>
   <li><small>Opera</small></li>
   <li><small>Firefox</small></li>
   <li><big><big><big>IE</big></big></big></li>
   <li><small><small><font color=white>Chrome</font></small</small></li>
   <li>Safari</li>
   </ul>

2. Assuming cumulative effects of unclosed tags and <big> was intended instead of <large>:

   <ul>
   <li><small>Opera</small></li>
   <li><small><small>Firefox</small></small></li>
   <li><big>IE</big></li>
   <li><small><font color=white>Chrome</font></small></li>
   <li><small><font color=white>Safari</font></small></li>
   </ul><small><font color=white>

   Note trailing side-effect.

3. Assuming implied closure of unclosed tags and <large> having no effect:

   <ul>
   <li><small>Opera</small></li>
   <li><small>Firefox</small></li>
   <li>IE</li>
   <li><small><small><font color=white>Chrome</font></small></small></li>
   <li>Safari</li>
   </ul>

4. Assuming cumulative effects of unclosed tags and <large> having no effect:

   <ul>
   <li><small>Opera</small></li>
   <li><small><small>Firefox</small></small></li>
   <li><small><small>IE</small></small></li>
   <li><small><small><small><small><font color=white>Chrome</font></small></small></small></small></li>
   <li><small><small><small><small><font color=white>Safari</font></small></small></small></small></li>
   </ul><small><small><small><small><font color=white>

   Again with a trailing side effect.

And that's not even considering HTML coding style, since substituting 4 <small> tags with a <font size="-4"> may change the effect of the application of an undisclosed stylesheet (where <small> and even <font color=white> may have been rendered impotent).

However, I'd dare say option 3 is the most correct in its adherence to what was written and how a strict (not strict.dtd) application of HTML parsing rules would render it, if it were to render at all, in preparation for the application of the stylesheet.

Re:the way they want ballots to work in Redmond

[janwedekind]

Yeah. The previous poster probably also had problems with the Slashdot comment filters. I had problems to post code examples in the past.

http://validator.w3.org/

Oblig XKCD

[skine]

Well, randomly, we'll always get IE at the top of the list.

http://xkcd.com/221/

Re:Oblig XKCD

[bsander]

Well, you can never be sure.

http://www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg

We know what this is really about

[Stan Vassilev]

The top five browsers — IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari — will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed

If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice. We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users. I'll call it the casino browser installer. Make your lucky pick!

I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Totenglocke]

Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all have decently large user bases. This entire idiotic situation is arising because Opera is upset that most people don't like their browser. It's rather immature and the only reason the EU is going along with it is so that they could take another few million from MS to line politicians pockets.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Stan Vassilev]

This entire idiotic situation is arising because Opera is upset that most people don't like their browser.

It would be rather ironic if this additional exposure to unsuspecting users backfires as people start sharing "avoid the Opera option in the ballot, it's bad", and that creates an overall bad image causing Opera's market share to plunge additionally.

I am an occasional Opera user (and well of all browsers, as a web dev), and appreciate its strengths, but its UI and features have a number of specifics compared to other browsers, not the least of which is a single-click file sharing server. For this type of functiona we know is a security nightmare in the hands of the average user (or unsuspectingly, their children).

Re:We know what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

So if people really don't know what a browser is, and they really don't, what does it matter if they pick a random one? And why _not_ provide more choices than the top 5? Linux provides a few firefox clones, swiftweasel, iceweasel, no big deal... Right now, the windows user that knows nothing about browsers, has this choice made for him by microsoft. Besides the illegal tying thing, is that really a better way to go? I think not..

Re:We know what this is really about

[Arker]

If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice. We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users.

Err, no, they are hoping to gain some market share of confused windows users. A demographic that now goes nearly 100% to IE, profitting MicroSoft, the authors of confusion.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

What is doubly sad is that Opera has exclusive contracts with many cellphone and others companies that ensure the Opera browser is the only one on that platform yet they bitch about this.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Anpheus]

I make a competing calculator app. I want mine included in Windows. I feel like my calculator app has more features, greater standards support, and provides more functions.

I also make a competing notepad, sticky note, media player, web browser, desktop shell, icon set, sound theme, etc.

There should be twenty ballots before the user can start Windows. Clearly, Windows has hurt my marketshare in numerous areas. I should be subsidized by the government and people should have to pick between five different calculators, five different shells, five different notepads, etc. It's only fair.

P.S.: I also make a separate kernel, and I think it's unfair that Windows users are forced to use the NT kernel, not to mention the userland.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft using its monopoly in operating systems to hamper competition in the calculator app space?

I don't appreciate you side-stepping what i'm asking in previous posts, but whatever. If you actually read cases like this, you'll see that these companies are not demanding fairness in distribution of their apps for the sake of market-awareness fairness. They're asking for it because IE is damaging competition in the browser market.

Read up on the US vs Microsoft case:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Check out how he defines the markets and how he concludes that microsoft was indeed hampering competition. Then come back and make a similar case for your calculator app we can discuss. :]

Re:We know what this is really about

[TangoMargarine]

I'd say that Wusers are more ignorant that confused. They aren't confused about browsers now: They have Internet Explorer. It accesses the Internet. Why would they want or need a different browser? Offering them a choice is bound to confuse them, even though it's a good idea technically.

Re:We know what this is really about

[CAIMLAS]

Nope. People will just stop before clicking (or come back to it later, provided there's an option), call their friend who knows more about computers than they do to get advice. It's like how everyone in a group of friends ends up with an iPhone/hotmail account/whatever, or how things like FF and OpenOffice get installed in the first place. Except, unlike FF and OO, this choice will necessarily be made by every user.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Anpheus]

Isn't everything Microsoft includes in their OS damaging to competing markets?

I mean, and this isn't even hypothetical, if no Notepad came with Windows, there'd be many, dozens of alternatives with marginally more features. This was the case even when Windows just came out, that applications with hardly more features were on the market. I don't know about the state of calculators, but certainly Notepad and Wordpad killed an entire marketplace.

If Microsoft in a future version of Windows adds an Expose like functionality, or a virtual desktop functionality (like Mac's "Spaces", or Linux' typically built in virtual desktop functionality) will they be abusing their monopoly? Why? Both of their two largest competitors have those feature built in. What about search? Including decent search in Vista, and even better search in Windows 7 killed at least a handful of worse search engines. Heck, even Google Desktop was pretty significantly hurt by the release of Vista, as poor as the reception was. Windows 7 improves on the indexing and search, and goes further and adds search federation. Is that abusing their monopoly?

This is the problem. Microsoft produces an operating system and desktop environment. What people EXPECT in other operating systems and desktop environments far exceeds what the average Slashdotter would admit should be legal for Microsoft to include. When I run Mac OS X, I expect a lot, ditto with Linux. Yet, for Microsoft to even come close to feature parity would be many, many lawsuits waiting to happen.

Re:We know what this is really about

[citizenr]

It would be rather ironic if this additional exposure to unsuspecting users backfires as people start sharing "avoid the Opera option in the ballot, it's bad", and that creates an overall bad image causing Opera's market share to plunge additionally.

Except it wont because Opera is great.

I am an occasional Opera user (and well of all browsers, as a web dev), and appreciate its strengths, but its UI and features have a number of specifics compared to other browsers, not the least of which is a single-click file sharing server. For this type of functiona we know is a security nightmare in the hands of the average user (or unsuspectingly, their children).

so your saying people are too stupid for this browser? and its browsers fault?

Re:We know what this is really about

[selven]

Not, really. IE will probably be listed as "Microsoft Internet Explorer" and people, familiar with the Microsoft name, will still go for that one.

Re:We know what this is really about

[TheRaven64]

That's the point. Now people who don't know what to choose will pick one at random, or ask a friend, rather than just defaulting to Internet Explorer. This prevents Microsoft from using their monopoly in the OS market to get a monopoly in the browser market (in theory).

Re:We know what this is really about

[cyber-vandal]

Are you really this clueless? Google Microsoft Findings of Fact as a starting point rather than trotting out the same tired old bollocks that always seems to crop up on this site.

Re:We know what this is really about

[cyber-vandal]

Well then they shouldn't have repeatedly broken the law then should they? It's one of the downsides of being a criminal.

Re:We know what this is really about

[BrentH]

Opera is hands down the most used browser in Eastern Europe. Market share of Opera is never below 40% there, and often over 50. So you can drag all the politics you want into this (you are an American after all), the simple fact of the matter is that Opera is actually used, a lot, in large parts of Europe, much moreso than Safari for example, and therefore should be in such a ballot screen.

Re:We know what this is really about

[obarthelemy]

I love Opera, which is my main browser and has been for a looong itme - mouse gestures, speed... FTW), but "people are too stupid for this browser? and its browsers fault?": YES.

If a piece of software targetting ... everyone... is too hard / risky to use by the average user (or, rather, the general populace) then YES, it's its fault.

I personally don't think Opera's file sharing is very risky (Opera is NOT MS, they know their security), and it's a very handy feature. But, generally speaking, I disagree with your statement.

Re:We know what this is really about

[obarthelemy]

it's not quite the same

in the mobile market, they had a chance to present their product, and argue their case with OEMs. Obviously, OEMs liked what they saw.

on the desktop, they got no such chance, and most people are too lazy / stupid to check them out.

In both cases, users are still free to change browsers. Except on the iPhone ^^

Re:We know what this is really about

[harlows_monkeys]

What is doubly sad is that Opera has exclusive contracts with many cellphone and others companies that ensure the Opera browser is the only one on that platform yet they bitch about this.

What is triply sad is that Opera's mobile browser sucks. I dropped my data plan when I had a phone with Opera, because the web was so useless via Opera mobile.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Anonymous Coward]

This is getting so damn boring when people like you evidently don't bother to find out even the basics of antitrust legislation.

1. MS has a monopoly in the operating system market. You might disagree with that since Linux etc. exist but your opinion doesn't matter. MS had the best lawyers on the planet arguing their case and I doubt that you could do any better. But really what operating system choices do you think Joe Consumer has when he wants to run most apps compared to what DVD player choices he has when he wants to play most DVDs?

2. There was a pre-existing market for web browsers that were sold just like any other sofware before MS began including IE.

Re:We know what this is really about

[devman]

Explain to me why they can't go to OEM's like Dell and convince them to install Opera?

Re:We know what this is really about

[yacc143]

Just to quote my step mom "But the update is from MS so it must be good" after Windows trashed itself for the 3rd time in a year with an automatic upgrade ;)

Re:We know what this is really about

[buchner.johannes]

What else do you want to use on mobile devices? Frankly, I find IE unusable on e.g. an iPAQ.

Since most access of the Internet goes through mobile devices -- unless you are in the somewhat lagging-behind US -- I can see how Opera is up there.

Re:We know what this is really about

[obarthelemy]

Because MS has been PROVEN and JUDGED GUILTY of using its OS monopoly to force other products (ie...IE) down OEMs' and users' throats.

Once upon a time, IE was even designed to be deeply intertwined with Windows and be un-removable. Don't know if that's still the case.

Since one browser is already too complicated for most people, OEMs don't want to pre-install, let alone make default, another one. And get on MS's bad side. They figure the 5% of people knowledgeable enough to want that can do it by themselves.

In the mobile phone market, where MS does not have a monopoly, and the actors are quite different, IE is fairly marginal, and other browsers do get a fair chance with users and OEMs.

Re:We know what this is really about

[buchner.johannes]

MS Windows had Desktop search in betas before MacOS. But Apple released it quicker.

The question is also, can remove and replace the application that comes with the OS? (Here, the OS is actually a OS and a application bundle.) Does the package adhere to standards?

What do you want? On the one hand you complain that software is included, on the other it is doesn't meet your expectations. Doesn't exactly that create a market for Notepad++?
Should Microsoft release a install that you can't use for anything? No of course not. People want and need a browser, a email program, a notepad and a calculator. They actually paid for getting it.

Re:We know what this is really about

[icebraining]

"Linux' typically built in virtual desktop functionality"

Linux doesn't have a default Desktop Environment. You have hundreds of DEs that come has default in many distros. Even if you say Ubuntu == Linux, you have Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu and Lubuntu, each with their DE and default applications.

If there's anything that can't be said about Linux distros is that they offer little choice.

Re:We know what this is really about

[cyber-vandal]

It's not just the average Slashdotter it's the courts in the US and the EU. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and is therefore held to a different standard to organisations that haven't broken the law in this way. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:We know what this is really about

[Zero__Kelvin]

"We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users."

How dare they gain market share by confusing Windows users! Don't they know that violates a Microsoft patent on their business process !!!

Re:We know what this is really about

[Totenglocke]

I never said that "Opera shouldn't be on the ballot screen" I was saying that "there shouldn't be a ballot screen" because those who care about non-IE broswers already download and install them on their own. If, like you say, Opera really does have a 40% share in Europe, then that means that Europeans are well aware of what Opera is, how to download it, and how to install it -- which makes the entire ballot screen pointless. Opera is just bitching that people voluntarily choose not to use their browser. I used to use Opera, found something better, tried Opera again a few years ago and didn't like the version at that time. I've considered trying it again (because I've heard good things), but their childish whining and ridiculous lawsuit means that I have no plans on ever using their product again.

Oh, and on a side note:

So you can drag all the politics you want into this (you are an American after all)

What the hell did that have to do with anything discussed in this article or my post?

Re:We know what this is really about

[fbjon]

Explain to me why they can't go to OEM's like Dell and convince them to install Opera?

Are you sure they haven't already?

Re:We know what this is really about

[fbjon]

If a user randomly picks one from a forest of choices, but no-one is there to care, is there then any confusion?

Re:We know what this is really about

[obarthelemy]

You can't be found guilty in a civil suit ? what can you be found then ?

Re:We know what this is really about

[JohnBailey]

Should Microsoft release a install that you can't use for anything? No of course not. People want and need a browser, a email program, a notepad and a calculator. They actually paid for getting it.

Didn't you hear? Windows 7 doesn't come with an email app. Where do we apply for our refunds? I mean.. we actually paid for it after all...

Re:We know what this is really about

[BrentH]

I'm frankly growing tired of the endless politicizing of each and every article vaguely related to government, perhaps in particular the EU. In my experience Americans do this much more often then others.

Source marketshare: http://my.opera.com/dstorey/blog/2009/03/16/a-look-at-desktop-market-share-cis-edition

The only point I was trying to make was that if there should be such a ballot screen, Opera should be in there. I'm not going back to whether a ballot screen should be in there, that's another discussion.

Re:We know what this is really about

[man_of_mr_e]

Opera is not the most used browser on Computers though. It's mostly used in handheld devices, which are used far more often for internet access than computers in eastern europe.

I use opera on my phone as well, and frankly, I hate it. It's AJAX support is terrible, typically causing entire page refreshes every few seconds when using ajax apps like gmail.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Totenglocke]

Opera's reasoning why why there "should" be a ballot screen in Europe is because IE has a monopoly - I'm not aruging your numbers, so I'm not going to the link, but if Opera does have a 40% share in Europe, then the reason for the ballot does not exist.

As for your insistence that I'm "politicizing" anything, I'd say the same about any government that was doing this. You sir, are politicizing it by insisting that "some damn American" hates the EU for criticizing their actions instead of realizing that it's a comment on government corruption, regardless of the country or the government.

Re:We know what this is really about

[Tom]

How about you simply refer to the other 200 discussions we've all had on the subject, instead of reading all the replies here - again?

What you're saying is untrue, and would probably cross the line into libel in many countries. Especially since you've apparently been around for a short while and know that you're spreading bullshit.

I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.

Yes, they can do that - as soon as their clone makes it into the top five list. You read the summary, you even show signs of having some understanding, as you yourself wrote "the other 4" just above this. You know that what you're saying is bonkers. So why do it? What's your goal?

Next, they will not be happy with randomozation

[bogaboga]

...the top five browsers -- IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari -- will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed.

Guess what! Next, the complainants will not be happy with the way the randomization code is implemented. I guess they will propose an Open Source one.

Frankly, I cannot wait to get finished with this bickering, and besides, Firefox is not doing badly in Germany at all!

Re:Next, they will not be happy with randomozation

[buchner.johannes]

Maybe Windows will get a decent Window Manager at some point.

Sad

[ToasterMonkey]

will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed

The implications of this are very saddening. That's beyond promoting competition, and just dividing up the booty.

Why stop at browsers then? We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc. These ALL existed! Where are their randomized ballot windows? Hell, that's free advertising! Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added? We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now!

If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive, imagine what it could do for open source. There is redundancy up the wazoo, we could have random ballots for EVERY category. Then people will have the ultimate freedom, and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE, Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd, GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor, MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs. It makes PERFECT sense, Hurd+KDE+mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long, time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.

On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized? What message would that send?

Re:Sad

[mariushm]

How would you display them otherwise?

By number of units sold - IE would be first as it comes with all operating systems, and they're all free now
By the letter of the alphabet - Is it "Microsoft Internet Explorer" or "Internet Explorer", "Firefox" or "Mozilla Firefox", how soon do you think a browser called "aaaaBrowser" will appear just to appear the first
By popularity or market share - based on who's stats... it's well known the expression here "Netcraft confirms it"

Random really does seem the best for now, and as long as these 5 browsers are not hardcoded... though it would be interesting if Microsoft would launch "Microsoft SilverlightBrowser" or something in Windows 2010 or something like that and as it's sold with the OS there will probably be two MS browsers in first 5

Re:Sad

[Gigiya]

Overreact much? Display is random, it's not like it randomly chooses and installs one automatically. If that's what a user does, it's their problem.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop at browsers then? We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc. These ALL existed! Where are their randomized ballot windows?

Absolutely none of these are anywhere near as central to the average user's computer usage as the web browser is. And regardless, there's no problem with those anyway as Microsoft only packages minimally functional implementations of those programs with Windows which don't offer any real competition to more serious products in the same categories.

Furthermore, the quality or lack thereof of those bundled programs doesn't really affect much. So what if MS Paint doesn't have fancy filters? So what if Notepad doesn't have multiple kill buffers and advanced scripting capability? So what if Explorer doesn't have multiple panes? However, Internet Explorer's dominant position offers Microsoft significant influence over the development of the web, and held it back massively until Firefox started eating into its market share, and still does to a significant extent.

Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added? We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now!

You can bug the EU to make Microsoft include your browser in the ballot when far more people than just you use it. In case you didn't notice before jumping to the comment box to write your whiny rant, they're not putting every random asshat's pet project in there. They're only including the top browsers.

If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive, imagine what it could do for open source. There is redundancy up the wazoo, we could have random ballots for EVERY category. Then people will have the ultimate freedom, and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE, Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd, GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor, MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs. It makes PERFECT sense, Hurd+KDE+mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long, time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.

On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized? What message would that send?

Breaking fucking news, the rules are different for monopolies, especially for abusive monopolies.

Re:Sad

[tylernt]

The implications of this are very saddening. That's beyond promoting competition, and just dividing up the booty.

Why stop at browsers then?

The fair solution is to not have any kind of (pre-installed) browser or a ballot at all. A user is greeted with a desktop with no prompts or programs. If the user wants a web browser, they can install one from media.

I'm assuming MS decided that was no good -- can you imagine the tech support calls that would generate? So they agreed to the next best thing, a ballot prompt. I think it's really in MS's best interest, given the alternative -- how well will a desktop OS sell that, out of the box, can't access the web without installing a browser from removable media?

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

There go my mod points...

We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc.

Do you understand why IE is a problem?

IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade. After dropping support for other platforms, it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only. This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked. Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5% of the population, when 95% can view your page?

Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve, and it has done so incredibly slowly, compared to any of its rivals.

Yet even now, the damage has been done. To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25% of my time hacking in support for IE6.

To compound this problem, you do kind of need a web browser to download another web browser. So even if I wanted to make a conscious choice to use, say, Firefox, I'd have to visit the Firefox download page from IE. It isn't as though Microsoft can reasonably be expected to ship an OS without a browser, unless we leave it up to the manufacturers, as most users would not know how to use ftp at the commandline to get Firefox.

So this is a sane solution to a real problem.

Compare this to your other examples. It isn't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properly, and even if we all adopt the defacto Microsoft standard of CRLF, it's not hurting anything -- nor is there a significant monopoly problem with text editors. And if notepad isn't there, you can download something else.

Same with casual picture editing. Download Paint.net or Gimp, and even if you don't, it's not as though there's some scandal with the png and jpeg file formats that makes them a nightmare to work with because some asshat breaks the standard every chance they get.

File compression? Standards work, there isn't a monopoly problem, and you don't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.

And so on.

Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added?... GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor

What's the marketshare of your browser? How well does it support standards? Where's the indication that it's a legitimate choice?

Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything, or that it's abused that monopoly power?

randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE... MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs

Because that's so lopsided right now. Also, what standards has Gnome created that KDE breaks? They seem to cooperate pretty well. MySQL and PostgreSQL seem to both support standard SQL, and vi/emacs seem to both support Unicode well enough.

Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd

This is the only analogy that comes close to making sense -- yet all of these seem to support POSIX and X11 decently well.

On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized?

When has any needed to be? Come to think of it, when has Linux, or anything currently running on Linux, ever abused monopoly power, or had a monopoly of anything to abuse?

On a serious note, I actually think it would be a bit easier to simply force Windows to ship without a browser, and let the OEMs sort it out, but I don't have much of a problem with the "random ballot" -- other than that it's going to lead to the best marketing winning, not the best software.

Re:Sad

[Dewin]

It isn't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properly

Oh REALLY?

1. Open Notepad
2. Type "this app can break"
3. Save the file.
4. Close Notepad
5. Reopen the file in Notepad.

Re:Sad

[jonbryce]

The EU has already dealt with the Music Player market. There are "N" variants of most of their versions of Windows which don't have Windows Media Player, allowing you to install Winamp, Real Player or whatever instead. They cost exactly the same as the versions with WMP and they have sold approximately zero copies of it in the EU.

Re:Sad

[cyber-vandal]

Try not to get too angry. There are so many people on here who don't have the ability to run a google search to see why MS are so unpopular and just blindly believe it's because the ungrateful Yooroes who would all be speaking Kraut if it wasn't for Uncle Sam are punishing a successful US corp for being successful.

Re:Sad

[cyber-vandal]

A court imposing punishment for breaking the law. What were they thinking? Oh no it's an aggressive agenda designed to punish success by evil Yooroe socialists. Even though the US courts did it first.

Re:Sad

[Lord Lode]

Yeah, it's weird, a browser ballot screen??? Wouldn't it make much more sense if they required IE to be distributed in a way similar to the other browsers? That is, no mentioning of IE at all anywhere in Windows. Users who want it can download it somewhere. And to be able to do that, a text-only browser is in Windows created only for the purpose of downloading software.

Re:Sad

[obarthelemy]

Yep. It's so easy to go talk to Dell about junking MS.

More winning ideas ?

Re:Sad

[obarthelemy]

Linux does not have 80+% marketshare, more like 1%: nobody cares about what they do. And they are not a convicted monopolist, so they can do whatever they want.

Starting heavy-handed supervision with the browser makes sense, since MS's prevalence was having a very clear negative impact in terms of security, standards compliance... and even features were not up to par.

I'm not against widening it after wards. Windows standard editor, media payer, image editing... are sorry pieces of crap. But, at least, they are not trying to (subvert) embrace and extend the Web.

Re:Sad

[thuerrsch]

Why not display the browser options according to their scores on the Acid3 test, in decreasing order? That would make Opera very happy and give Microsoft a strong incentive to make their product more standards-compliant.

Re:Sad

[buchner.johannes]

This Unicode bug was fixed in Windows Vista and 7, so yes, really!

Re:Sad

[Hope Thelps]

Why not display the browser options according to their scores on the Acid3 test, in decreasing order?

Basing it on Acid3 seems rather short-sighted. Doubtless it would improve IE performance of Acid3 but there would be no incentive to improve beyond that. Whereas basing it on the latest AcidX at the time would give rather a lot of power to whoever makes up the Acid tests.

Re:Sad

[Trevin]

let the OEMs sort it out, but I don't have much of a problem with the "random ballot" -- other than that it's going to lead to the best marketing winning, not the best software.

That's just how Microsoft became a near-monopoly: with the best marketing, not the best software.

Re:Sad

[icebraining]

So, could you please tell us what is the default browser for "Linux"? Or Desktop Environment? Or text editor?

Linux users already have to choose the distro, and there are hundreds, each with different sets of apps. And in many distros, you can install it without installing any browser.

Re:Sad

[John Hasler]

> IE would be first as it comes with all operating systems...

It most certainly does not.

Re:Sad

[VGPowerlord]

Do you understand why IE is a problem?

IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade. After dropping support for other platforms, it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only. This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked. Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5% of the population, when 95% can view your page?

Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve, and it has done so incredibly slowly, compared to any of its rivals.

Yet even now, the damage has been done. To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25% of my time hacking in support for IE6.

At the time it came out, IE6 was considerably more compliant than its main competitor, Netscape 4. However, that was like 8 years ago.

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, it also involved the lowest prices and the most cutthroat business tactics.

I think Google, Mozilla, and Opera can give them a run for their money on "lowest prices" and "best marketing" both.

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

You're advocating government intervention when the software that *YOU* think isn't good, dominates the marketshare.

It's software that demonstrably breaks the Web. It isn't just a matter of it being bad for end-users, it is bad for everyone.

Not everybody agrees with you.

Fortunately, enough sane people do. Please read the rest of my post for an explanation of why it's a problem.

Of course, those who are informed enough to have an opinion will be perfectly capable of choosing IE at the ballot screen, and those who install another browser and later decide it's a mistake will be perfectly capable of downloading IE.

If browser makers want their own browser to be the default on PCs, the let them cut deals with OEMs like how the thousands of other shovel-ware and trial-ware companies do.

Do you really think the default software in a PC should be decided based on who makes the best deal with the OEM?

And notice that if you don't at least force Microsoft to remove IE from Windows, the job does become harder for everyone else, because if no one manages to strike a deal with the OEMs, they'll just leave IE on there as the default.

This is about getting free advertisement and a free ride through government strong-arming Microsoft to promote their own competitors.

In other words, it's a way for the government to lessen Microsoft's monopoly. One way is to sanction Microsoft directly, and another is to actually level the playing field with their competitors, by again, removing any possibility of a default.

If you'd read my post before calling me a moron, you might notice that I would actually support letting the OEMs decide. I'm uneasy about it, but I'm also uneasy about the ballot process, as it does look like it's starting to impose far too many weird restrictions.

But instead, you just knee-jerk replied as AC. I wonder why I bother...

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

At the time it came out, IE6 was considerably more compliant than its main competitor, Netscape 4.

Granted. And I'm not sure to what extent I really care about the IE-vs-Netscape legal issue -- though I do find it interesting that the DOJ dropped the case pretty much immediately after the Bush administration was elected.

However, that was like 8 years ago.

Right. It was about five years of IE6 before IE7 was released, and it's been about three years since then. It may be getting to where we can forget IE6 and just focus on IE7 and IE8 -- but both still break standards in weird ways, to the point where some people advocate never upgrading IE -- just use IE6 for the few pages that need IE6 compatibility mode, maybe use it in IETab in Firefox or Chrome, and use a better browser (Firefox or Chrome) for everything else.

I still say, yes, use it that way, but upgrade it. IE6-only websites will mostly still work, but you'll have some security enhancements, and it's yet another step in dragging the IE6 world kicking and screaming into this century.

My attitude might change if IE actually got to the point where I could sanely develop an entire web app, and have it tested in Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror, and when it was all finished, spend less than an hour testing in Safari and IE. At that point, it would no longer make my life miserable that people use IE.

And no, that's not unreasonable -- I can currently expect to develop an app in Firefox alone, and when it's all finished, spend maybe an hour making it work in Safari, if I stick to web standards. I never test in Opera, and it'll generally work there. And that is useful, because I develop on Linux, and neither Safari nor IE are available natively. It is telling when an app developed in Firefox will pretty much just work, maybe with a few five-minute one-line changes, in every browser except IE, and then require massive hacks in IE.

I'm getting to the point where if anyone wants me to develop a serious web app -- you know, something that's actually an application, like a game, an Excel clone, etc -- I'll want to require Chrome Frame for IE users. Hey, it's better than Flash.

Re:Sad

[gparent]

Then you'd have the exact same problem as above once all browsers reach 100.

Re:Sad

[TheQuantumShift]

The point is, why have the ballot in the first place? If MS wants to include a browser in their OS, let them. Nobody complains that Apple includes their own browser as a default on every mac sold. That's a monopoly, right? Only on one type of hardware, but still a monopoly. How is it fair to other browsers that only Firefox is installed by default in Ubuntu? I didn't see a ballot when I installed 9.10 the other day.

It's seriously time to get the hell over "M$". I mean I'd rather people use Firefox, but it's not my place or the governments place to tell MS what they can and cannot include in their product.

Bottom line: If you don't want a PC preloaded with Windows, ask for it. If the shop won't do it, take your business elsewhere.

Re:Sad

[mariushm]

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Apple is not a monopoly as it barely has about 5-8% of the "desktop operating system" market. Windows with its ~ 75% is considered a monopoly.

Apple may be considered as a monopoly for their music players (iPhone/iPod combined) if for example they make changes to their AAC decoder software and iTunes so that the AAC files you buy will only play correctly on iTunes/iPhones. As it stands now, iPod and iTunes don't have anything special that other mp3 players can't do.

You seem to not get the point of monopolies and why they're bad.

In the case of Microsoft embedding IE inside Windows, this move was not to make it easier for people to use the Internet, but to hook web developers and companies into having to use Windows so obviously to buy licenses.

They intentionally not followed (or interpreted differently) some standards and then developed additional products like Frontpage and Word (export to html, save as web page) which relied on these quirks and features of Internet Explorer.

When you force someone to offer alternatives, you also force him to provide a better solution and companies will no longer assume people use just one buggy web browser.

Re:Sad

[ToasterMonkey]

This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked. Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5% of the population, when 95% can view your page?

Sorry, I forgot IE was the reference browser for the Internet and Microsoft failed, or wait, it wasn't, and developers only tested with IE? Who's problem was this again?

File compression? Standards work, there isn't a monopoly problem, and you don't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.

Standard file compression, which one, are you serious? ZOMG, Microsoft the monopoly is bundling file compression utilities with Windows, what about WinZip? /sarcasm.
BTW, conveniently, all of my examples were being sold prior to being available on the Internet. Yes, I've heard there was such a time.

Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything, or that it's abused that monopoly power?

Gimp isn't RedHat is!1 They are strong arming you into using one project over another, that's favoritism. They should use ballots!1.

When has any needed to be? Come to think of it, when has Linux, or anything currently running on Linux, ever abused monopoly power, or had a monopoly of anything to abuse?

I'm not talking about monopolies, I'm poking fun at the reactions to them. If RedHat were found to be a monopoly, would random ballots make any more sense? God, I hope not. They don't make sense in open source (or do they*) and they don't make sense in Windows, monopoly or not. It's like we've opened this big "So You've Got Yourself a Monopoly" book, flipped to Ch. XVIIJ "Punishments", and... oh, there's a blank page! Well, just make stuff up, that feels good, run with it. I've heard the same authors wrote "Mergers and Acquisitions for Dummies"

*You and I both know that many, many flamewars would end if every distro offered to log you into KDE or Gnome, listed in random order. I could extend that to a great deal other open source project categories as well. Yes, that is as fucked up an idea as random browser ballots.

Re:Sad

[man_of_mr_e]

Apple is not a monopoly as it barely has about 5-8% of the "desktop operating system" market. Windows with its ~ 75% is considered a monopoly.

Except that legally, it's not "desktop operating system" market, since you can't (legally) run MacOS on non-mac hardware. Judge Jackson defined the market as "Intel compatible", which technically current Apples are, but because of apples limitations on their OS to run only on their hardware, it puts them in their own camp.

Re:Sad

[man_of_mr_e]

IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade.

That's an interesting way of interpreting history. Technically, at various times, IE has been more standards conformant than any other browser. For example, when IE6 was released in 2001, IE6 had the best CSS support. The problem was not that IE "bastardized" standards, it's that it didn't keep up with evolving standards, and it didn't improve it's standard support so that it's competitors soon surpassed it in standards conformance. Also, IE had a number of bugs in their implementation which they did not bother to fix also. For example, IE7 became significantly more compliant just by fixing the majority of their current CSS bugs.

What you're saying is that an 1967 dodge charger "bastardized" EPA regulations from the 1980's, even though it existed long before those regulations existed, or before any of it's competitors had implemented them.

There's no doubt that Microsoft ignores some standards. But one can only criticize them for new works they release after those standards are defined and commonly implemented, or for not updating their products. You can't criticize their old product for not conforming to new standards.

Re:Sad

[man_of_mr_e]

My attitude might change if IE actually got to the point where I could sanely develop an entire web app, and have it tested in Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror, and when it was all finished, spend less than an hour testing in Safari and IE. At that point, it would no longer make my life miserable that people use IE.

The problem with that is that Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror all are moving targets, and most of them are implementing draft standards that can change at any time. CSS3 is still nowhere near being finalized, and HTML5 won't be final, by their own admission, for at least another 10 years. Meahwhile, we have browser vendors implementing their own standards that they hope to have included in HTML5 (Canvas anyone?), and if people start using this functionality and then the standard changes, you have even more problems.

Whatever happened to the days when standards weren't implemented until they were ratified?

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

Thats just your opinion. I don't agree

Are you a web developer?

the billion net users who aren't web developers don't give a shit either.

Much like they "don't give a shit" about driving SUVs, getting their PCs filled up with spyware constantly (and then buying a new, "faster" computer that only feels faster because it's clean)...

Of course, Firefox has been winning by actually being a better product, largely winning users with extensions. But most users, when it's actually explained to them what they're doing, are willing to use an alternate browser if it makes my job easier, as long as it doesn't make things worse for them.

They want to site to work. Period.

Which is generally what happens now -- except it's also going to work faster on other browsers. Unless something's changed recently, IE still comes in dead-last in performance.

NO browser supports all standards.

And all of them except IE support the standards, in general, better than IE. When flaws are pointed out with the Acid tests, all of them fix these flaws faster than IE.

I can build a website in Firefox, and have it work in Opera, Konqueror, Chrome, Safari, Galeon, Epiphany, iCab, every browser, and have it break in IE, taking several hours a week -- on a good week -- to fix.

But if you read my post, you'd know that:

To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25% of my time hacking in support for IE6.

Again, I have to ask, are you actually a web developer?

You're just upset because its MS thats at the dominant position.

No, I'm upset because IE, and IE6 in particular, actually severely increases the amount of time I have to spend building a website. It makes my job harder, and the job of pretty much any web developer. It means I have to actually reboot, or fire up a virtual machine, because you know there's going to be something different.

I realize I have to test in every browser anyway, if I'm going to be diligent. Yes, I sometimes find minor differences between them, but nothing like, oh, the difference between the standard box model and IE's box model.

My Grandma doesn't. And shes pretty sane, thank you.

Perhaps I should've said "sane and informed" -- does she actively disagree with me, or does she just not have an opinion at all?

I also said, enough sane people, so your anecdote fails.

Also, it's been awhile since I checked, but I bet my grandma uses Firefox.

Thats how it works.

I didn't ask how it works. I know how it works. I asked how it should work.

You think this is going to stop at Browsers?

Yes, and if you actually read my original post, you'd know why.

Or in other other words if the entry to any market is high you want to government to "level" the playing field

There's a high barrier of entry, which is in itself a problem. And then there's actually abuse of monopoly.

The crux of your argument is stupid. I pointed that out.

Without bothering to register or sign in, thus limiting effective moderation, and making it difficult to carry on a conversation.

I call it like I see it.

That'd be more impressive if you actually saw it -- maybe developed some reading comprehension.

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

What you're saying is that an 1967 dodge charger "bastardized" EPA regulations from the 1980's, even though it existed long before those regulations existed,

Yes, one issue is that they didn't keep up. Another issue is that they had serious problems with their implementation, as you pointed out:

IE7 became significantly more compliant just by fixing the majority of their current CSS bugs.

I should also point out that Microsoft is a member of the w3c, and has been for awhile. It's not as though they had no input on these standards, or that they should come as a surprise. It's more that from IE6 to Firefox, they really didn't seem to care -- there really was a time when much of the Internet was IE6-only, and broke in weird ways on Mozilla, thus making many sites unusable on Linux.

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

Sorry, I forgot IE was the reference browser for the Internet and Microsoft failed, or wait, it wasn't, and developers only tested with IE? Who's problem was this again?

I wasn't blaming Microsoft, only stating the problem. However, bundling IE with Windows and giving it the dominant marketshare, and breaking as many standards as they did, exacerbated the problem. If IE was mostly compliant, I really wouldn't care -- let people use IE, I'll develop on Firefox, and things will mostly work.

Compare this to standards which actually work -- I hit "print to PDF" or "save as PDF" on Linux, in a browser or an OpenOffice document, open it on Acrobat Reader on Windows, and it works. Take any PDF from the Internet, open it in Okular on Linux, and it works. People who know will tell you ways in which Adobe may have broken the standard, but they generally work. Contrast this to having to test in every browser, and run it through the w3c validator...

Standard file compression, which one, are you serious?

zip is a standard, which is probably why it's used as the container format for everything from Chrome extensions to ODF documents to id software games.

Now, are other compression formats warranted? Sure, but the one that's most visibly included with Windows is zip, and it's interoperable.

ZOMG, Microsoft the monopoly is bundling file compression utilities with Windows, what about WinZip? /sarcasm.

And I don't have a problem with that.

My problem isn't that IE has huge marketshare -- I don't like it, but I can live with it. My problem is that IE has huge marketshare and consistently breaks shit, and I as a web developer have to spend something like 25% of my time supporting it.

Contrast with zip -- I can use the zip commandline tool on Linux, or the Rubyzip library in Ruby, or WinZip on Windows, etc, etc, and they'll all open just fine with "Compressed Folder" on Windows.

Do you see the difference? Microsoft actually got the zip support right.

Gimp isn't RedHat is!1

If you're being serious, you're a moron. If you're being sarcastic, you made my point for me -- what, exactly, does RedHat have a monopoly on?

It's a bit like accusing Apple of abusing their monopoly on desktop computers. Why does nobody care that Safari is the default browser on OS X? Simple: Apple doesn't have the monopoly. Microsoft does, which means they have to play by different rules.

I'm not talking about monopolies, I'm poking fun at the reactions to them. If RedHat were found to be a monopoly, would random ballots make any more sense?

Only if RedHat were actually abusing their monopoly. Even then, I'd only care if they were doing so in a way that actually breaks standards. They want to include Gimp? Fine. They want to include a version of Gimp that makes PNGs that no one else can read? Fuck 'em.

You and I both know that many, many flamewars would end if every distro offered to log you into KDE or Gnome, listed in random order.

Indeed, Ubuntu solves this by making that choice for you. However, this is mitigated by several facts:

• You can replace Gnome with KDE, and Ubuntu has never claimed otherwise. You may be able to remove IE now, but Microsoft certainly tried to prevent it, to claim it was impossible.
• Kubuntu exists. Where can I download a Firefox-only Windows?
• Neither Ubuntu nor Kubuntu is a monopoly.
• Gnome and KDE actually cooperate on standards, improving both.
• Gnome programs work in KDE, and vice versa.

And so on -- all of which aren't true of browsers. Also, Gnome and KDE both have decent market share of the small market of Linux desktop environments...

And maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong forums, but I don't see Gn

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

The problem with that is that Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror all are moving targets, and most of them are implementing draft standards that can change at any time.

IE even breaks the existing standards. Even if I stick to stuff that's been officially rubberstamped, I'm still likely to have tons of headaches on IE. On the other hand, even if I use some very strange and wacky, nonstandard stuff, I can get it working everywhere except IE without much trouble.

CSS3 is still nowhere near being finalized, and HTML5 won't be final, by their own admission, for at least another 10 years.

That seems plausible, but I'd still like a citation for it. I've never head anyone from HTML5 make such a claim.

Meahwhile, we have browser vendors implementing their own standards that they hope to have included in HTML5 (Canvas anyone?),

According to Wikipedia, Canvas is included:

The canvas element is part of HTML 5 and allows for dynamic scriptable rendering of bitmap images.

Whatever happened to the days when standards weren't implemented until they were ratified?

In the case of HTML specifically, Flash happened -- if you want to do something that's not implemented in browsers, isn't standard, and isn't likely to be ratified for awhile, chances are Flash can do it already. But is that really the route we want to go?

More generally, we're seeing things like PDF standardized, which makes sense. At least if you've got a working implementation, you've got a proof of concept -- you know that this can be implemented. If you've got an open source implementation, you can even use that as a means of arbitrating ambiguities in the standard, by pointing to how the open source project does it. And if you've got multiple competing implementations, you've got a good case for something to be a standard.

In other words, we're moving from the Cathedral to the Bazaar.

And I should mention: Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror may be moving targets, but when I develop an app for them, it generally also works in Safari and Opera. It's only when I get to IE that things break in a major way.

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

No. I write cross platform developer tools that ship on windows, mac and Linux. I go through much pain making our product work well on those 3 platforms. I can't help but laugh at the level of triviality that you people get upset about.

So, what qualifies you to comment on the state of web browsers?

You do understand that the Web is meant to be platform-independent, right?

You can deride them or call them stupid if that makes you feel better about your opinion. But remember, you're relying on them for business, not the other way round.

I don't see what relevance that has to the current discussion. The point wasn't to deride them, it was to point out that whether these things matter has nothing at all to do with what the majority of people think.

This was countering your point, which seemed to be implying that people "not giving a shit" was a reason that this wasn't an issue.

Performance is a vague term. I assume you mean JS performance tested with something like sunspider.

Yes, that would be one way.

Which FWIW is not a real world test.

Can you suggest a "real-world test" which shows IE having better performance?

So, take the 10000 most popular websites and compare the time it takes to load the page.

Yes, because page load time is the only relevant metric.

I could point to Google Wave, the reason behind Google Chrome Frame. IIRC, it was the Javascript performance which drove them to this -- even Google can't ignore IE users, but IE was too slow to make Wave work properly. From the Wave developer blog:

Google Wave depends on strong JS and DOM rendering performance to provide a desktop-like experience in the browser. HTML5's offline storage and web workers will enable us to add great features without having to compromise on performance. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer, still used by the majority of the Web's users, has not kept up with such fairly recent developments in Web technology...

In the past, the Google Wave team has spent countless hours solely on improving the experience of running Google Wave in Internet Explorer. We could continue in this fashion, but using Google Chrome Frame instead lets us invest all that engineering time in more features for all our users, without leaving Internet Explorer users behind.

As a developer, that sounds all too familiar to me.

But note that Wave is one of many web applications, for which page load time isn't nearly as relevant as actual performance once the page is loaded.

You seem convinced that somehow IE users are unhappy and miserable with their experience.

No, I'm convinced that I am unhappy and miserable at having to develop for it, and at the number of cool things that I could develop which are either impossible on IE, or are nightmarishly difficult to make work (CSS), certainly if I want them to be fast (Javascript).

Thats not even getting into the fact that other benchmarks such as HTML parsing, rendering, network perf, etc are all valid performance benchmarks.

Good point. Does IE do significantly better on this? I remember it being worse, last I checked.

And neither of these are relevant to app performance -- DOM manipulation is much more important. I expect any decent Javascript benchmark would include that.

That said, IE8's protected mode and chromes process/tab isolation wins against any performance that the safari or FF can bring to the table for average users that aren't spending their day playing games written w/ CANVAS.

Except that Chrome also supports canvas and is as fast (and often faster) at Javascript than Firefox or Safari. The one edge IE has over Firefox (isolate

Re:Sad

[SanityInAnarchy]

The point is, IE8 is not as far behind in standards OR performance as web developers like to whine about w.r.t. the majority of mainstream websites. Yes it doesn't work with the newer toy websites that little to no people use.

In other words, it sucks for the majority of the future of the Internet, but it's fine for existing sites which have been painstakingly tuned for it.

Who cares about a buggy web site that nobody uses?

That shows both profound ignorance and a profound lack of imagination.

Ignorance: There are hundreds of public waves, and that's just what's public. Certainly not an indication of "nobody using it".

Lack of imagination: Wave could, in fact, be the Next Big Thing. It could replace email, IM, forums, IRC, wikis, digital whiteboards, and other things.

I realize it isn't yet. Point is, IE in its current state cannot run Wave decently, partly because it's not fast enough. Now, whether or not Wave is the next big thing, it's one example among many of the things that are possible when you leave IE behind.

Besides, since you're giving so much weight to direct comments by competitors of IE against IE

Google is in the business of building websites.

They noticed a serious problem with existing browsers. Problems with browsers are their problem, as it makes their websites less useful.

They released a new browser, and an IE plugin, to address these problems.

Really, what motivation would they have to lie about IE to drive adoption of Chrome? If you're right, and it really isn't that bad, why would they spend the amount of R&D they did on Chrome, and donate to Firefox, for that matter?

Notice, also, that Wave works in Firefox. It also works in Safari. By any measure, these are every bit as much competitors to Chrome as IE is. Why would Google exclude IE, but not these other browsers?

I'm sure you would welcome the comments against other browsers by MS. Or is that FUD?

It's not FUD when it's backed up by facts, and by my own personal experience. But since you like to appeal to (or against?) authority so much, I thought it would be a fair start.

So no, I am not simply taking Google's word for this. I actually agree with them.

Not 100%? That is a nice way of putting NOWHERE NEAR 100%.

Your point?

"While at the time of Acid2's release no web browser passed the test, Acid2 was designed with Microsoft Internet Explorer particularly in mind" - Or, to put in in technical terms, to generate FUD against Microsoft.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is because someone noticed what I've noticed, what is blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually worked in this field, which is that IE's non-compliance is a huge problem.

This is, in fact, what we find when we put that quote in context:

The creators of Acid2 were dismayed that Internet Explorer did not follow web standards, and that because of this, Internet Explorer was prone to display web pages differently from other browsers. When such a discrepancy between browsers is encountered, web developers spend time tweaking their web pages in order to make the pages be displayed correctly across different browsers. Acid2 represented a challenge to Microsoft to bring Internet Explorer into compliance with web standards, making it easier to design web pages that work as intended in any web browser.

Emphasis mine.

(ACID3) "Controversially, it includes several elements from the CSS2 recommendation that were later removed in CSS2.1 but reintroduced in W3C CSS3 working drafts that have not made it to candidate recommendations yet." - Gee sounds like its testing non-standard standards. I wonder why.

Given that these standards are actually implemented in places other t

As a long time Opera user

[Gadget_Guy]

As a long time Opera user, all this nonsense makes me want to just install Internet Explorer to spite the lot of them. (OK, as a web developer I know I will be installing all of them on my test computer)

The reason I have always prefered Opera is that I get all the functionality without having to install other plug-ins and programs. I'm getting too old to just keep tinkering with my setup. In my youth I probably spent 90% of my time installing new stuff & writing programs to streamline my system and only 10% actually being productive. These days I want it to be 10% tinkering and 90% productivity.

So it annoys me that when I install Windows I now have to install mail and web programs because Microsoft were forced to separate them all.

People keep saying that people use Internet Explorer because they don't know any better (and don't know the opposition products), but I don't think that those people outside the geek community WANT to have to know about them. They just want to use a computer to do stuff. It is only as I have got older that I have really appreciated this.

Re:As a long time Opera user

[Gadget_Guy]

As a long time Google user, all this nonsense makes me want to just use Alta Vista to spite the lot of them.

Funny you should say that. The simplicity of Google's search interface and accuracy of the results (in the early days at least) was the reason that I switched to Google. There was less choice, but it was more productive if all I wanted to do was just find a website. This was exactly what I was talking about in regards to operating systems.

Re:As a long time Opera user

[Gadget_Guy]

Perhaps it's time to look at a mac...

I have 4 Macs, but 3 of those are pre-OSX. I really had high hopes for Mac OS X, because it sounded like the answer to all my dreams. Much of my tinkering time back in the Amiga and early Windows days was adding all the Unix utilities that I had come to know and love at University. The Mac OS X had all that built-in, but I found it lost a lot of ease of use in the GUI that the previous versions had. It had things like coloured buttons with no indication as to what they would do if you clicked them.

It came just at the time when my need to command line utilities diminished in favour of the graphic interface. Unfortunately, the Windows interface seemed easier for me. These days I can use either system, and I don't really see either as being dramatically better than the other one. I'm just more used to Windows these days.

I spend 99% of my time in the productive realm, the other 1% is on /.

I'm the opposite. The biggest killer of my time is that I have broadband internet where ever I go. Damn you, Slashdot!

Re:As a long time Opera user

[Mystra_x64]

Then do it. Don't whine on /.. Just do it. Report back around year or so later how it's on the other side. Maybe it would be good for you. Who knows.

Re:As a long time Opera user

[Gadget_Guy]

Don't whine on /.. Just do it. Report back around year or so later how it's on the other side.

I have kind of started that. I left my main computer (a laptop) at work this weekend, so I am currently using my test Windows 7 beta system which I kept as vanilla as possible. This means I am posting this with Internet Explorer.

I have implemented the usual security measures that I have used for the last 10 years: default the firewall to block everything then explicitly allow what I want through. In IE, I have turned off Active X. Actually I am trying to get Administrator Approved ActiveX controls to allow AJAX to work in Internet Zone, but without success. I am writing the settings to the registry manually to avoid having to install the IE administrator kit (which is the usual way you set the admin approved stuff).

Until I work this out, I will keep everything off in the Internet Zone, and use Trusted Sites for anything that requires AJAX. I have disabled Flash using "Manage Add-ons". I only turn it on in those rare cases I want to see a video or something. This is actually working better than expected. It is (suprisingly) not much worse than Opera or Firefox as I thought it might be.

So there you go. That's my report after a few months.

Re:As a long time Opera user

[Mystra_x64]

Is AJAX is still tied to ActiveX in IE8? I thought it wasn't.

Re:anti-free market

[MightyMartian]

Unfairly? The company should have been busted up for the shit they pulled. They're getting off easy. I hope the EU perpetually causes them grief, they have earned it in spades.

Consumer friendly?

[DAldredge]

If browser selection screens are consumer friendly why doesn't Chrome OS have one?

Re:Consumer friendly?

[Anonymous Coward]

If browser selection screens are consumer friendly why doesn't Chrome OS have one?

Because Google has not been convicted of illegally using Chrome OS's monopoly market share to dominate the browser market. For that to even be possible, Chrome OS would first have to achieve a monopoly.

There's too many people in this discussion acting surprised that Microsoft is being held to a different standard. Yes, Microsoft IS being treated differently here. It's not because a bunch of Windows-haters are running the EU. It's because they are a convicted monopolist. They have already caused problems and broken laws, and now being forced to do things that Google is not being forced to do is part of their punishment. There's nothing unfair about this. Microsoft is not on equal ground compared to other companies that are not convicted monopolists. Please stop acting shocked that there are two different standards in effect.

Re:Consumer friendly?

[TheRaven64]

It's because they are a convicted monopolist

And part of the confusion comes from people using phrases like this. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Once you have a monopoly, however, certain things are. A legal monopoly is not the same as an economic monopoly. You don't have to have 100% of a market to have a legal monopoly, you just have to have enough that you can act as if you do. If you have a monopoly in one area, then you may not use this to gain market share in another area. This is an obvious restriction. Without it, a company that got one monopoly would then exploit it to get a monopoly in all related areas, then all areas related to that, until you just had one company providing everything and employing everyone.

When a company with a monopoly in one area attempts to enter another market they should expect scrutiny. These laws are the same in the EU and USA, the only difference is that the EU is doing a slightly better job of enforcing them.

Re:Consumer friendly?

[howlingmadhowie]

Because the Chrome browser is fairly standards compliant?
What this whole thing is about is microsoft trying to use a fairly broken and proprietary version of htmtl, css and javascript to make it impossible for people to use the web without using internet explorer.

Re:Consumer friendly?

[DAldredge]

We aren't talking about ie6. IE8 is much better in that regard.

Re:Consumer friendly?

[Lulfas]

That's because it's a US company. If it was an EU company... Well, it probably wouldn't be nearly as big or profitable.

Re:This is just stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really care about 2 and C, but point 1 is actually just wrong.

That it is free to the end user does not mean that they do not make more money the more the browser is installed. For example, Google pays to be the default search engine in Firefox. I doubt they paid a total fixed sum, but rather an amount based on aggregate downloads/installs.

Re:This is just stupid

[Dustie]

How do you know that no part of the windows selling price is for development of IE? Do you think all the apps in Windows is made by programmers in their free time and the OS itself is made when they are at work? Notepad, freecell, IE. Non of them are free.

Re:This is just stupid

[TaoPhoenix]

Because of things like your list.

Microsoft hard-coded things like your "three options labeled 1, 2, and C" in Internet Explorer so that it took ten years for the web to get users to realize why other browsers were needed.

Ballot

[Anonymous Coward]

You have chosen....
"FireFox 3.5".
Are you sure about your decision?
(Clicks on Yes)
You have clicked "No". Resulting to default browser. Now installing Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Re:This is just stupid

[NoMaster]

If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?

I'm reminded of the time when IE was in its infancy and it had trouble downloading Netscape Navigator. FTP worked fine, Mosaic worked fine, and NN could download itself - but IE often stalled at ~98%. Not saying that was a deliberate act on the part of MS, but an odd co-incidence, no?

Besides, if the threshold for a computer licence was "figuring out how to download and install Application X", the world would still be be using typewriters, doing budgets in ledgers and cashbooks by hand &/or calculator, listening to music on the radio or stereo system, and surreptitiously buying Playboy at the local corner store...

Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows? (Notepad, Paintbrush, etc)

Because they haven't been accused, charged and convicted of leveraging their effective OS monopoly in an attempt to ensure Notepad, Paintbrush, etc are the de facto text / graphics / etc program, nor have they been accused, charged, and nearly convicted of deliberately stalling to delay following up on their legally-mandated penalties and obligations in relation to the original conviction?

(Oh, and it usually goes "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" - I don't think you get to choose to mix and match ;-)

Re:A nightmare for tech support

[Anonymous Coward]

The randomization is bad for one big reason. Since they will never be in the same order, when family calls for help I can't just tell them to click on the middle one

Oh come on now. I'm sure your family may not be tech wizards, but it's taking it a bit too far to say they can not discern distinct objects based on a simple description. How did they learn to read? I'm pretty sure that "click the blue E, red O, planet with fox, compass icon, four-color beach ball" would be enough of a guide for any person who have enough intelligence for basic daily tasks to select the right one.

The question is, would everyone have someone on the phone giving advice during setup? Not always.

I'd like to see the same for search engines

[joeflies]

Mozilla at least is honest about the process - the addtional search engines are alphabetical. There's a whole boatload of them to wade through, but at least it's fair. IE8, on the other hand, chose to show the additional search engines by some unknown process, and put Google (the engine that most people would want to add) on the second page of choices, right next to unkonwn providers such as Freebase Visual Search and Findname.cn. Having a ballot of the top 5 additional search engines would be a lot better than what either Mozilla or Microsoft has.

Re:I'd like to see the same for search engines

[whoever57]

IE8, on the other hand, chose to show the additional search engines by some unknown process, and put Google (the engine that most people would want to add) on the second page of choices,

I am not sure if it was IE7 or IE8, but I found that installing an additional search provider in IE after making Firefox the default browser was impossible. Instead of opening an IE window to download and install the search provider, it opened the default browser (now FF). The one time that IE should have been hardcoded as the browser to open, the default browser is opened instead. Accidental?

Re:I'd like to see the same for search engines

[drinkypoo]

I find all kinds of times IE should be hardcoded to open, and it never is. It's an accident. IE8 asked me at install time what I wanted, in itself.

Re:I'd like to see the same for search engines

[whoever57]

I find all kinds of times IE should be hardcoded to open, and it never is. It's an accident.

What's the saying? Once is an accident, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action.

Remember the posting about how some poor developer spent months on Vista's shutdown button? Things like this get a lot of scrutiny at MS and don't happen by accident.

Re:I'd like to see the same for search engines

[TheRaven64]

One time is a bug, twice is a copy and paste error, thrice is a coding convention.

Re:I'd like to see the same for search engines

[Dwonis]

I don't know about this instance in particular, but some amount of paranoia around Microsoft's practices and ethics is justified. The Comes v. Microsoft case exposes a lot about that. Quoting a commenter at Groklaw:

Gates in public:

In fact, Microsoft goes out of its way to make early copies of API and protocol specifications available,

Gates inside Microsoft:

I have decided that we should not publish these extensions.

Hypocrites.

[baboo_jackal]

The only possible reason that you would care about your position on a serial list of choices is if you knew that the majority of people making said choice really don't care about what they're choosing, and their choice would end up being random (i.e., primacy effect, serial position effect, google it).

But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).

So basically, these other browser makers are fighting over how to get their browser randomly selected the most among people who don't care what browser they use. So that they can claim that their browser is used more. How does that make any sense?

Re:Hypocrites.

[Joce640k]

It makes sense because those neophytes might actually try another browser. They could even end up comparing it with their friend's choice of browser to see which is coolest..

It gives the people in the list an incentive to make a better browser ... based on what users want, not some political agenda. How's that for a radical idea??

Re:Hypocrites.

[Alef]

But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).

The choice has always been there, albeit more complicated to make. The issue has been that Microsoft has promoted their browser through their operating system monopoly, leading to unfair competition, not that people haven't been given a choice per se.

I personally don't think it is a big issue whether the ballot should be random or not. It sounds more like they are quibbling about details. But if the goal is to remove the leverage MS has through controlling the operating system, I'd say a random ballot ought to be more "fair" than letting MS pick the order. Sure, those who don't care will get a random browser, but why should MS be given the advantage of getting (more of) those users?

Re:Hypocrites.

[baboo_jackal]

I agree that more informed choice among browsers among consumer users is a good thing. But that wasn't my point - My observation was that these companies are jockeying for *position* in a list, which implies that they recognize that, for some significant portion of users, it'll end up being essentially a random choice.

I figure people will fall into three categories: 1) Tech-savvy users who know exactly which browser they want - My guess that this will come out probably favoring Mozilla, 2) Casual users who haven't really thought about browser choice will probably be slightly confused by this screen, but don't want to make a totally random choice - My guess is that most will recognize 'Microsoft' and pick that by association, and 3) People who will just click 'Next' and take whatever's selected by default (essentially a random selection).

Point is that all this scheme does is to chip away at Microsoft's market share via group #3 - the totally clueless people who really, really don't care what browser they use (or maybe even know what a browser is). These are the people that'll end up complaining to their friends (and Microsoft) that their Interwebs are different and weird because they randomly selected, say, Opera on the ballot screen.

Anyways, I'm really really interested in seeing how the selection rates come out.

Re:Open source had its chance here and blew it.

[TangoMargarine]

Open source had its chance and blew it.

So they'll never be able to optimise it, huh? It shall remain bloated forever.

Re:Open source had its chance here and blew it.

[CAIMLAS]

Good thing that Firefox 3.5 is faster, more reliable (than 2 and 3), and uses less memory, right? Oh, huh: it has been out for quite a while (I've been using it since at least April), too.

Nevermind that Firefox 2 really doesn't work all that well anymore. The web is a lot different now than it was then: much more javascript, more CSS2 with odd crap that looks horrid in FF2, and a lot more creative ads (does AdBlock support FF2 anymore?)

I don't like the bloat of 3 or 3.5 vs. 2, but seriously... it is quite an improvement none the less.

Happy

[HobophobE]

The object of this ballot system is to let users know that a choice even exists. It's not to promote any specific competitor. You seem to overlook the fact that there are people out there (and quite a few, I might add) that don't know they have a choice. They don't know what a browser is. They just know they click that specific icon to get on the internet. They don't know there is an internet separate from the web. A lot of computer users have very limited knowledge.

As to why they should know, that is everything to do with economics. You can go read about that in depth, but the gist of it is that information is the lifeblood of a market (particularly an information market). The more nuanced an understanding the average participant has of the marketplace, the healthier that market will be. This is because as sophistication grows in the market, the options must become refined to compete. To put that in terms of browsers, as more browsers compete they all become standards-compliant and have to differentiate on other factors such as speed, security, extensions, portability (both the browser and the data), and so on.

Re:Happy

[FireFury03]

It isn't the job of MS to improve customer awareness. That falls under advertising and marketing.

This would be true except for one very very important factor: by making IE a "standard" part of the Windows install, Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly position to "advertise" and "market" IE. What better way is there to advertise your product than to have it preinstalled on almost every PC sold? No one except Microsoft can do this, and that's what makes it illegal.

Lets be clear on this: leveraging one market in order to increase your share in another is not illegal; leveraging a market in which you have a monoply in order to increase your share in another is illegal, and that's what this is about.

If it was Safari that was the default and if some other company was suing for having a browser ballot you'd be screaming bloody murder.

Why? I know I'm not the poster you replied to, but I think that shipping any one browser with Windows is a terrible idea because it puts the browser vendor in a position so powerful that they can dictate what everyone else is doing. For the record, I have never used Safari because I don't own a system that can run it.

Other browsers have failed to convince OEMs to include their browsers.

But would the same have been true given a level playing field? If IE had never been bundled with Windows and vendors had always had a choice over what browser to install as standard, would Microsoft have succeeded in convincing the OEMs to include IE in such a large proportion of installs? I can certainly remember vendors bundling Netscape with machines instead of IE before IE became bundled. The truth of the matter is that the playing field is _not_ level - there is very little reason for vendors to go to extra effort to give their customers another browser (whether or not it is better), and that's exactly what it is, extra effort, purely because IE is bundled and other browsers are not.

Personally, I support the idea of banning Microsoft from bundling *any* browser with OEM copies of Windows so that there is no "lazy path" for the vendors to take; but even if this happened, IE has been bundled for so long that it would take a long time for it to be displaced since too many end-users associate the IE icon with "the web" instead of "a way to access the web".

OEMs don't give a shit about other browsers.

I think that statement needs refining a bit - as explained above, OEMs don't give a shit about what browser they give their customers, so they pick the easiest option - the one that is bundled with Windows. No one except Microsoft can provide an "easiest option", and that's why it is a problem. There are only two possible solutions to this problem; either you bundle multiple browsers, making them all equally easy, or you bundle no browser, making them all equally hard.

Too bad all the anti-ms hate has screwed up your objective beliefs.

I'm not anti-MS; I'm against a single vendor getting enough power to influence the market as significantly as MS has. MS's lack of IE development and failure to embrace standards has seriously held back development of the web; this isn't really a comment on MS, it is a comment on their position - no vendor should be in a position to screw over the *whole* web as badly as MS has done.

This is also why I hope that Chrome doesn't gain a majority market share, because I don't think that it is a healthy thing for a single vendor to have complete control of a significant platform.

I can see the next Mac vs PC ad

The difference here, as has been stated numerous times, is that Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple isn't. However, Apple are indeed far more abusive of their position than Microsoft is, and being taken down a peg or two by similar rulings would do the consumers a lot of good in the long run (Apple can't be

Re:This is just stupid

[pizzach]

Polar example bad. The only other program that mostly fits into the same category is Windows Media Player. The others are stripped down very basic utilities. Internet Explorer and WMP are not stripped down in any shape or form.

The other issue is that both programs have a much larger impact than the other ones you described. There are very real reasons to look into. Zero revenue is outside of the scope of the problem now.

Can we get this for real ballots..?

[gQuigs]

They will choose browsers more fairly then politicians are chosen. I would love to see randomized ballots so voting the party line actually requires some knowledge.

People who just vote Democrat or Republican every election for all levels of government are ensuring we won't be able to get any real improvement (yes I didn't say change) in the US. Randomized ballots would make it more difficult to do, and might, make them learn a little more of who they are voting for...

corporate users

[Darkon]

Microsoft may offer tools for volume license customers that prevent the Ballot Screen update from being installed on all computers covered by the license.

I'm still waiting for some confirmation on this. I do not want this thing appearing on my carefully locked down staff and lab desktops, which incidentally all use Firefox anyway in case you're thinking I'm an IE astroturfer.

Re:This is just stupid

[token0]

Does it have to be repeated each time? 1. Making Opera popular makes Opera's mobile versions popular, profit. Making Chrome popular makes web apps popular, profit. Besides, anyone who coded web pages for IE feels a moral need to make it disappear, it's a pain I wouldn't wish on anyone. 2. It's the masses that are too stupid. It's not ok for Microsoft to profit from their OS's popularity (let's assume it's because it's good) to make their crappy browser popular. It's about monopoly, there's no simple small market analogy, but promoting competition (yes, through restricting someone's freedom) works. C. Because Notepad and Paint aren't a threat to competition. I know it seems they're all basic apps for doing basic stuff, so it's natural to include them with an OS, but browsing the web isn't basic at all from an economic point of view. That, and IE is making the web worse, Paint isn't making art or design worse.

Re:This is just stupid

[Spliffster]

"2. If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?"

Maybe you do not remember the late 90ies. Without Mozilla we wouldn't call the web "Web 2.0" today, it would be "Microsoft Web 2.0" and would nor work without "Microsoft Internet Explorer(C)". This being a linux/unix centric site, i guess most readers would be out of luck browsing the web and more importantly using web applications (no company webmail from at home for you sir).

I don't understand all the bitching on this topic, people seem to forget so quickly. Web applications are the future, it was clear to some in the late 90ies, today every one working in IT should know this! If one monopolist can control the web, we sure have a problem in the future.

Kind regards,
-S

Re:A nightmare for tech support

[TheRaven64]

click the blue E, red O, planet with fox, compass icon, four-color beach ball

I first thought you were making a comment on Safari's stability, but it turns out that Chrome's icon really is based on the cursor that OS X apps get when they crash. Interesting marketing decision.

Re: How would you get a browser without one?

[xiando]

The fair solution is to not have any kind of (pre-installed) browser or a ballot at all. A user is greeted with a desktop with no prompts or programs. If the user wants a web browser, they can install one from media.

I would agree if Windows was a GNU/Linux distribution with some kind of free software package manager where you could emerge arora or apt-get install lynx. But it's not and (ab)using a browser seems to be the only easy way to get a browser on that OS. Get a CD/DVD sounds like a bad solution.

They apparently wrote a "ballot" browser "package manager" and my humble opinion is that they should place it under "Internet" in the menu, not pop it up in peoples face.

Re: Only Microsoft? Really?

[xiando]

This would be true except for one very very important factor: by making IE a "standard" part of the Windows install, Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly position to "advertise" and "market" IE. What better way is there to advertise your product than to have it preinstalled on almost every PC sold? No one except Microsoft can do this, and that's what makes it illegal.

My sister has this incredibly small Mac boxen and it appeared to have some Mac web browser installed on it. I would assume that it came with the OS?? (or does it? I never actually used one myself, but I've seen people do)

Re: Only Microsoft? Really?

[FireFury03]

My sister has this incredibly small Mac boxen and it appeared to have some Mac web browser installed on it. I would assume that it came with the OS?? (or does it? I never actually used one myself, but I've seen people do)

Yes... what's your point?

Horribly Bad Example

[BitterAndDrunk]

I mean, and this isn't even hypothetical, if no Notepad came with Windows, there'd be many, dozens of alternatives with marginally more features. This was the case even when Windows just came out, that applications with hardly more features were on the market. I don't know about the state of calculators, but certainly Notepad and Wordpad killed an entire marketplace.

Worst Example Ever.

And that's not including universal text editors like emacs and vi (as gVim). The examples I just threw out are considered the best in a big market, not the only replacements for notepad. Source

Re:Horribly Bad Example

[Anpheus]

I lack the statistics, but I'm confident the market share for third party text editors is far smaller than for third party browsers. So by all the definitions the EU has used, the current text editor developers have all been harmed by the mega-corporation Microsoft and should be compensated.

I guess that means there'll be a new ballot screen.

Re:Horribly Bad Example

[man_of_mr_e]

While that's true, the amount of effort required to create a web browser is orders of magnitude more than that of creating a text editor. Many of those text editor programs are written and maintained by a single person. Web browsers take hundreds of people years of development to get right. And to date, none have (gotten it right).

Re:Horribly Bad Example

[Anpheus]

If Microsoft hadn't crushed the market, there might be more money, blah blah blah.

We can go all day. The point is, if the EU is applying these regulations evenly, Microsoft would be unable to do anything with its OS except provide a kernel. And even then, if they added new functions to the kernel (as they have with every release), the EU would have to mandate that the kernel installed be selected based on a ballot.

At this point, the EU (or rather, the EC) is insane. Microsoft achieved substantial market share. They won that market share by being the best, longest lasting, most well supported product. It's a combination. Apple doesn't have backwards compatibility, Linux has, for a long time, lacked paid support outside of hiring a "Linux guy". They won their position, or at least, they won the business and market share they achieved.

Now what? Is it really the duty of the European Commission to make sure that it's illegal for Microsoft to provide substantive enhancements or additional software with their OS, which all of their competitors are doing? How is that fair?

I use Chrome and VLC, not IE and Media Player. So it's not like I use their software. IMO, Microsoft shouldn't have to participate in a "ballot" for any software any of the other vendors in the top 5 offer. If Apple is giving away X with their OS, Microsoft should be able to compete with that. That's only fair. If it's unfair to alternative vendors of X, then that's their shitty luck,

Re:Horribly Bad Example

[Anpheus]

Apparently if you keep typing after you hit preview, decide it wasn't worth keeping, and then the preview comes up sans your just typed text, and then you hit submit... You get the just typed text too.

Viva la Slashcode.

Anyhow, I might as well finish my sentence.

"If it's unfair to alternative vendors of X, then that's their shitty luck, they will have to compete with free on Windows just like they have to compete with free on Mac, or on Linux."

Re:sexiest

[Dwonis]

Then I guess Chrome will win, because it's shiny!

Re:This is just stupid

[icebraining]

It was browsers because it was Opera that complained to the EU about IE. AFAIK, no text editor developer complained about Notepad.

Are you sure you want Firefox to be your browser?

[janwedekind]

It's probably going to be something like the Florida Voting Machine.

Introduction to a Civil Lawsuit

[ToasterMonkey]

In a civil lawsuit, the victim brings a case for money damages against the offender or a third party for causing physical or emotional injuries. Regardless of the outcome of any criminal prosecution, or even if there was no prosecution, crime victims can file civil lawsuits against offenders and other responsible parties. The person who starts the lawsuit is called the plaintiff, and the person or entity against whom the case is brought is called the defendant. Unlike a criminal case, in which the central question is whether the offender is guilty of the crime, in a civil lawsuit, the question is whether an offender or a third party is responsible for the injuries suffered.

Re:Introduction to a Civil Lawsuit

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, you forgot "financial injury", which is basically what an anti-trust suit is (same with breaking your neighbors window). A defendant can be found to have violated a law, but they are not "guilty" of it because the burden of proof in civil court is far less than that of a criminal case.

Civil court has liability, criminal court has guilt.