EU Accepts Microsoft's Browser Choice Promise

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Accepts Microsoft's Browser Choice Promise

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @02:38AM from the so-that's-it-then dept.

itwbennett writes "Hurrah! The European Commission's antitrust investigation of Microsoft's position in the browser market is over. The EC has accepted Microsoft's commitment to offer users of 'Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 a choice screen through which they can pick the browsers they want to install on their PC,' writes Peter Sayer in an article on ITworld. 'The screen will be offered to users in the European Union and some neighboring countries for the next five years via the Windows Update mechanism. In addition, PC manufacturers will be allowed to ship computers with competing Web browsers, as well as or instead of Internet Explorer.'"

336 comments

Hurray! by AlexiaDeath · 2009-12-16 02:40 · Score: 5, Funny

No more IE being forced down our throats... Except when we need to access our corporate intranet.
1. Re:Hurray! by feedayeen · 2009-12-16 02:42 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  No more IE being forced down our throats... Except when we need to access our corporate intranet.
  ... and school computers, and grandma's computer, and websites that were designed for IE 666
2. Re:Hurray! by mdm-adph · 2009-12-16 02:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Which IE8 can't do, I think. Can you even install IE6 on Windows 7?
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
3. Re:Hurray! by dotwhynot · 2009-12-16 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Which IE8 can't do, I think. Can you even install IE6 on Windows 7?
  Only in VirtualXP mode. I believe Win7 is the best bet to get rid of most of the remaining IE6 users, because many corporation and governments that skipped the Vista upgrade cycle, and didn't want to update/certify intranet applications between cycles, will upgrade to Win7 (for many reasons). Let's hope they do it quickly. At least IE8 is a huge step in right direction.
4. Re:Hurray! by Hurricane78 · 2009-12-16 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don’t get these comments about IE required for corporate intranet. I’ve never seen something like that.
  Also: You are free to allow another company to buy your services, or just sell right to end-users.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
5. Re:Hurray! by smartr · 2009-12-16 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Or if you need to get that DRM'd music ripped from Windows Media Player activated on your mom's computer...
6. Re:Hurray! by brewmage · 2009-12-16 03:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  And don't forget that Microsoft Update only works with IE, so you have to use it then too... Unless they make changes for it to work with the others.
7. Re:Hurray! by BrokenHalo · 2009-12-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  and websites that were designed for IE 666
  
  I wonder what choices Microsoft will suggest. Maybe Lynx or Links? Or Konqueror? Who knows, maybe they'll even suggest Opera. If they suggest Firefox or Chrome, I will be very surprised.
8. Re:Hurray! by aetherworld · 2009-12-16 03:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A lot of intranet applications require proprietary ActiveX / OCX controls, which only work in IE (I think). I've also seen quite a few intranet applications that run with VBScript, which also requires IE (again, I think).
9. Re:Hurray! by nstlgc · 2009-12-16 03:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Vista and Windows 7 don't use IE for Microsoft Update, but nice try.
  
  --
  I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
10. Re:Hurray! by marsu_k · 2009-12-16 03:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  IE8 is certainly a step in the right direction, and I will be so happy when IE6 finally eats flaming death; but there are still glaring omissions. Not that any browser is a model citizen in this regard, but IE is definitely worst. Now I'm aware that it is possible to work your way around the differences, I just finished a library to be used internally that emulates W3C-compliant DOM events in IE; but I'd rather spend my time doing actual development than working around browser bugs (which 99% of the time are caused by various incarnations of IE).
11. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  IE8 is still a PITA. One example: The most useful feature in web design, PNGs with alpha channels, is still horribly broken in IE8 when used in all but the most trivial ways. You can't simply combine them with the alpha(opacity) filter (which is Microsoft's weird way of working around the lack of CSS opacity support). There are even some cases which IE7 got right and IE8 screws up. Even in the cases where it seemingly works (i.e., it doesn't turn the alpha-channel into GIF like 1-bit transparency), IE8 and all IEs before it get alpha-channel PNGs with alpha-filter on top completely wrong. Buffoons.
12. Re:Hurray! by MikeBabcock · 2009-12-16 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  At the very least, most security DVR systems I've used or seen require an Active-X control to be used to view the cameras, which then requires IE.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
13. Re:Hurray! by IrquiM · 2009-12-16 03:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You haven't been working much in a corporate environment, have you?
  
  --
  This is blinging
14. Re:Hurray! by Yvan256 · 2009-12-16 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Then stop using the alpha filter? No other browser has such a thing, unless you're talking about the opacity property?
15. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/inline-alpha.html
  PNG has an Alpha channel property. Not sure what you're talking about.
16. Re:Hurray! by Z00L00K · 2009-12-16 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to see a context-sensitive use of URL:s so that some URL:s starts IE others Firefox and yet others Opera.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
17. Re:Hurray! by Yvan256 · 2009-12-16 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  The most useful feature in web design, PNGs with alpha channels, is still horribly broken in IE8 when used in all but the most trivial ways. You can't simply combine them with the alpha(opacity) filter (which is Microsoft's weird way of working around the lack of CSS opacity support).
  PNG alpha channel != Microsoft's alpha filter.
  The parent was saying that mixing the alpha of PNGs together with Microsoft's alpha filter is a problem. I never use Microsoft's filters, so I never ran into that problem.
18. Re:Hurray! by Stewie241 · 2009-12-16 04:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  To eliminate bias, the choice screen is presented as a neutral window, not a full Internet Explorer window as Microsoft initially proposed, and the browsers are presented in random, rather than alphabetical, order. The five most popular browsers -- initially Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Opera -- will be displayed first, while users will be able to scroll the list to pick from seven others, initially AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The list will be reviewed every six months.
  FTA (I know... nobody reads it)
19. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  IE8 doesn't support CSS opacity, which is supported by all other browsers (even though opacity is a CSS3 property). IE6 and newer support a proprietary "filter" property and an alpha filter, which is typically used as a replacement for the lacking opacity property support, and an alphaImageLoader filter, which is used as a replacement for the lack of PNG alpha channel support in old IE versions. Other browsers simply implemented PNG alpha channel support without proprietary extensions many years ago.
20. Re:Hurray! by BrokenHalo · 2009-12-16 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, I didn't read it, but the idea of Microsoft suggesting Lynx was too much to resist... :-)
21. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say it isn't ActiveX but that you have easier control over a lot of desktops with group policies.
22. Re:Hurray! by ByOhTek · 2009-12-16 04:57 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Yep. I've never had a choice but to use IE on my windows machines. Nope, never. That firefox installer I have on a usb key, with the '.exe'? Yeah, that certainly couldn't be for windows...
  Preventing MS from telling OEMs that they can't install other browsers is reasonable - MS shouldn't be able to tell them that, but to make it so that MS has put the effort to, what amounts to, advertise for their competators... Why not make Apple do that on their machines? Why not make dell offer the option of non-dell motherboards? Why not make home builders offer the services of alternative plumbing and electrical installation companies, rather than just use their own?
  One step in the right direction, but the second took them too far.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
23. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  PS, on the horribly wrong blending issue:
  The correct rendering of an alpha-blended image pixel with an additional opacity property is
  (1-opacity) * background + opacity * foreground
  where background is the pixel value "under" the image (not the background color in the PNG), opacity is a value in [0;1] and foreground is calculated as follows:
  (1-alpha) * background + alpha * pixel
  where background is the same as above, alpha is the alpha channel value (in [0;1]) associated with the pixel and pixel is the pixel value in the PNG.
  Combined we get:
  (1-opacity) * background + opacity * (background*(1-alpha) + pixel*alpha)
  = (1-alpha*opacity) * background + (alpha*opacity) * pixel
  i.e. multiply the alpha channel of the PNG with the opacity value, then blend like you normally would. I'm not sure what IE does, but certainly not this.
24. Re:Hurray! by AmiMoJo · 2009-12-16 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  How do I get my new "CLICK HERE FOR FREE PORN!!!!" browser added to that list?
  Seriously, I haven't even heard of some of those. What about Midori, Dillo and Lynx? Presumably there is some process for developers to get their browser on this list.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Our intranet does not require IE but it sure works a lot better if you do use it.
26. Re:Hurray! by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 05:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why not make Apple do that on their machines?
  Because Apple isn't a monopoly. It can't be an abuse of monopoly power if you aren't a monopoly in the first place.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
27. Re:Hurray! by thetoadwarrior · 2009-12-16 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Our intranet works perfectly fine without IE6. Not everyone was dumb enough to think IE6 would be around forever.
28. Re:Hurray! by davester666 · 2009-12-16 06:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  After you make your selection, IE 8 gets installed along with a skin to make it appear to be Chrome/Safari/Firefox/etc...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
29. Re:Hurray! by nine-times · 2009-12-16 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but that's not the end of Microsoft's shenanigans. I tried downloading the Office 2010 beta in Firefox. No dice. The page didn't work without IE.
  Of course you can argue, "It's their website and they can do what they want with it." True enough. But certainly they're not committed to browser standards, nor do they seem very interested in making it easy for their customers to work with the browser of their own choice.
30. Re:Hurray! by Korin43 · 2009-12-16 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  At my old job, the intranet site worked fine in Firefox, but our IT people were morons and insisted that it didn't.
31. Re:Hurray! by cepayne · 2009-12-16 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Until a non-beat version of IE9 becomes the defacto MS browser, then we'll hear people say....
  "I will be so happy when IE8 finally eats flaming death"
  As the MS software cycle continues and nobody learns from the previous round.
  Corporations are starting to become OS-Agnostic for their web apps. Those who
  have not done so eventually will follow suit.
32. Re:Hurray! by PinkyGigglebrain · 2009-12-16 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  "No more IE being forced down our throats... "
  
  At least until the next "critical update" from MS that changes the browser preference to IE and locks it so a registry hack is needed to change it again.
33. Re:Hurray! by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Didnt have a problem with that page under Opera, so the problem must be you (Opera is even less supported than Firefox on Microsoft sites, and has even been actively targeted with intentionally broken pages)
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
34. Re:Hurray! by xaxa · 2009-12-16 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  At my current job, 90% of the intranet site works in anything, 10% works only in IE6, and 10% doesn't work in IE6 (but works in Firefox, Opera etc).
  (I think when some web app was evaluated no one in IT thought to check it in IE6.)
35. Re:Hurray! by Intron · 2009-12-16 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't the original browser complaint because MS was preventing distributors from installing Netscape?
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
36. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the definition used to define MS as a monopoly excluded Mac's as they were considered a seperate market and as such apple most definitely could be defined as a monopoly in their own right using the same standards that applied to MS.
37. Re:Hurray! by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-12-16 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  In corporate environment, I prefer to treat IE as a "SharePoint client", not as "web browser". It makes more sense that way.
38. Re:Hurray! by nunofgs · 2009-12-16 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if you use Chrome there's an extension that loads IE in a tab. There's a similar plugin for Firefox.
  You're still using IE but at least you don't have to launch a new browser.
39. Re:Hurray! by ZygnuX · 2009-12-16 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  So your job has a 110% of computers?
40. Re:Hurray! by orngjce223 · 2009-12-16 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  10% of your web app fails at percentages.
  
  --
  Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
41. Re:Hurray! by akayani · 2009-12-16 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  "No more IE being forced down our throats..."
  
  Oh you wish! Hidden behind the whole Windows interface and in apps built with Visual Studio is a cut down version of IE that is even more hopeless than the real thing.
42. Re:Hurray! by Zonnald · 2009-12-16 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ran the test PP linked to got the expected (i.e. tested for) results (and the same results) for IE8, IE8 (ie7 compatibility), FF, 3.0.15 and Chrome 3.0.195.38.
  If you see three horizontal bars, two fading in from left to right and one fading in from right to left - then your browser supports display of alpha channels in inline PNG images.
  If your browser supports alpha you should also see that:
  * The image has been composited against the same background color as the rest of this page - white, unless your user stylesheet changed it to a different color.
  * the word 'Testing' has smooth, anti-aliased edges edges - look especially at the curve of letters like 'e' and 'g'
  * The word 'Testing' is slightly transparent, particularly the 'T', allowing the background color or image to show through.
  If you see a textured background behind, your browser also supports background images for CSS stylesheets - congratulations.
  Do you people just say things just because you heard it elsewhere or do you check it out first before you post?
43. Re:Hurray! by Senior+Freshman · 2009-12-16 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  I just downloaded Office 2010 using Firefox last week. Seems like your problem might lie elsewhere.
44. Re:Hurray! by Yvan256 · 2009-12-16 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Parent was talking about the CSS opacity property, not the alpha channel of PNGs.
45. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  I seem to recall QuickTime's usurpation of IE's png handling causing some issues with the test several years back... but I would have liked to have thought that this would be fixed by now.
46. Re:Hurray! by nine-times · 2009-12-16 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well I don't know, but there isn't anything funky about my install. I have no whacky extensions or hacks. I navigated most of the way through their website to a page that said something like, "Click on this button to download". I clicked, no download. Pretty simple. Maybe you have some extra-special plugin or extension that I don't.
  And anyway I've had enough problems over the years with Microsoft's websites being designed for IE, not seeming to have been tested on other browsers. For years and years you couldn't even read their knowledge base pages in non-IE browsers, and there wasn't anything special about them. They were just text. Recently it has seemed like every page on any of their sites includes an ad saying that the page would be better with Silverlight. You install Silverlight and the page doesn't do anything that you couldn't do without Silverlight.
  Sure, newer versions of Windows don't make you use the Windows Update website, but has Microsoft actually fixed the website so it will work in other browsers? Not the last time I checked. Maybe they're getting better, but to me it seems like too little too late.
47. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's okay he works for Fox News.
48. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's not a question of not making you use the Windows Update website. The website won't _allow_ you to use it if you're running Vista/7.
  Fox XP, I don't believe it's even possible to alter the website such that it runs under other browsers in the same manner. Perhaps they could make extensions for the other browsers to allow them to work with it, but this seems to be a course of action with no real benefit to anyone.
49. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  Many intranet environments don't even need something this fancy to cause people to use IE. 2 cases at my work:
  a) Intranet page loads in frames, each frames requires a connection to a different directory, and each of those connections authenticates to my domain\username and password. I really don't like having to click ok 4 times (firefox stores this data but doesn't auto attempt to use it) just to load our company intranet homepage.
  b) Our IT guys while fixing a different problem on my computer noted that Firefox is unsupported software and proceeded to uninstall it. I didn't complain, I keep the install file under my documents simply because this happens on an almost monthly basis.
50. Re:Hurray! by xaxa · 2009-12-16 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  So your job has a 110% of computers?
  10% of the site is usually down...
51. Re:Hurray! by AlexiaDeath · 2009-12-16 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  If I had modpoints, that would get an insightful right away.
52. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  I've looked into it some more and found that IE's alpha filter clamps the image opacity to the opacity of the alpha filter, i.e. all pixels which have an alpha value lower than the opacity value of the alpha filter are rendered like they would be rendered without the alpha filter, and all pixels which have an alpha value higher than the opacity value of the alpha filter have their alpha value replaced by the opacity value of the alpha filter. That's borderline retarded.
53. Re:Hurray! by ByOhTek · 2009-12-17 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, wouldn't they also be considered a monopoly in the portable audio player market?
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Yeah right. by jack2000 · 2009-12-16 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Good luck with that. IE is still a huge chunk of the shell and is shipped with XP weather you like it or not. (can't comment on win7/vista)
1. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Good thing MS stopped shipping XP.
2. Re:Yeah right. by HaZardman27 · 2009-12-16 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  I imagine the IE install files will still be on your computer no matter what. I'd laugh if MS set this up to throttle your connection when you're trying to download one of the alternate browsers, with a message popping up every few minutes asking you if you'd rather go with IE instead.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
3. Re:Yeah right. by JohnBailey · 2009-12-16 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that. IE is still a huge chunk of the shell and is shipped with XP weather you like it or not. (can't comment on win7/vista)
  Which for the five millionth time, was not the issue here. And I seem to remember reading that the browser ballot will come as an update to XP too.
  
  --
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
4. Re:Yeah right. by spitzak · 2009-12-16 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is nothing wrong with IE being included. The big difference is that OTHER programs can be included.
  Buried in the story about the "ballot box" is the REAL story: "In addition, PC manufacturers will be allowed to ship computers with competing Web browsers, as well as or instead of Internet Explorer."
  The real deal is that OEM manufactures were NOT ALLOWED TO SHIP A COMPETITOR TO IE. Not at all as long as they wanted to keep their volume discout pricing for Windows. This is the REAL antitrust settlement. Microsoft astroturfers have managed to bury this fact under so much fud about the "browser ballot box" that it is almost hidden even here at Slashdot. Disgusting.
5. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck with that. IE is still a huge chunk of the shell and is shipped with XP weather you like it or not.
  (can't comment on win7/vista)
  
  Yeah right on. Damn MS raining on our parade cuts no ice with me, though this whole IE storm has really clouded things, hopefully this taskes the wind out their sails. S'no joke.
past behaviour by SkunkPussy · 2009-12-16 02:43 · Score: 0, Troll

so this is a remedy for future anti-competitive concerns. How does this address past anti-competitive behaviour?
It sounds a little like "Microsoft murdered people. Microsoft enters into a legally binding agreement not to murder for the next 5 years."

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!
1. Re:past behaviour by bickerdyke · 2009-12-16 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike murder, anti-competetive isn't a problem as long as no one complains.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
2. Re:past behaviour by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, that's right. Supplying your own browser with your own operating system is analogous to murdering someone. Good work.
3. Re:past behaviour by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Anti-competitive behaviour is not like murder. That's an unfair comparison.
  MS was fined 1.3 billion for past behaviour. This promise is needed for them not to get future fines:
  http://slashdot.org/yro/08/02/27/1152208.shtml?tid=98
4. Re:past behaviour by Locutus · 2009-12-16 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately, this is how the system works and it is just one reason why people who've noticed this stuff dislike the company so much. Add too it how they continually drag their feet working out a solution just like they did here. It took them 12 months to get to this "solution" after Microsoft proposed having Internet Explorer already installed and used as the method to display the selection. I don't doubt that this "solution" is also going to take over a year to implement and test so don't hold your breath that any change is going to happen soon.
  
  IMO, the OS war still rages on and Microsoft knows the legal system can do little to contain their battle techniques.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
5. Re:past behaviour by Insanity+Defense · 2009-12-16 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, that's right. Supplying your own browser with your own operating system is analogous to murdering someone. Good work.
  
  Microsoft did more than just supply a browser for their own OS. They forbade OEMS from installing any other browser. They programmed it into the system so that end users couldn't easily remove it. They did everything they could to KILL competing browsers. In short they used their OS monopoly to force a browser monopoly and that was and is illegal. Now attempts are being made to rebuild competition in the browser field.
6. Re:past behaviour by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Anti-competitive behaviour[sic] is not like murder. That's an unfair comparison.
  
  Not exactly like murder, no, but it seems similar enough for the comparison to be valid.
  
  MS was fined 1.3 billion for past behaviour[sic].
  MS was fined $794 million for other antitrust abuses, unrelated to their abuse in the Web browser market. The rest was fines for refusing to pay and refusing to implement the reparations required by the courts. In continuing the comparison, you are claiming MS's convictions for previous murders of other people using the same weapon should count as punishment for this murder.
7. Re:past behaviour by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-17 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, so *that* is analogous to murder.
  Or alternatively, you're a whiny turd.
Next up by Nerdposeur · 2009-12-16 02:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Uberdork: "Now if only we could get them to ship Windows with a choice to use bash."
1. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 02:48 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  slashdot user: "Now if only we could get them to bash Windows themselves".
2. Re:Next up by HaZardman27 · 2009-12-16 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's why I usually install cygwin on my computers; I just can't get used to Windows' commands.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
3. Re:Next up by Ralish · 2009-12-16 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, not bash, but they do ship their high-end editions of Vista/7 and most (all?) Server 2008/R2 editions with csh and ksh as part of Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications, an optional component. And, there's always Cygwin. But really, PowerShell is better than all of the above. Yes, I know I just pissed off a stack of people devoted to the inherent and forever eternal supremacy of the Unix command-line paradigm, and while I would have agreed with you until the advent of PoSH, I can't anymore. Those who have to administer Windows machines would be richly rewarded by learning it. Yes, I know the parent was comment in jest :)
4. Re:Next up by Hurricane78 · 2009-12-16 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Real geeks prefer zsh! ^^
  And ubergeeks prefer a shell for their Emacs VM. ;)
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
5. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:28 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  That's why I usually install cygwin on my computers; I just can't get used to Windows' commands.
  using cygwin is like using a blow up doll. It doesn't even feel like the real thing. (capcha is probing!)
6. Re:Next up by dkf · 2009-12-16 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But really, PowerShell is better than all of the above.
  
  Depends on whether you think that types are a good thing or a bad thing in shells. If you like types, then PowerShell is indeed MSNirvana(TM). Those of us who think that types are just an annoyance when it comes to sticking programs together to do cool stuff, well, we're just never going to be all that impressed with MS's offering here and will stick to other technologies.
  Who's right? I'm definitely biased, but I rather like the POSIX way of doing things.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
7. Re:Next up by clang_jangle · 2009-12-16 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  The voice of experience, I presume? :D
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
8. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  PowerShell is very cool but in reality it's not just about the shell, it's also about the tools: typical linux install has a better selection and there are loads and load more available with just a quick "apt-cache search problem ... apt-get install new-tool"
9. Re:Next up by Ralish · 2009-12-16 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I agree. I personally think that PowerShell is a superior shell to bash/csh/etc..., but it still has a way to go before it gets enough tools to really compete with the incredible power of the CLI on Unix platforms. This isn't really surprising, in that in many respects Windows and Unix lands are focused in opposite directions. Whereas Windows has traditionally been very GUI-centric, with CLI support an afterthought, the reverse could be said of Unix platforms where the CLI reigns supreme and the GUI was an afterthought. Obviously, each paradigm has its strengths, but I think both platforms are perhaps guilty of neglecting one in favour of the other.
  In that respect, while much of Unix development (particularly Linux, and yes, technically it isn't Unix, but I'm not putting a "-like" suffix on everything) seems to be focused on improved GUI tools for management of the system so you don't need to dive into the CLI to perform various tasks (see: Fedora/Ubuntu/SuSE), Windows is trying to improve CLI support by finally replacing the archaic cmd shell with PowerShell and rapidly improving it to become a modern and viable CLI for Windows systems.
  One thing I do find interesting about how MS is approaching this issue is that they are building the GUI management tools of many of their new server products (see: Exchange/SQL Server/Windows Server) on top of PowerShell itself. This is excellent, as it means that while you have your pretty GUI for those who wish to use it, underneath, it's really just using PowerShell scripts to get the job done. The direct result of this is everything that you can do in the GUI you can do in the CLI, and, I assume it reduces engineering costs as the GUI is naturally built on top of the CLI system, rather than being two separate entities with separate engineering.
10. Re:Next up by nine-times · 2009-12-16 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't really learned to operate in PowerShell yet, but it definitely has one distinct disadvantage: it's not used in other operating systems.
  I know, that probably sounds like a weird complaint to some people. On the other hand, I can install cygwin on my Windows machine and learn how to do some bash scripting, and then sit down at a Linux/Unix/OSX machine and that knowledge remains useful. If I learn how to use PowerShell and then try to use that knowledge on OSX, I'm going to run into some difficulties.
  That shouldn't be your only consideration in choosing a shell, but it seems pretty important to me.
11. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  (capcha is probing!)
  Meh. Now if it was "innertube rubbing sound" that'd be creepy.
12. Re:Next up by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-12-16 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  You kinda can - get Enterprise or Ultimate edition, stick the free Interix (aka SFU, aka SUA) on top, and you get your POSIX system with a simple but functional package manager (pkg_add), and bash is one of the included packages. Of course, you can always ./configure && make && make install as well.
13. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-17 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  zsh, bash is so last year
YAY by Kc_spot · 2009-12-16 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Congrats Europe!! you'll finally be able to use Firefox and Opera or maybe even Chrome!! ...4:1 = a majority of stick with IE...

--
This needs more cowbell!!!
1. Re:YAY by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  we've been able to use those browsers for a long time...
2. Re:YAY by Yamata+no+Orochi · 2009-12-16 03:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I think that was the point he was trying to make, in an effort to downplay this whole affair. Nothing really changed, in other words.
  Additionally, I find it amusing that it's now perfectly fine for computer manufacturers to "ship computers with competing Web browsers, as well as or instead of Internet Explorer," but not for Microsoft to bundle their own browser into software they created.
3. Re:YAY by icebraining · 2009-12-16 03:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Additionally, I find it amusing that it's now perfectly fine for computer manufacturers to "ship computers with competing Web browsers, as well as or instead of Internet Explorer," but not for Microsoft to bundle their own browser into software they created.
  Wait, what? That's exactly the point: preventing companies from abusing their de facto monopoly in one market to strangle other markets.
  The computer manufacturers can't abuse it, because:
  1) None has a dominant position in the market
  2) The browser they ship won't be theirs, so they're not gaining market share, the web browser developer is.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
4. Re:YAY by SmilingBoy · 2009-12-16 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82
  
  Article 82 EC has been called Article 102 TFEU since 1 December 2009.
5. Re:YAY by psithurism · 2009-12-16 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  we've been able to use those browsers for a long time...
  Apparently not, the history of settlements seems to imply that you are unable figure out that you can download them onto your computers and set them as your default browser.
  Have you noticed that Ubuntu comes pre-installed with Mozilla and doesn't even have a port of IE! Why don't you fine them next?
6. Re:YAY by Yamata+no+Orochi · 2009-12-16 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  We can discuss this without one of us being being defaulted to the role of flamebait. :/
  That said, what if Dell had a web browser? And shipped it with their computers?
About time. by Kyrene · 2009-12-16 02:46 · Score: 0

I'm a developer and use Firefox and the "load IE as tab" when I can to avoid using IE. IE is a piece of crap, and given the browsers it's now competing with on the market Microsoft needs to spend time being forced to improve it versus just shrugging their shoulders and forcing the majority of computer users to deal with it as default. Now there can be some genuine competition and hopefully a chance to improve the software.

--
Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
1. Re:About time. by Totenglocke · 2009-12-16 03:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There has been genuine competition for years now. The problem is, most people are 1) too stupid to learn about other browsers, even when you tell them flat out or 2) just don't care because it would require a minuscule amount of effort to install a new browser and adjust to it's layout. I even know people who've been in IT for decades who say "Why would I use anything other than IE?" even after you repeatedly explain all the superior features of other browsers plus IE's security problems. The main problem probably won't go away for a few decades, then it'll be the people who grew up using Firefox, Chrome, etc running the show and we won't have the old dinosaurs who can't comprehend installing a new browser dragging people down.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Re:About time. by Kyrene · 2009-12-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's that simple. In every corporate culture I've been in, IE is the default. Given it's installed on every machine that has Windows, it's what people use. And if they're not in the IT world, they have no reason to use anything else. Microsoft has presented it as THE browser of choice, and there's no reason for most corporate environments to behave any differently. Unless you're working for a software company and not on an internal project, nine times out of ten you'll be told users will be forced to use IE, period. I'm lucky that in my IT experience I've never met anyone who refused to use anything other than IE. If that were the case I'd wonder why they were so willfully ignorant of the other choices out there, or it was a forced choice due to the corporate reasons listed above.
  
  --
  Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
3. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:34 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Ironically IE was once the hip new upstart with better features and a minority share to the old dinosaur that was netscape. What makes you so sure that if FF obliterated IE it wouldn't make the same mistakes? (And trust me I'm no big IE fan, I've used FF since '04, just playing devil's advocate)
4. Re:About time. by Totenglocke · 2009-12-16 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that people being used to using different browsers and trying new ones won't fight people who try new browsers. It's the same as the old lead IT guys right now who refuse to let people install freeware and insist on paying for a product that does the same thing because "it must be better, it costs money". One of the major clients I work with has an IT head like that and it kills me how much money they waste when they could use free products to do the same things (like using Winzip when they could use 7zip for free).
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
5. Re:About time. by bmearns · 2009-12-16 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting point, but FF is open source, and Mozilla is non-profit. It seems to me that most of IE's issues are profit based, in particular as a result of Microsoft's infamous EEE strategy. I think we stand a good chance of not facing these same issues from firefox for the above given reasons. (Of course, it may have it's own laundry list of outstanding issues).
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
6. Re:About time. by JohnBailey · 2009-12-16 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically IE was once the hip new upstart with better features and a minority share to the old dinosaur that was netscape. What makes you so sure that if FF obliterated IE it wouldn't make the same mistakes? (And trust me I'm no big IE fan, I've used FF since '04, just playing devil's advocate)
  Simple.. Because the issue is not one of browser features. It's cross platform, cross browser compatibility. Microsoft's kryptonite. IE is the least compatible browser in the mainstream market. Some features are deliberately non standard and closed methods, others are the remains of workarounds that they used to support in previous versions. So basically, if everybody decided to take down the pages specifically written for IE tomorrow, millions would be howling at the web sites when IE couldn't display them properly, and then at Microsoft,before dumping it's browser. The user doesn't see the incompatibility though, so they don't complain. It took Firefox about 5 years to get enough user base to be impractical to ignore, so now the bulk of sites have at the very least, got a standards complaint version too. Which also paved the way for all the Safari and Chrome compatible sites. If Firefox pulled a Microsoft, and started getting complacent, there are plenty more browsers who can provide competition. Because this is what real competition is.. Constant innovation and refinement. Not your product "winning".
  
  --
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
oh dear by kennethmci · 2009-12-16 02:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

sounds great - although, i can hear the customes complaining 'i cant find internet explorer'! i love the alternative browsers , but cant help feel the 'average consumer' doesn't really care that much? i have actually installed firefox on family members computers, and couldnt really answer ( with info that they found useful ) what the difference was... my family dont really care to much about usability compliance and security ( well - until theyre shot down themselves with it! )
1. Re:oh dear by daid303 · 2009-12-16 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  You are doing it wrong. On the ignorant user you should just force it. Remove any IE shortcuts and they'll be fine.
  I replaced IE with Firefox and Outlook with Thunderbird at my parents years ago. Told them 'the red icon is internet', 'the blue icon is email', and they are happy. The amount of sites that don't work in firefox are limited, and yes, I got lucky with the online banking. That all works in FF.
  Now if they only learn that they can install java/flash updates without my help then they'll do fine.
2. Re:oh dear by clodney · 2009-12-16 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand replacing IE with Firefox, but unless you are planning on using IMAP instead of MAPI I think Outlook is a far more capable product than Thunderbird. Free as in beer I understand, but if your parents already have a valid Outlook license why would you take it away?
3. Re:oh dear by AlexiaDeath · 2009-12-16 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My dad certainly started to use the red ring thing for internet after I had to clean off porn spam off his PC. He is in his sixties and was somewhat embarrassed about it. The rest of the family does it because I named it The Internet and put it on the desktop. Since then time needed to spend cleaning both family computers during my home visits has gone down to about an hour per year. So the user might not care, but the tech savvy family member that gets the free cleanup work does.
4. Re:oh dear by AlexiaDeath · 2009-12-16 03:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My parents use web based e-mail clients happily. I'm yet to see a free e-mail provider with MAPI. Gmail does POP and IMAP. Outlook does not do IMAP. POP3 just confuses them because it deletes all their mail from server and they can read it at other computers. That leaves Thunderbird, but honestly the Gmail web interface is better, if you have broadband and connection is always available.
5. Re:oh dear by Brewmeister_Z · 2009-12-16 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The diffeence? Three letters for you:
  ABP
  I have put Firefox with ABP on a few computers for users that seem to have problems with ads and will click anything without concern of the linked site installing malware (like those lovely fake anti-virus programs that Norton and McAfee do nothing to stop). I usually show them the difference using Facebook (if they use that and play game apps) so they see the difference.
  
  --
  I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
6. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  If it replacing Outlook's retarded bastard brother, Outlook Express, anything will be an improvement. Most residential e-mail offered with cable modem and DSL service is POP so IMAP is probably not an issue.
  I hate supporting POP with OE and other cheapo e-mail clients since since it is extra work to backup that data and restore it on another PC or that same PC after a OS reinstall.
  Web-based e-mail is nicer for most users since they can use multiple computers and the spam filters reside on the server side so a local spam blocker is not needed. Also, if a computer goes belly up, they don't lose the e-mail since backup of the e-mail is the server's responsibility.
7. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:33 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Outlook does IMAP just fine, I'm using it for both my university and gmail account (i don't even have pop enabled on my gmail account, so when I add the account to outlook, it autoconfigures for imap)...
8. Re:oh dear by daid303 · 2009-12-16 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Who said that they had a valid license?
  They are using POP3.
  And thunderbird is a less target for viruses (which was a huge issue when I replaced it years ago)
9. Re:oh dear by socrplayr813 · 2009-12-16 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Thunderbird 3 made some big strides in usability, especially for IMAP (and Gmail specifically). If you haven't looked into it, it may be worth a try, though it sounds like you already have the situation settled...
  
  --
  The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
10. Re:oh dear by koiransuklaa · 2009-12-16 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Outlook may be a good Exchange client, but calling it a capable e-mail client is stretching it...
11. Re:oh dear by socrplayr813 · 2009-12-16 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I switched my mother to Gmail last year and forced a Firefox/Thunderbird transition earlier this year. After a couple of weeks of discomfort, she's happier now than she ever was before. No more spam, very few suspicious browser issues. My regular upkeep for her has been reduced to double-checking her Windows updates and upgrading/reinstalling antivirus software once a year.
  
  --
  The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
12. Re:oh dear by iamhigh · 2009-12-16 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  You can setup Outlook to use IMAP for Gmail and it works. It's slow to sync, but it works.
  
  Outlook 2007 with Gmail
  
  --
  No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
13. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  In my opinion Outlook IMAP is an afterthought, just like Exchange IMAP implementation. It's gotten a _lot_ better in the past years though -- to the point that I might actually use it, if the rest of application wasn't so bad. As an example the obligatory-rewrap-after-user-clicks-send is funny for a supposedly "WYSIWYG" client and totally unacceptable for anyone who really cares about their message layout.
  Outlook is excellent if your server is Exchange, all your message recipients use Outlook and you don't care about slightly mangled messages.
14. Re:oh dear by jgtg32a · 2009-12-16 04:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yeah, I did the same for my Mom, I renamed the Firefox short cut to Internet Explorer and changed the icon as well. I don't think she noticed.
15. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  I've gotten people to call Firefox "the Internet". There, it can be done.
16. Re:oh dear by jours · 2009-12-16 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  The average user doesn't care. At all. I replaced my mother's computer with a Mac Mini:
  Mom: "Where's the Internet? The blue e?"
  Me: "Click on the compass instead."
  One browser is as secure as any other to her...no matter what she does she still gets fake phishing e-mails that scare her. And to her they all have identical features because Yahoo and Facebook look and work exactly the same. The difference to her is - literally - which picture she clicks on to open it.
  When people get that dialog they'll happily click on the familiar little blue e and move on.
  The fact is - and no one here wants to hear it - but the alternative browsers offer /nothing/ that a regular user cares about.
  
  --
  This sig intentionally left blank.
17. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that a great thing? Websites will be forced (at least more than now) to create content that works everywhere! Because users are ignorant.
18. Re:oh dear by MonsterTrimble · 2009-12-16 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm with you 100%. My parents finally got a computer 2(?) years ago and from day one I punted IE and gave them Opera (it's what i use at home, and since they live 50 miles away makes it easier to troubleshoot). They have been happy with it (except for a weird javascript thing on an airline site) and yes, Opera = Internet.
  
  I did have Thunderbird installed on there too, but my Mom preferres web based E-mail. *shrug*
  I think that giving users the *OPTION* is the true win. I could care less if IE is on top with big blinking letters. The fact a window will come up asking which internet browser they would like to install plants a seed in the back of their heads that there ARE options out there. Maybe they'll ask the resident geek, or they'll google it. Maybe they decide they want to try something different or decide they'll stick with tried and true. It doesn't matter. They have the choice, and the fact they are aware they have a choice is what counts.
  
  --
  I call it 'The Aristocrats'
19. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Web developers are developing for the lowest common denominator - IE. The web is being held back about 5 years because of Microsoft.
  If you would like to see the web move forward, do yourself and family a favour, install a modern browser. Anything but IE should do.
20. Re:oh dear by mxh83 · 2009-12-16 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  When dealing with the average joe, I find that I don't need to tell them it's better. Invariably when I'm fixing some stupid windows problem on their computers, I just tell them from now on to click the red icon, because now that's "the internet". I also delete the IE icon from their desktops. It has worked every time.
21. Re:oh dear by mxh83 · 2009-12-16 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  lol
22. Re:oh dear by oakgrove · 2009-12-16 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  My mom loves Craigslist. There is a greasemonkey script that automatically loads the images in each listing as a thumbnail on the main category page underneath said listings. Once I showed her that, it didn't take much convincing to get her to click on the orange icon vs. the blue one. I think that's how it's done. You have to demonstrate clear advantages to the alternative not just the "eat your vegetables" schtick of "it's more securer."
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
23. Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Outlook doesn't do IMAP?
  Damn, I had better go fix that paradox in my university IMAP inbox then...
  I set up IMAP accounts from my university in 2001 and continued using them throughout college and graduate school until last year when I lost the account. I also used Outlook to read gmail and hotmail.
  I thinks its hilarious that people hate outlook so much. It took about 2 minutes to set up and worked flawlessly with 5 personal email accounts (2 IMAP and 3 POP3). You can write your own filters to run across your accounts, move e-mail outside of folders, transfer between accounts all very easily. It never opened anything automatically (see 2 minutes of setup) and never downloaded anything without explicit verification.
  Outlook's only issue is that its corporate software. I used the calendar, but never needed even half the meeting, syncing, and group user features that it came with. I assume that's what outlook express is for, but the options in OE seemed much less robust.. so I kept the bloat.
24. Re:oh dear by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-12-16 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the day when I had to teach my mom to use computers (from scratch, literally), I've taught her to use Opera from the get go. It has the added advantage that it also is an email client, so I just told her that "this thing is the Internet". This was a few years ago; since then, she hasn't run into any site that she needed to access that would be broken in Opera, and she refuses to consider any other browser, as she has got very much used to the UI.
25. Re:oh dear by SharpFang · 2009-12-16 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Install adblock too.
  While you could talk about stuff like security, speed, compatibility, these things don't appeal to average user. Tell them "99% of the ads are gone" and they are immediately sold.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 02:53 · Score: 1, Troll

I sure hope the EU now forces APPLE to do the very same thing because Apple is far more controlling and "locked in" then Microsoft ever was.
1. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 02:55 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  damn fucking damn fucking editing skills damn argh.. DOH!
2. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Last I heard Apple weren't a convicted monopolist.
3. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 02:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The difference is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, is far away from a monopoly. They can be as uncompetitive as they want and get away with it, because their market is still too small to matter in the big picture. And IMHO, Apple users don't deserve any better for buying overpriced eye-candy.
4. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 03:10 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  And why werent they? Isnt that the point? Apple does the same thing and they walk away untouched.
  Safari, Itunes, Searchlight etc...
5. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 03:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Really? So you can buy Apple computers with Linux on them or just windows 7?
  Apple controls the entire Apple computer market and ship their computers with Safari, Searchlight, Mail, ichat, and itunes. Microsoft can barely get away with including Media player at this point. They had to remove their email and IM programs, and now they have to offer you which browser you want?
  Gee... It sounds like I would just buy a mac if i wanted a complete OS with tools out of the box... It sure would be nice if MS provided that... oh they cant by law.
  So Legally MS is gimped, and Apple walks away free? How is that fair? Oh right because we hate Microsoft.
6. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Safari has under 4% marketshare.
  Good luck proving a monopoly with that fact.
  It's not like Safari has been around for many years. It's not like Apple have a monopoly in the operating system market that they're using to gain marketshare in the browser market.
  Seriously, you should research the original anti-trust case to see what all the fuss was about. Microsoft uses their monopoly power to subsidise functionality in a different business area in order to gain control and be anti-competitive. They came within a bush of being split up.
7. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by NoYob · 2009-12-16 03:23 · Score: 1
  A couple of reasons:
  
  They don't have over 90% of the OS market.
  They don't have a bunch of cry-baby fellow Silicone Valley entrepreneurs with a case of sour grapes using their money and political power to push the DOJ into attacking them.
  They're creating markets as opposed to controlling them.
  --
  It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
8. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by DefenseEngineer · 2009-12-16 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing you were marked as flamebait because of your tone. But your points are valid. I personally do not like or use Mircosoft products at home. But this ruling is clearly unjust for it to only apply to Microsoft. For something to be deemed fair, it needs to be applied industry wide. Note that I said "fair" and did not say "fair and reasonable," because I believe that applying this ruling industry wide would not be a reasonable decision.
9. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by gbarules2999 · 2009-12-16 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Microsoft has been convicted of violating anti-trust laws. To force a browser down someone's throats for them is bad because they have 90% of the computing world at their fingertips.
  
  THAT'S the difference between Apple and MS. Apple does not. They have, what 8%? That is not a monopoly. Therefore, it is an inane comparison to make. Microsoft is severly limited by what they can and can't do because they are so large and powerful, NOT because of the morals of the issue.
  
  Just because you don't like Apple and their way of business doesn't mean you have to go around every story posting about how Apple should be procecuted for violating anti-trust laws too. They do not have a monopoly on computer hardware and therefore cannot violate these laws - they merely do not allow anyone but themselves (and chosen others) to sell their software and hardware. As for the iPod, that may be a different story, though the MP3 player market is so random and shifting that it's hard to punish anyone for what happened a year ago when it's already irrelivant.
10. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by daeley · 2009-12-16 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  So Legally MS is gimped, and Apple walks away free? How is that fair? Oh right because we hate Microsoft.
  No, because Microsoft has had a stranglehold on the desktop computer industry for years. When you are a monopoly, the same rules do not apply to your company as do to the rest of the industry in question.
  Complaining about Apple controlling the Apple computer market is like complaining Toyota controls the Toyota car market. Microsoft has controlled 90%+ of the worldwide desktop computer market for going on three decades now and has been repeatedly busted engaging in illegal, anti-competitive practices. They *shouldn't* be treated the same as Apple or any other company until they stop abusing their dominant position.
  Crying "unfair" for poor Microsoft is really, really funny. Being a Microsoft apologist is really amusing, too, but if you feel like defending that behemoth from a bunch of mean Internet posters, knock yourself out.
  
  --
  I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
11. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  But they are anti-competitive. Can I sell Macs with Firefox installed instead of safari?
12. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Colonel+Korn · 2009-12-16 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Safari has under 4% marketshare.
  Good luck proving a monopoly with that fact.
  It's not like Safari has been around for many years. It's not like Apple have a monopoly in the operating system market that they're using to gain marketshare in the browser market.
  Seriously, you should research the original anti-trust case to see what all the fuss was about. Microsoft uses their monopoly power to subsidise functionality in a different business area in order to gain control and be anti-competitive. They came within a bush of being split up.
  Safari has the vast majority of the mobile browser market share in the United States. And unlike MS, whose crime was bundling a browser with its platform, Apple won't even let competitors offer an alternative browser on the iPhone/iPod Touch.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
13. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by gbarules2999 · 2009-12-16 03:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They have lots of power (90% of computers) that triggers a group of laws that limits what they can do. Are you getting this in your brain?
  
  Apple is under no legal obligation to sell anything on their hardware, nor is any other hardware vendor. They are not powerful enough to trigger the laws Microsoft has triggered, and therefore do not have any limitations on what they can ship their computers with.
14. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by 0ld_d0g · 2009-12-16 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Complaining about Apple controlling the Apple computer market is like complaining Toyota controls the Toyota car market
  Actually, MS doesn't sell computers. It has no control over what decisions dell,hp,sony etc make with regards to bundling. - See all the trialware that gets included.
15. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by MikeBabcock · 2009-12-16 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't have a stranglehold on the desktop market. Microsoft did (or does) according to trials before this which have declared it a monopoly. Non-monopolies can act as unfairly as they want on the basis that consumers have a choice not to use them. Once declared a monopoly, you have to be more considerate of your consumers since they arguably have little or no choice to use your products.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
16. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  I sure hope the EU now forces APPLE to do the very same thing because Apple is far more controlling and "locked in" then Microsoft ever was.
  You seem to think MS was convicted of being controlling. That is not the case. MS was convicted of antitrust abuse. That is to say, they (by themselves or colluding with others) gained a huge amount of influence in a market then used that influence to gain an illegal advantage in other markets.
  The same laws apply the same way to Apple with regard to markets they have huge amounts of influence in, but so far that seems to be potentially the digital music download market, where the EU has already been paying close attention and investigating Apple.
  In short, if you want to imply that the laws are being applied inequitably, please take the time to learn what the laws are so you have some hope of presenting an informed opinion on the matter. For bonus points, you could learn what you're talking about BEFORE you form your opinion.
17. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Tim+C · 2009-12-16 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Apple controls the entire Apple computer market
  That's like saying that Lamborghini controls the entire Lamborghini car market, and therefore has a monopoly - ignoring the fact that they have a tiny percentage of the overall car market.
  Dear Fate, did I really just make a car analogy?
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
18. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by icebraining · 2009-12-16 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on what you want to consider a monopoly. Microsoft is hated by the european socialists so it's a monopoly. Apple is loved so it's not. Pretty simple.
  Not really. What Apple have is a three product bundle: PC, OS and Browser. They don't have a monopoly in either markets, unlike Microsoft, so I fail to see how they are using one dominant position to leverage themselves in another market.
  
  Besides it's impossible to have a true monopoly without the governments blessing. I have no problem with Microsoft or Apple including whatever they want in their software. You have a choice to buy it or not. You are also free to start your own computer or software company and run it the way you want.
  They have: the other companies are the ones being fucked by anti-competitive behaviours.
  I disagree with the that position. Companies (or people) shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. Free market means freedom to compete, and they are trying to destroy it.
  
  Where you get true monopolies are with utilities that have used eminent domain to take land for a right of way. It is near impossible for a start up power company to run their own power lines by buying the rights from land owners. But even then if they raise the prices high enough you can get your own generator. Same with phone lines. The technology is such that you can go all cellular.
  Interestingly, that seems much more prevalent in the US than in the EU. In Spain, for example, you have multiples energy companies, multiple internet providers, multiple cellphone companies, etc. Every time I hear about the ISPs in the US people say they are restricted to one ISP or two. I think they're (you're?) doing it wrong.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
19. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by BrokenHalo · 2009-12-16 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  And IMHO, Apple users don't deserve any better for buying overpriced eye-candy.
  
  In a way, I agree, except in so far as Apple's laptops are excellent products for general purposes, and make a compact and convenient platform if you obtain them second-hand. I've had a couple now - I let my wife upgrade to the latest and greatest and take over her old laptop.
  
  It's a solution that works for me, since I have a perfectly good Linux desktop machine to do the heavy lifting when required. If Apple weren't so considerate as to provide a proper terminal, along with zsh by default, I might bave been tempted to try out one or another of the various Linux flavours on it, but I'm too lazy.
20. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Tim+C · 2009-12-16 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, no. MS has a monopoly position in the desktop OS market, and therefore is legally bound by different rules. That is why they are not allowed to use that position of considerable power to muscle competitors out of other markets, such as those for web browsers.
  Apple, while still a large company in their own right, have a tiny percentage of the desktop OS market, and so are not bound by such stringent rules.
  The points are not legally valid, even if they seem like common sense (which is only because you're not appreciating the bigger picture).
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
21. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Yvan256 · 2009-12-16 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  And iTunes sells unprotected AAC files, which play on a lot of devices, from Microsoft Zune to Nintendo DSi.
22. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Dog-Cow · 2009-12-16 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  If Windows only ran on MS-built/branded hardware, they wouldn't have gotten into trouble.
  But Windows runs on generic hardware created by other companies and MS used their OS monopoly to force OEMs to do things their way. That was what got MS into trouble.
  Apple is not forcing any other company to do things their way in order to sell their own products.
23. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Apple are not in a dominant position. If and when they are, they will be subject to the same treatment.
24. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  I sure hope the EU now forces APPLE to do the very same thing because Apple is far more controlling and "locked in" then Microsoft ever was.
  The sad part is this is true. The iPhone & iPod demonstrate all too readily that Apple makes superficially pretty devices with DRM and other restrictions that even Microsoft wouldn't dream of implementing.
25. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by dylan_- · 2009-12-16 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Really? From: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/19/iphone-sales-slump-q4-blackberry-surges
  
  According to the IDC Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker from February 2009, the data for all converged devices (i.e., smartphones) shows that Research In Motion (RIM) increased its U.S. market share from 40.4% in Q3 2008 to 47.5% in Q4. Apple, on the other hand, lost market share in the U.S., dropping from 30.1% in Q3 2008 to 22.3% in Q4.
  Where do you get them having the "vast majority" of the market?
  
  --
  Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
26. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  a monopoly is not when you a major player in a market like microsoft. a monopoly is when your the only player. in the case of the computing market there are more than one player so to say they are a monopoly is ridiculous. second to say that they force the browser down your throat is also ridiculous because they don't charge you for it and they don't stop you from installing any browser you choose. this is just an example of how the EU choose to force browsers from europe into someone elses product. next the EU is going to find General Motors and Toyota in violation of anti-trust laws because they include a radio in there car so they will force them to give the option of a european based radio manufacture. this is just some more crazy EU garbage where they are using microsoft to fund there bad economy.
27. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by nacturation · 2009-12-16 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple controls the entire Apple computer market...
  Jackie Chan Fan (730745) controls the entire Jackie Chan Fan Slashdot comment posting market. I demand you post your Slashdot login credentials immediately!
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
28. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by jgtg32a · 2009-12-16 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  And MS paid for that and backed off, and now they have to pay for their past mistakes again?
29. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  And why werent they? Isnt that the point? Apple does the same thing and they walk away untouched.
  Yeah and I fired a rifle the other day while Nidal Malik Hasan rots in prison for firing a rifle. The laws are so unfair... or maybe you just have no idea what the law says and should figure out that there is no law against firing a rifle (but is against murder) and there's no law against bundling a browser and an OS, but there is one against antitrust abuse.
30. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by daeley · 2009-12-16 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  It has no control over what decisions dell,hp,sony etc make with regards to bundling
  Sure, as long as it's bundled with Windows. To use another car analogy, that's rather reminiscent of Henry Ford's fabled "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
  Microsoft's stranglehold on desktop computing was despite it not being a hardware company. It was a software company that had a bunch of hardware companies at its beck and call.
  
  --
  I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
31. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by ClosedSource · 2009-12-16 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  There has been no "convicted" monopolist in the US in my lifetime.
32. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by ClosedSource · 2009-12-16 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They have lots of power (90% of computers) that triggers a group of laws that limits what they can do. Are you getting this in your brain?"
  The limits on MS aren't nearly as broad as Slashdotters believe or desire. I doubt that there are any specific laws reserved for abusive monopolies but rather the courts have more leeway in interfering with their behavior.
33. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by 0ld_d0g · 2009-12-16 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  But that means hardware vendors are free to bundle any browser. How come MS is the one who has to promote their competition? Why not just tell the computer vendors to give the choice to the user? For e.g. When you customize your order, after choosing your CPU, HDD etc, you can choose your browser. (Ofcource most people here would like there to be an OS choice too, but htats a separate discussion :) )
34. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by TurtleBlue · 2009-12-16 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe - but there is one point that always bothers me.
  To change the preferred web browser on a Mac, you have to open safari and change the preference. To change the mail tool, you have to open mac mail (there may be some command line way to do it, but certainly it isn't obvious.) By definition, you have to use their tools just to change them.
  While Apple may not be wielding influential power yet - if the EU was trying to be "fair" as it claims, I'm curious if they would see that as a violation. That would settle if the issue was market share, or if its being an OS maker and a Browser manufacturer [and a dessert topping, in the case of Linux].
35. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  They have lots of power (90% of computers) that triggers a group of laws that limits what they can do. Are you getting this in your brain?
  Before asking others, do you even have a brain? Stop repeating tired myths. Being a monopoly is *NOT* illegal. Bundling software with Windows is *NOT* illegal.
  The *ONLY* thing that is illegal under U.S. anti-trust law is preventing competitors from competing in a market. MS currently has no deals with any OEMs to lock-out their competitors from the Windows market, they aren't doing anything wrong. They did earlier, which is is why they lost the anti-trust lawsuit.
  The market for that lawsuit was specifically defined as "single user operating systems that run on intel compatible chips" and thus pretty much guaranteeing that MS would be a monopoly there. If the market was defined as "single user operating systems that run on powerpc compatible chips" apple would have been a monopoly.
36. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Apple controls the entire Apple computer market
  
  Yes, and Ford controls the entire Ford automobile market. You are dire need of an education. You're just making an ass of yourself.
37. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Insanity+Defense · 2009-12-16 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  a monopoly is not when you a major player in a market like microsoft. a monopoly is when your the only player
  
  Legal definition of Monopoly != to dictionary definition
  Under the legal definition of monopoly in the U.S. and the E.U. Microsoft has been ruled A/ a monopoly B/ to have used that monopoly in illegal ways.
  
  this is just an example of how the EU choose to force browsers from europe into someone elses product.
  
  The U.S. found Microsoft guilty of illegally using their OS monopoly to destroy competition in the browser market before the E.U. did.
38. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Safari has 100% of the installed/prebundled browser market on OSX.
39. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Apple still controls their hardware with an iron fist. Perhaps the EU should force Apple to support NON APPLE COMPUTERS before we continue on assuming that they are even in the same OS market as Microsoft and Linux.
40. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  So if I buy OSX and install OSX on my non apple pc, Apple will support me?
  Apple is NOT in the same market as Microsoft when we talk about OS. BUT they are in the same market as computer options. You can buy a PC of a MAC, thats the way its been forever now.
  That is two options, not a monopoly.
  You cant say MS owns a monopoly on the PC market when there are other OSes in the PC market, and APPLE has not even dared to set foot into that market. They have kept the two seperate.
  Apple has its OWN monopoly in its OWN market on its own hardware and does not support me buying OSX and isntalling it on non apple hardware.
  This is about Browsers too, atleast the article is... Macs come with Safari, itunes, ichat, mail, search light etc all installed. This no different than what MS does, except MS is not allowed to do so.
  Again... APPLE is a monopoly. Far greater than windows. Granted they dont have the same number of users... but of thsoe users, and potential buysers of Apple products... they only have ONE CHOICE... from Apple, when and how they say so.
41. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is in a dominant position in the Apple market. They are their own market. They are in complete control.
  Its like saying I cant put coca-cola in a non coca-cola glass.
42. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  I hear you. Undocumented APIs etc... put that aside. Has IE hurt anyone? Firefox is my browser of choice, and Chrome is quickly winning me over from firefox (although its not there yet).
  I dont even launch IE EVER...
  I have installed Safari on my PC as well for giggles (and also because ITUNES secretly installs it when it "Auto updates"... talk about sneaky shit...
  But what harm has IE done?
  Netscape? Did the browser market really suffer?
  Opera is still around and I cant find anyone that uses it... and its a good browser!
  I mean the options are all still there and available.
  Again i'm just speaking browsers. The whole undocumented API nonsense etc... MS should and has paid through the ass for but... its not a reason to go after them for everything when the competition does it as well.
  Thats like making Derek Jeter play short stop blind folded because he's more popular than the visiting team's short stop who happens to be better. At what point do we all MS to play fairly?
  I mean at the end of the day, this punishment has to end no?
43. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Also, Itunes is far more popular than windows media player... and it secretly tries to install Safari via itunes's auto update.
  Should iTunes be bundled with every Windows install? Should it be bundled with every OSX install?
44. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by kripkenstein · 2009-12-16 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  THAT'S the difference between Apple and MS. Apple does not. They have, what 8%?
  And even that is only in the US. Outside of the US, Apple's market share is negligible.
45. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  I doubt that there are any specific laws reserved for abusive monopolies but rather the courts have more leeway in interfering with their behavior.
  At least for the US and the EU, you are defintely wrong. The US have the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, which requires the federal government to prevent companies from abusing monopolies. The European Commission has a dedicated Commissioner for investigating anti-competitve behavior of monopole companies or trusts. Pretty much every member nation of the EU has similar laws to the Sherman Act. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would guess that most industrialized countries have similar laws to.
46. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Apple still controls their hardware with an iron fist. Perhaps the EU should force Apple to support NON APPLE COMPUTERS...
  What's the incentive to pass such a law?
  
  before we continue on assuming that they are even in the same OS market as Microsoft and Linux.
  The EU does not consider OS X to be competing in the market with Windows and Linux, which is one of the reasons Windows makes about 98% of the market. OEMs can't license it, so it does nothing to lessen MS's power over OEMs. Apple competes in the desktop computer market against Dell and HP.
47. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Devil's advocate here: remember Psystar? Wasn't that long ago. Psystar was selling their own product (generic x86 machines) and Apple made them not install OSX on these machines. Granted, the version of OSX was modified.
  I actually tend to think Apple's in the right in this case (not strongly...say 70% of Apple's side, to make up a statistic on the spot). I just think maybe this needs a rephrase to be accurate.
48. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2009-12-16 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Apple competes against microsoft as well. Dell doesnt make an OS. Apple is definitely competing with windows. Just watch all of Apple's mac vs PC commercials and anti vista and windows 7 stuff.
49. Re:Will this "FAIR" decision will include Apple? by notrandomly · 2009-12-17 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft is a monopoly according to the law. Monopolies, according to the law, can exist even when there are others in the market. Apple is not a monopoly. Apple has a "monopoly" over its own products, but that's a completely different thing.
Finally! by dotwhynot · 2009-12-16 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is great! Now all the users that really wanted a different browser finally will be able to get one!

(And all users that don't care or don't understand will pick something at random, from a list of up to 12 (!) different browsers, is going to make life interesting for developers again now that we finally were seeing IE6 starting to disappear :)
1. Re:Finally! by Avalain · 2009-12-16 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, all users that don't care or don't understand are going to pick one of the first 5 browsers. The other 7 are going to be initially hidden and no one who doesn't care is going to bother scrolling down. (Ok, "no one" is a little strong. I'm sure there are some people who will do it).
  
  Actually, I have a feeling most of the users who don't know what they're doing will look for "Internet" and find "Microsoft INTERNET Explorer".
2. Re:Finally! by dotwhynot · 2009-12-16 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, all users that don't care or don't understand are going to pick one of the first 5 browsers. The other 7 are going to be initially hidden and no one who doesn't care is going to bother scrolling down. (Ok, "no one" is a little strong. I'm sure there are some people who will do it).
  ok, so the random order presentation agreed on is not for all 12? There is an A-list and a B-list, and random order just within each group?
  
  Actually, I have a feeling most of the users who don't know what they're doing will look for "Internet" and find "Microsoft INTERNET Explorer".
  Either that, or pick Google as the new synonym for Internet, or pick whatever sounds cool. Perhaps we will see a Lynx comeback, deal with that web 'designers' :)
3. Re:Finally! by bmearns · 2009-12-16 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is great! Now all the users that really wanted a different browser finally will be able to get one!
  Sarcasm? Why would a user who really wants a different browser not be able to have one before now?
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
4. Re:Finally! by nmb3000 · 2009-12-16 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  This is great! Now all the users that really wanted a different browser finally will be able to get one!
  (And all users that don't care or don't understand will pick something at random, from a list of up to 12 (!) different browsers, is going to make life interesting for developers again now that we finally were seeing IE6 starting to disappear :)
  Ah, yes. Now instead of needing to realistically support 3 major browsers, web developers will need to make sure they completely support 12 (!) browsers. The distribution of these 12 (!) will probably begin to even out as well since most users are just going to pick one at random since the average user does NOT read dialog boxes. They just click until it goes away.
  All this decision will do is increase the number of those retarded "This webpage does not support your browser. Go get a real browser to view this site!" messages.
  This will NOT help web developers in any way. IE6 may have been evil, but at least it was an evil we knew and understood. That is much better than 12 (!) unknowns.
  
  --
  "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
  /)
5. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  This is great! Now all the users that really wanted a different browser finally will be able to get one!
  Sarcasm? Why would a user who really wants a different browser not be able to have one before now?
  Exactly :)
6. Re:Finally! by mgblst · 2009-12-16 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't make it interesting for developers. As far as developers are concerned, there are only 4 browsers out there. IE6, IE7, IE8 and EVERY OTHER BROWSER THAT MAINTAINS SENSIBLE STANDARDS. Fuck you Microsoft.
Hurrah? by NanepubPncvgnyvfg · 2009-12-16 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is yet another instance of the state violating our rights. "Boo", not "hurrah".
Not that I'm a huge fan of Microsoft. Financially it's not like it's going to hurt them or anything (I don't think?). But Windows is Microsoft's OS. Why should anyone have the right to force them to be "fair" and let users decide which browser to install? What's next... should we start forcing Microsoft to include Emacs, Vim, Notepad++, and Notepad2 because it's "unfair" that Notepad is included with such a popular OS?
You don't like that the OS doesn't include other browsers by default? Wipe it and install something else. You want to use a different browser? Fire up IE, and go to Opera.com, Mozilla.com, Google.com/Chrome, Webkit.org... nobody is preventing you from doing so.
But don't violate someone's right to decide whether or not they want to bundle your competing software with *their* software. Don't violate someone's right to sign a contract with someone else that says they agree not to bundle other browsers with the default installation of Windows as long as they sell PCs with Windows on them already.
1. Re:Hurrah? by minsk · 2009-12-16 03:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  When governments are not a huge customer of Microsoft, there might be some ground to complain about them being subject to anti-trust laws.
  For the moment, "Microsoft tax" is far too literal. And your comment far too close to the usual silliness of reducing regulations on government-supported monopolies...
2. Re:Hurrah? by NanepubPncvgnyvfg · 2009-12-16 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  I actually completely agree with you. I'm not just against the state, I'm against companies that use the state as a tool to shut out competition. Most big companies (like health insurance companies) do this, I'm sure you already know.
  It's just the principle of the thing I'm against. Last thing I would want is to write an OS, bundle my own browser with it, go into an agreement with PC manufacturers to not bundle other browsers with my OS (something I probably wouldn't do, anyway, but...) and have the state think it has the right to come down on me for "unfair" practices. Bullcrap.
3. Re:Hurrah? by RingPeace · 2009-12-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft don't have any rights past being able to do business under the laws present in the market, the laws have changed in the EU if Microsoft still want to sell products in the EU they will either conform to the new laws or stop seeling in the EU.
  Noone is forcing Microsoft to do anything, but if they want to be a part of the EU market they will have to abide by its laws.
4. Re:Hurrah? by NoYob · 2009-12-16 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  When governments are not a huge customer of Microsoft, there might be some ground to complain about them being subject to anti-trust laws.
  For the moment, "Microsoft tax" is far too literal. And your comment far too close to the usual silliness of reducing regulations on government-supported monopolies...
  I'm having trouble with that statement.
  The Government chooses MS based upon their criteria and needs - whatever they may be - and they would know exactly how MS does business because they investigated the products and licenses - right?. Now, after choosing MS, they decide after the fact that they don't want to do business anymore based on the terms they implicitly and explicitly agreed to so, via the law, they change the agreement.
  Basically, this sets up a precedent where a company in good faith makes a deal with a Government, and then the Government throws everything out the window and they decide what you will take - maybe give them nothing.
  That's scarier than any Microsoft's business practices.
  Oh, and they do have an alternative - just ask Richard Stallman.
  
  --
  It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
5. Re:Hurrah? by MikeBabcock · 2009-12-16 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  This does not compute. You could say that the government, as a result of these cases, shouldn't sponsor Microsoft until they're a proper law-abiding company, but if you did that for all companies that run into a lawsuit here and there, you wouldn't be able to use almost any products in government.
  Notice that I said after the fact, not before. The government may very well use Ford vehicles for all their transit needs and then end up suing Ford because of some other corporate failure like tax evasion. The two issues are orthogonal.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
6. Re:Hurrah? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Care to cite to us where there health insurance companies use the government as a tool to shut down other health insurance companies or are you just trying to spin some utter nonsense to get the lazy to agree with you?
7. Re:Hurrah? by nmb3000 · 2009-12-16 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Noone is forcing Microsoft to do anything, but if they want to be a part of the EU market they will have to abide by its laws.
  So your answer to someone saying "The government is violating our rights" is to say "They make the rules, leave if you don't like it."
  Wow. Governments just love people like you.
  
  --
  "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
  /)
8. Re:Hurrah? by Draek · 2009-12-16 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The OP's answer to someone saying "Microsoft is violating our rights" was to say "they make the rules, leave if you don't like it" as well, so in that context at least the GP's argument is valid.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
9. Re:Hurrah? by minsk · 2009-12-16 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, don't get the parallel.
  My point is that since Microsoft is a major beneficiary of other government policies, they should be the last ones exempted from the few laws that interfere with the business.
10. Re:Hurrah? by janrinok · 2009-12-16 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  'The only laws that need to be followed -- in any country -- are just laws: laws that protect us against theft, assault, murder, contract-breaking, etc.'
  And the laws are 'just' if they are put in place by the people who are responsible in a democracy for doing such a thing. Deciding that you will obey some laws and not others is not at your whim. The laws are there to protect the majority and not to suit you as an individual. Your right is to be able to choose (i.e. elect) those that you want to be responsible for writing the laws. Even if you have elected someone, you do not have the right to obey some of their laws and ignore others. Well, that is certainly not the case in Europe anyway.
  'but the state *is* forcing companies to do business their way or bust, which is unjust'
  As you correctly pointed out, Microsoft do not have to do business in Europe if they do not wish to do so. I feel that they would be stupid to turn their back on such a large potential market but they are free, nevertheless, to do as they wish. However, IF they choose to do business in Europe then they MUST comply with the laws that are applicable in Europe. I cannot understand how you can see this as being 'unjust'.
  
  --
  Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
11. Re:Hurrah? by mxh83 · 2009-12-16 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it so hard for people to understand the meaning of "monopoly". Microsoft created IE in such a manner that it intentionally broke web standards and ensured that things worked only with IE. Read the internal MS emails released from various antitrust cases. They discuss these "tactics" quite openly. As for the rest of your post regarding notepad etc - not really relevant since the most important component of the computer is the web browser.
12. Re:Hurrah? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  You can't wipe IE from Windows.
13. Re:Hurrah? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Not that I'm a huge fan of Microsoft. Financially it's not like it's going to hurt them or anything (I don't think?). But Windows is Microsoft's OS. Why should anyone have the right to force them to be "fair" and let users decide which browser to install?
  Because they were convicted for using illegal business methods to drive competitors out of the market, blackmailing OEM manufacturers not to install any alternative browser or "lose their discounts", and a lot of other illegal monopoly abuse tactics.
  Have you lived in a fucking gave for the last decade or are you just stupid?
14. Re:Hurrah? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-12-16 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  So your answer to someone saying "The government is violating our rights" is to say "They make the rules, leave if you don't like it."
  So far as I can tell, EU anti-trust investigations, and particularly this one, enjoy broad support by citizens of the respective EU states. So it's not their government making this decision for them; it's their government appropriately representing the opinion of the people.
15. Re:Hurrah? by spire3661 · 2009-12-16 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  DO you understand that this is punishment for past misdeeds? WIth great power comes great responsibility, and microsoft abused that power. This is their penance if they wish to continue to operate in the markets that this ruling affects. Microsoft is free to choose to stop operating in those markets, it has no inherent right to do business as it sees fit.
  
  --
  Good-bye
16. Re:Hurrah? by NanepubPncvgnyvfg · 2009-12-16 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  I feel that they would be stupid to turn their back on such a large potential market but they are free, nevertheless, to do as they wish.
  
  How can they be, if they're not free to do legitimate business in the EU?
  There is nothing unjust about bundling your own browser in your own OS and signing contracts with PC makers so they promise not to include other browsers with Windows on their PCs.
  You're not "free to do as you wish" if there's someone there telling you you can't do something even though you're not hurting someone physically, stealing something, breaking contracts, etc. You're not free if you are sent to jail or are forced to pay hefty fines if you don't do exactly as the government says you should do.
  Nobody has the right to infringe upon our rights -- not governments, not companies, not individuals.
17. Re:Hurrah? by StuartHankins · 2009-12-16 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft lost the right to control their software when they were convicted of running a monopoly and using it to harm competitors. Many good companies were forced out of business by Microsoft, and having them around to compete would have made today's market better for consumers.
18. Re:Hurrah? by mgblst · 2009-12-16 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  I know, corporations should be able to do whatever they want. Who cares if there is only one Petrol company, and they charge 50 a litre? That is none of anybodies business. In fact, they should start implementing slavery as well.
19. Re:Hurrah? by janrinok · 2009-12-16 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  In Europe there is no 'right' to distribute browsers. You have a choice to do so IF YOU WISH. You are obliged to obey the law. Was that clear enough, this time?
  
  --
  Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
This is only fair under one condition by HaZardman27 · 2009-12-16 02:56 · Score: 1, Redundant

I've never installed a Mac OS, so I'm curious: are you given the option to chose your web browser on installation of a Mac OS? I understand from benchmarks that Safari isn't nearly as terrible as IE is, however this issue isn't about browser quality but rather about MS "forcing" users into using IE. Seems to me if MS has to comply with this, Apple should be held to the same standard.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
1. Re:This is only fair under one condition by iamnothere900 · 2009-12-16 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Safari.app is not required for the proper functioning of Mac OS, and you can delete it like any other application. You aren't forced to use it.
2. Re:This is only fair under one condition by HaZardman27 · 2009-12-16 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  You're not forced to use IE either, unless you lack a copy of another browser and need to use it to download one, which sounds like the same situation with Safari.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
3. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Tim+C · 2009-12-16 03:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Seems to me if MS has to comply with this, Apple should be held to the same standard.
  Apple is not in a monopoly position, MS is. Different rules apply when you are, specifically about abusing your monopoly power in one area (e.g. operating systems) to muscle your way into another (e.g. web browsers).
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
4. Re:This is only fair under one condition by HaZardman27 · 2009-12-16 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  If a user doesn't know enough to replace their web browser, I don't see how its MS's responsibility to notify them that there are better products available. This whole thing just seems like the developers of the "other" web browsers are upset that they invested time and money into developing software that most people just don't care about. If I were wrong, IE wouldn't have the marketshare it does.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
5. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 03:25 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You can delete the Safari application, but you cannot delete WebKit. WebKit is indeed required for the proper functioning of MacOSX, as are the Cocoa and Carbon bindings for interacting with WebKit. This is really no different than the situation in Windows where you can remove Internet Explorer but not the Trident renderer or the various libraries to host the HTML renderer.
6. Re:This is only fair under one condition by gbarules2999 · 2009-12-16 03:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They have lots of power (90% of computers) that triggers a group of laws that limits what they can do. Apple is under no legal obligation to sell or offer anything on their hardware, nor is any other hardware vendor. They are not powerful enough to trigger the laws Microsoft has triggered, and therefore do not have any limitations on what they can ship their computers with.
7. Re:This is only fair under one condition by gbarules2999 · 2009-12-16 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, IE became powerful because it shipped on Windows by default. For perhaps one release, most considered it better than the competition. However, competition meant little once IE was used by pretty much everyone because it was default. Microsoft made sure that most users never had a choice between more than one browser, and because of this, they more or less shoved IE into the face of most Windows users, making competition a thing of the past.
  
  This EU ruling came about a decade too late, but that doesn't mean it's groundless.
8. Re:This is only fair under one condition by 0ld_d0g · 2009-12-16 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect analogy. AFAIK Apple forces you to only use their software when you buy a mac from them or any apple reseller. MS can't and doesn't (not recently anyway) force computer vendors to use IE. They are free to bundle whatever crap they want (and many do).
9. Re:This is only fair under one condition by icebraining · 2009-12-16 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't have a dominant position in neither the computer hardware or OS market, so no, they're not liable under Article 82 of the EU Community Treaty .
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
10. Re:This is only fair under one condition by BrokenHalo · 2009-12-16 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Minor correction:
  
  It's true that you don't have to use Safari, and there seem to be no objections to your choosing an alternative as your default browser. However, on one occasion when I thought to delete Safari, back when I was using OS X 10.4, all sorts of things started going wrong (I can no longer remember exactly what). I went back and pulled the package off the install disc, and all was well again. So it would seem that Apple had in some way made Safari as integral to OS X as IE is to Windows. I don't know if this is still the case, but food for thought nonetheless.
11. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I've never installed a Mac OS, so I'm curious: are you given the option to chose your web browser on installation of a Mac OS?
  Your view is poorly informed. There is no law that says you can't bundle an OS and a Web browser. You can, however, break a law by taking that action. For example, if I ship Firefox with my OS of choice but don't comply with the license, I'm committing copyright infringement. Does that mean the only fair thing is for all Linux distributions to be banned from shipping Firefox with their OS, even if they obey the law?
  
  ...this issue isn't about browser quality but rather about MS "forcing" users into using IE.
  
  You're wrong. This is mostly about MS forcing IE onto OEMs by bundling it with the OS, pressuring them using their desktop OS monopoly, and making it incompatible in ways they crafted to intentionally make the Web itself reliant on their browser (as revealed by the famous embrace, extend memos in the US case). In short, MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and they've used that to push into the Web browser market by using their leverage over their customers (OEMs and large site licensees). If you buy your OS (as an OEM) from MS you rarely have other viable options so MS has a lot of power over you, power they are forbidden by law to use in certain, uncompetitive ways.
  So where does Apple fit in? Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs at all. They compete in the computer system market against Dell and HP and Lenovo. If you buy your systems from Apple, Apple does not have the same leverage over you. They have about 10% of the market and there are lots of competitors willing to sell you something else. Apple famously started bundling displays and computers making the iMac all-in-one. A lot of people did not want the two bundled. They wanted a different monitor, so they stopped buying Apple systems and bought from someone else. Such bundling is perfectly legal so long as they don't have monopoly influence on one of the markets involved. Some day soon, Apple may have enough share of the digital music download market or the digital music player market, or even the cell phone market for antitrust law to restrict what they can bundle with their products in those markets. The EU has already looked into one of them. It's the same law applied equally to everyone. You just have to know what the law is in order to understand that everyone is being held to the same standard.
12. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Amasuriel · 2009-12-16 04:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I think this attitude is exactly the issue. Laws about bundling and compatibility should be uniform; in no case should rules be written that target only one company.
  
  Plus MS is not forcing OEMs or Corporations to create images without Firefox or whatever your browser of choice is, so anyone who wanted to could already have Firefox as the default browser.
  
  If we are talking about the handful or people or small shops that buy a windows CD and install it themselves without a knowledgeable IT person (who could download another browser and install it in about 30 seconds), then yes, they will probably keep IE out of ignorance.
  
  Who cares.
13. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  You can delete the Safari application, but you cannot delete WebKit. WebKit is indeed required for the proper functioning of MacOSX, as are the Cocoa and Carbon bindings for interacting with WebKit. This is really no different than the situation in Windows where you can remove Internet Explorer but not the Trident renderer or the various libraries to host the HTML renderer.
  There is one big difference. When this is done in Windows it is a ridiculously stupid idea integrating a web browser into the OS and a crime against humanity that you can't completely remove all traces of it. When the same is done in OSX it is not.
14. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  By your logic if Toyota suddenly captures a large segment of the car market, they have to be regulated under different rules.
  This is ridiculous. To continue with the terrible car analogy, lets say I make a really cheap and affordable car. I market it really well. I suddenly control over 70% of the market for these small vehicles.
  The problem is, it only runs on gas. I don't offer a choice of diesel or hybrid or alternative fuels. Should the government be allowed to step in and force me to offer a choice to the consumer?
  I work for a company that dominates it's market by almost 70%. Should we be forced to advertise for other companies because it's unfair that we have been successful?
  If you believe in forcing others to do what you feel is right, the answer is yes. If you believe in basic human freedoms, the answer is no.
  I don't want to live in a society where Microsoft is forced to offer links to competitive products just because they have a large market share. If you don't like what they offer, don't by it. If you think people don't know enough about the alternatives that is your opinion.
  You may "spread the good news" just like the rest of us, by word of mouth, or by starting a Consumer Association for the Advancement of Open Source or Alternate Browsers, or the Association for Computation Diversity something like that to promote your ideas.
  I'm all for letting people decide what they want, I'm not for forcing people to offer alternatives within their own business model.
  To quote:
  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis
15. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the same Apple that limits their software to being installed on their hardware (even MS doesn't do that)? I'd like to know what your definition of a monopoly is.
16. Re:This is only fair under one condition by TurtleBlue · 2009-12-16 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell, you have to open Safari just to change preferred browsers, and other settings. ( Mac Mail requires the exact same thing to change mail clients).
  This has always bugged me - I found it because I went looking in the "preferences" session and couldn't find it, before reading that Safari was required to do this. My first reaction - "no shit? At least in Windows I just have to deal with the stupid 'do you want to change your browser' popups." Since watching this unfold, it's always nagged me that Apple, while not at the same scale, has a different standard apparently.
  A lot of the arguments I see are about the monopoly influence of Microsoft, and that's not to be ignored. However, if the EU is saying "We're creating a rule so that no future vendor should ever become powerful to force a browser direction" - then Apple would be in violation of the rule as far as I've seen.
17. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  I like how laws become special when they deal with computers. IE is a component of the OS and should be allowed to be shipped as such. There is no need to force them to give consumers a choice. To give the obligatory bad car analogy:
  Are there antitrust suits against car manufacturers for forcing shitty radios on users in there vehicles? How about forcing you to buy the tires that come with the vehicle? What about forcing you to buy bulbs that come in the lights? All of these item's are third party and "evil capitalist back door deals" force them on the consumer and yet none of you care. You only care about this because you dislike this particular company.
  The ironic part?
  You bitch about browsers when you can get an alternative browser for free and easily uninstall IE. At most you are inconvenienced by bad UI for a few days.
  Replacing those Bridgestone tires you never wanted for Pirelli's? $600 to $800 USD, and you had to pay $400 for the original tires to boot. At most you die because the Bridgestones sidewalls are thinner than you are used to.
  You pick your arguments well my friends...
18. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  I like how laws become special when they deal with computers. IE is a component of the OS and should be allowed to be shipped as such.
  What's funny is the exact opposite of what you're claiming is what is happening. The laws apply to monopolies on markets and since the Web browser and OS markets existed separately at the time of the monopolization they are treated as separate markets under the law. What you propose would be exactly making an exception for the computer industry and ignoring markets as the criteria for monopoly abuse but instead nebulously defining a special case where browsers are components of an OS and those are special terms treated differently than the rest of antitrust law.
  
  Are there antitrust suits against car manufacturers for forcing shitty radios on users in there vehicles?
  No, but that's because no one company has monopoly influence on the car market. If say Ford were to monopolize the car market they would be forbidden from coming up with Ford brand radio and shipping them by default. Rather, the law would require that dealerships be given the choice as to which radio if any shipped in the cars from the Ford factory.
  
  All of these item's are third party and "evil capitalist back door deals" force them on the consumer and yet none of you care.
  
  Because none of them undermine the free market because no one company or colluding trust of companies monopolizes one of the markets. Want a real world example? A phone is part of the telephone system. When AT&T had a monopoly on the phone system in most geographic areas the law forced them to stop bundling a phone rental with the phone service. As a result we got autodial, touch tone phone, phones with answering machines, wireless phones, etc. Up until then all you could get was a rotary phone in a few select colors and you paid many thousands of dollars over the course of your lifetime to rent it. The courts, however, ruled that phone service and phones themselves were separate markets and forced them to stop bundling them.
  
  You bitch about browsers when you can get an alternative browser for free and easily uninstall IE.
  First, this law is mostly to protect OEMs, not end users. Second, if it's no big deal, why is MS fighting so hard to not do it, to the point of shipping different versions in different countries now. Third, as per the above example, you could always buy a third party phone on top of your phone rental service from AT&T and a few people did. But that was on top of the cost for the phone. When you buy Windows today, you're paying for the cost of all those developers working on IE, regardless of if you want to use it. By decoupling the two, the courts hope to force MS to be competitive in getting IE on OEM computers shipped, which means cutting the same sorts of deals Apple did when Safaris shipped on HP systems, or Opera has with numerous mobile providers. That means those devices cost the end user less overall.
  You go on, but the critical flaw in every example you present is that you don't have a monopolized market in any of them. Try more apt comparisons, such as bundling things with your local electrical distribution service and see how they hold up.
19. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  As far as I can tell, you have to open Safari just to change preferred browsers, and other settings. ( Mac Mail requires the exact same thing to change mail clients). This has always bugged me
  Yeah, me too. It is non-intuitive. I understand the decision of not adding a preference panel for just these two things, but they should really have an application manager that handles these kind of defaults.
  
  Since watching this unfold, it's always nagged me that Apple, while not at the same scale, has a different standard apparently.
  No, Apple has the same standard and has to obey the same laws. You just don't understand what those laws are.
  
  A lot of the arguments I see are about the monopoly influence of Microsoft, and that's not to be ignored.
  That's the crux of the matter. Bundling when you don't have a monopoly is just another choice that customers might like or might not like driving them to choose you or a competitor. Bundling when you have a monopoly on one of the markets involved undermines free trade.
  
  However, if the EU is saying "We're creating a rule so that no future vendor should ever become powerful to force a browser direction" - then Apple would be in violation of the rule as far as I've seen.
  There's this bizarre perception that the US and EU have laws about browsers and OS's in governing competition. Frankly, that very idea boggles the mind. Antitrust laws are written in general about markets to prevent abuses. They've been on the books for a hundred years and enforced fairly consistently. They aren't even that different between the US and EU. These are the same laws enforced the same way they have been. Nothing new is being added. MS is breaking the law as part of their business model and have been for a long time. It's a fine topic for discussion, but 90% of the people commenting here haven't bothered to read even a summary of what antitrust law is or why it exists. It makes for a pretty abysmal conversation, like a discussion of encryption protocols with someone who flunked out of high school math and learned everything they think they need to know from watching Harrison Ford movies.
20. Re:This is only fair under one condition by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is not surprising that advanced layout rendering engines are integral to graphical operating systems, and that because they are indeed advanced that lots of 3rd party programs should use them too (rather than re-invent the wheel)
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
21. Re:This is only fair under one condition by williamhb · 2009-12-16 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is not in a monopoly position, MS is. Different rules apply when you are, specifically about abusing your monopoly power in one area (e.g. operating systems) to muscle your way into another (e.g. web browsers).
  Actually, Apple has already attracted EU monopoly attention over iPod/iTunes in the music market in 2007, and is likely to face attention in the smartphone market (iPhone) and handheld computer market (iPod Touch and iPhone) in the future -- both of which of course do bundle Safari and AIUI prevent the installation of third party browsers. You don't necessarily need a 90% share to attract monopoly or competition law attention; for instance Lloyds-TSB and HBOS had to be given special dispensation from some competition considerations in the UK for their merger because it would have given them a 25% share of the mortgage market.
Is IE in the OS? by paxcoder · 2009-12-16 02:57 · Score: 1

Is IE still distributed with the OS or not?
Dumb. by SCHecklerX · 2009-12-16 03:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

This fixes nothing. Open standards and the ability to cleanly replace applications is what is really needed. This does nothing to address either of those problems.
Let's address what was in the findings of fact from the antitrust trial back in the late 90's.
Integration means it is still there by Brewmeister_Z · 2009-12-16 03:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Since Internet Explorer is integrated into the OS, does this mean they changed the OS significantly or just removed the interface? If you just get rid of the icon and/or executable for IE, the operating system would still use the underlying functionality of IE for Internet access so some exploits would still exist and would require continued patching. This change does protect the user on behavior abuses involving the user when the browser is in use but not other Windows features using the underlying functionality.
As for a car analogy, isn't removing IE like removing a factory stereo CD deck that also does the GPS navigation and diagnostic interface then replacing it with an after-market stereo CD deck to gain the MP3 playing feature but without those other features. If the user expects to use those other features, they cannot replace the factory deck and would be better off to add a portable player (Firefox, Chrome, etc.) via the AUX input and never use the CD player part (IE).

--
I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
1. Re:Integration means it is still there by RobVB · 2009-12-16 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  isn't removing IE like removing a factory stereo CD deck that also does the GPS navigation and diagnostic interface
  No, it's not. IE isn't awesome like that.
  
  --
  I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
2. Re:Integration means it is still there by lyml · 2009-12-16 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they just removed the excecutable for IE. The engine is still there.
3. Re:Integration means it is still there by linebackn · 2009-12-16 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  In Windows 7 IE can be "removed" via the Program Features control panel, but all that does is remove IExplore.exe (which is little more than a loader stub), removes the icons, and unregisters the HTTP shell protocol handlers. IE actually remains and can be embedded by applications (such as the desktop shell).
  The previously proposed IEless Windows 7e, also "removes" IE in the same way but does not offer the option to re-enable IE. On both Windows 7 and Windows 7e dropping the IExplore.exe file in to the Internet Explorer folder is all it takes to be able to invoke the IE front end.
  From a competitiveness standpoint, the problem with this is that a: applications that embed IE will not respect your choice of browser rendering engine and b: many people almost seem to be allergic to the prospect of having two applications installed at the same time that do seemingly the same thing (even if one does not have a visible way to launch it)
4. Re:Integration means it is still there by Brewmeister_Z · 2009-12-16 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  True that.
  But the GPS navigation and diagnostics system are not part of the CD player (IE) but they make use of the screen and controls on the deck (integrated OS features). That being said, your after-market CD player (Firefox, etc.) might be able to work with a GPS navigation and diagnostic system but that could be more difficult if this deck only uses certain standards and these other systems are using something proprietary.
  Few carmakers do such setups unless they are high-end models to the point that the customer would rather pay whatever the factory would offer instead of the more reasonably priced after-market equivalent. Buying an Apple computer is more like this than a PC where many more parts are available and competitively priced.
  Your intent of modification/upgrade, desired appearance, required functionality, and willingness to pay will influence car and computer purchases to varying degrees so this analogy works sometimes when discussing consumer motivations.
  
  --
  I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
5. Re:Integration means it is still there by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  An engine does not a browser make.
  Try downloading any HTML engine -- Gecko, Webkit, anything. I've done some playing around with Webkit. It comes with a demo "browser"-like application, but it is hilariously short of a browser -- no caching, no bookmarks, no add-ons or extensions...
  Yes, the engine is still there. In a way, it has to stay -- there are tons of applications (non-Microsoft applications) which rely on a generic HTML engine being provided as part of Windows. Microsoft can't remove it, and if they replace it with something else, they'd break hundreds of apps, and have to admit IE sucks.
  So I don't really blame them for leaving the engine, though I do think it's a shitty situation and one that they should be engineering themselves out of.
  I'm still grateful that IE, the browser, can actually be removed.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
6. Re:Integration means it is still there by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  So I don't really blame them for leaving the engine, though I do think it's a shitty situation and one that they should be engineering themselves out of.
  On the contrary, the fact that a layout rendering engine comes standard is a good thing. It doesnt matter what rendering engine it is. If it magically became todays webkit build then 8 years from now you will be saying how shitty it is that the outdated rendering engine is included and should be engineered out of the OS.
  
  The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with having one come standard, and also that it doesnt change much (if at all) over extremely long periods. Moving targets are a headache for developers, and so is re-inventing the wheel.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
7. Re:Integration means it is still there by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  From a competitiveness standpoint, the problem with this is that a: applications that embed IE will not respect your choice of browser rendering engine
  The alternative is for the application to package and bundle its own rendering engine. Don't for a minute think that application developers want to display HTML using the random rendering engine the user has chosen. They crafted that HTML for a specific engine, and actually want it to do things like display the content as it was meant to be displayed.
  
  Unlike web developers, application developers dont whine and cry about having multiple engines to support. They pick one, and then they use it. They dont want the user fucking with that choice, because doing so may fuck over their application.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
8. Re:Integration means it is still there by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-12-16 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  IE - the browser - can be removed in 7. Trident (aka MSHTML) - the engine - cannot.
  This change is not about "protecting the user from abuses". It's strictly an anti-trust regulation to lower the barrier of entry for competitors, specifically for browsers (as EU believes that MS has negatively affected this particular market segment in the past by its actions). IE is a browser, and hence removable. Trident by itself is not a browser, and therefore does not compete against other browsers - hence there's no requirement to remove it as well.
9. Re:Integration means it is still there by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  If it magically became todays webkit build then 8 years from now you will be saying how shitty it is that the outdated rendering engine is included
  You seem to be assuming that my complaint is that it's old.
  No, my complaint is that it's IE. 32/100 on Acid3, and that's with an IE9 preview. Firefox gets 95/100 today, and Safari (released!) and Chrome Beta get 100/100, perfect test runs.
  I don't know that I've ever heard a web developer complain about any browser other than IE, certainly not about them being "moving targets". It's not hard to make a standard page that's reasonably future-proof. It's just hard to do so, and also have it work with IE, without IE-specific patches -- thus, it's very easy to create something that renders correctly in IE, but will break in some other engine.
  Again, I don't necessarily blame them for how they got into this -- one point that's often made is that certain standards we've come to rely on were not finalized when IE6 was released, though they were somewhat widely deployed.
  
  should be engineered out of the OS.
  That isn't what I meant to imply. I mean to imply that they should engineer themselves out of having to maintain the IE engine in particular. Second best case for Microsoft right now would be to build IE10 on Webkit, and only leave the current IE8 engine in there for compatibility's sake, hoping to slowly phase it to something optional (like XP mode on Windows 7), and eventually abandon it completely.
  Best case would be to do that with the rendering component, but get out of the browser business entirely.
  Yes, I think these would be good for Microsoft. Less software they have to maintain, when others seem perfectly willing to fill that niche. Happier users. Better all around.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
10. Re:Integration means it is still there by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, my complaint is that it's IE. 32/100 on Acid3, and that's with an IE9 preview.
  
  What does ACID3 have to do with a component internal to the OS which is not meant to render arbitrary web pages?
  
  Remember, your premise (and you were quite explicit) was that Trident should be engineered out of the OS, not that IE should render pages better. These are two different things, right?
  
  I realize that plenty of people hate IE, but that has nothing to do with Windows having a integral Trident engine. And having such an engine as a standard part of the OS does not effect web developers AT ALL.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by bmearns · 2009-12-16 03:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hate IE as much as the next guy, and have no love for MS in general, but I don't see what the big deal is? Why wouldn't they integrate their own browser with their own operating system? They don't even charge for IE, so how can it be a monopoly issue? I must be missing something. Are they going to have include the option of installing crimson editor instead of notepad? How about BB4Win instead of explorer.exe? They don't stop you from installing other browsers, so who cares? Grandma's stuck with IE because she doesn't know how to install Firefox herself. Then she probably wouldn't notice the difference either.

--
Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
1. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by icebraining · 2009-12-16 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not only the clueless users: even if you're using another browser, you're still be screwed by IE's dominant position. See how much the web has evolved now that other browsers market share have began to grow, and how IE had to evolve.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  I must be missing something.
  Yes, a basic understanding of monopoly law as explained about 10000 times in this and similar discussions.
3. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · 2009-12-16 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  They don't even charge for IE, so how can it be a monopoly issue?
  It's a common tactic when you are very powerful in a particular market to reduce prices to amounts that your competitors are unable to match. This drives them out of business and gifts you the market.
  In competition law, this is called product dumping.
4. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  I hate IE as much as the next guy, and have no love for MS in general, but I don't see what the big deal is?
  
  Then go read an article on antitrust law so you understand what the big deal is. I mean is your ignorance supposed to be some sort of badge of honor or something here? You don't understand how the capitalist free market motivates innovation? You don't understand how monopoly abuse undermines that motivation? Have you considered educating yourself?
  
  Why wouldn't they integrate their own browser with their own operating system?
  Because it undermines capitalism and the free market and leads to retardation of innovation. In short, monopoly abuse is bad for society.
  
  They don't even charge for IE, so how can it be a monopoly issue?
  And I didn't steal the guy's wallet so how can it be assault? Seriously, you need to know what you're talking about before espousing your opinions.
  
  I must be missing something. Are they going to have include the option of installing crimson editor instead of notepad?
  That would be of great benefit, yes. Sadly no one has taken them to court over that yet, so we're stuck with a broken text editor that can't properly handle unicode and the rest of the text editors in the world have to have extra code to work around broken documents from notepad.
  
  They don't stop you from installing other browsers, so who cares?
  
  People who make a living writing Web browsers for one. Secondly, anyone who cares about innovation and the state of the art on the Web moving forward at the pace normally promoted by free market competition.
  
  Grandma's stuck with IE because she doesn't know how to install Firefox herself. Then she probably wouldn't notice the difference either.
  And all the companies that provide internet services to grandma are stuck writing pages that have to deal with IE and can't do anything IE can't and so Web page don't get more advanced and the whole Web stagnates. For the last decade developers have been figuring out cleverer and cleverer ways to have ten year old half implemented Web standards to do new things. We don't need MS breaking the law and motivated once to make their browser only slightly worse than everything else out there. We need the laws obeyed and MS and everyone else constantly motivated by greed to keep working and make the best browser all the time so things can move forward.
5. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by flabordec · 2009-12-16 04:38 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  According to the press release by the EU:
  
  The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.
  So it is basically that Microsoft is using Windows as an unfair way to distribute explorer thus gaining a very big advantage over its competitors, thus gaining more developers who only develop for IE (it has the biggest chunk of the market so it must be where the money is), thus forcing more users to use IE because applications only work for it, etc.
  
  --
  "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
6. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by ClosedSource · 2009-12-16 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I haven't seen any objective and authoritative explanation of a monopoly on Slashdot.
  Mostly I just see posts that claim that Apple can do anything it wants and MS can't wipe it's ass without permission of the government because of "special monopoly rules" that nobody has defined or provided any documentation for.
7. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Google "Sherman Anti-Trust".
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
8. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by AntiDragon · 2009-12-16 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  ARGHHH! Every time, every every time - the same questions 5, 10, 15 times in the thread [breathes deep]...
  Sorry, not aiming it at you personally but I'd love to see some actual debate relating to this story which isn't in the "Why force them to do this?" or "Why not Apple too?" vein...
  It's back to the 'ol antitrust laws. Whichever company has the majority share in web browsers weilds a large influence over how websites function and can spread their own propritary or licensed features to further their own agenda and bank balance. Lock-in, on the web.
  Microsoft is, under the laws involved, a monopoly (90% of computers). One of the aspects of these laws is that if you have a monopoly in one area, you cannot leverage that to gain a monopoly in another area.
  Simply put, Forcing IE as a the default web browser for 90% of all computers worldwide gives them a potential monoply on the growth and direction of the web and it's underlying software and protocols (Sites that only work with ActiveX for example). Hence this decision to have *no* default browser until the customer chooses one for themselves.
  Apple etc do not apply as they are not in a monopoly position and so only supplying one browser does not unduly skew or distort the growth of the internet.
  [Goes and lies down...]
  
  --
  "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
9. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by bmearns · 2009-12-16 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for giving you a headache...but thank you for the explanation (likewise to flabordec).
  I definitely understand the significance of Internet Explorer's massive market share, having done a bit of web development myself over the years, and I can certainly see how it's a self-reinforcing cycle of users beget developers, beget more users...
  At face value, it still seems odd to me, per my original car metaphor. In the context of a "monopoly on the...direction of the web", the decision makes much more sense.
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
10. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Every time, every every time - the same questions
  
  And as usual you answer the part why Apple isn't forced to do this and omit the part why this just applies to IE and WMP and not the many other apps shipped with windows. From Windows Mail / Outlook Express down to even notepad there's a large variety of programs that have "competing products".
  Where do you draw the line?
11. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by bmearns · 2009-12-16 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  I hate IE as much as the next guy, and have no love for MS in general, but I don't see what the big deal is?
  Then go read an article on antitrust law so you understand what the big deal is. I mean is your ignorance supposed to be some sort of badge of honor or something here?
  No is your "Anonymous Coward"? You seem to be struggling with my colloquialism, so let me explain what I meant when I said "I don't see what the big deal is". This is a somewhat polite way of saying that I don't think it's a big deal, while still leaving the door open for someone to change my mind.
  
  You don't understand how the capitalist free market motivates innovation? You don't understand how monopoly abuse undermines that motivation? Have you considered educating yourself?
  I think I understand quite well how competition can motivate innovation. I understand that capitalist theory claims that a free market will produce lots of competition, and I understand how monopolies necessarily undermine competition. One thing I don't understand is how one might reconcile this sort of government intervention with the free market. I mean don't half-ass it, if you're going to be a free-market advocate, you really need to just accept whatever the invisible hand deals out, monopolies and all (Adam Smith, be damned).
  But I digress, because that's not actually what I was referring to. I understand why a monopoly is a big deal and (not being a free market advocate, I feel comfortable saying this) I encourage a certain amount of government regulation against them. What I was actually referring to was this specific issue of internet explorer being bundled with Windows. That specifically is what (to be clear) I don't think is a big deal (at least not at the time of my first posting, I've since been somewhat swayed by the likes of flabordec and AntiDragon, below).
  
  Why wouldn't they integrate their own browser with their own operating system?
  Because it undermines capitalism and the free market and leads to retardation of innovation. In short, monopoly abuse is bad for society.
  See above.
  
  They don't even charge for IE, so how can it be a monopoly issue?
  And I didn't steal the guy's wallet so how can it be assault? Seriously, you need to know what you're talking about before espousing your opinions.
  Terrible metaphor. Here, I fixed it for you: "There was no money in his wallet, so how is it theft?" Ah! Now I get it, good point! You're right, the fact that there was no money directly involved is irrelevant to the monopoly charges. Thanks for pointing that out.
  
  I must be missing something. Are they going to have include the option of installing crimson editor instead of notepad?
  That would be of great benefit, yes. Sadly no one has taken them to court over that yet, so we're stuck with a broken text editor that can't properly handle unicode and the rest of the text editors in the world have to have extra code to work around broken documents from notepad.
  Are you joking with me at this point, I can't tell? Are you seriously advocating that an anti-trust court should force them to include text-editor alternatives as well? You just RAA'd yourself: where does it stop? Do they have to include alternatives to every piece of software packaged with their OS? Alternatives to the OS itself?
  
  They don't stop you from installing other browsers, so who cares?
  People who make a living writing Web browsers for one. Secondly, anyone who cares about innovation and the state of the art on the Web moving forward at the pace normally promoted by free market competition.
  
  Grandma's stuck with IE because she doesn't know how to install Firefox herself. Then
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
12. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Where do you draw the line?
  As a geek, you want a clear-cut unambiguous line defined in a logical, technical fashion but the reality is that it's not possible. There are so many issues to consider: Was there a pre-existing market for X sold as separate products prior to monopoly Y beginning to include a competitor to X with theirs? Does the actions of Y give them a monopoly in the market for products like X? How are consumers' choices affected? What exactly is considered product Y and what is considered X? The list goes on, which is why the legal battles are long and the greatest winners are lawyers. In this case it does seem to me that computer manufacturers and consumers benefit a little too - it's absolutely ridiculous that one company has been able to tell all PC manufacturers what not to include with their products and as a consequence force consumers to ask their tech guy buddies for help (aka. malware removal and installation of some other browser) when their computers get mysterious problems.
13. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by spire3661 · 2009-12-16 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is punishment for monopolistic practices. Its mentality like yours that allowed the DoJ to let MS off with a warning instead of sundering the company.
  
  --
  Good-bye
14. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-12-16 10:45 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  And as usual you answer the part why Apple isn't forced to do this and omit the part why this just applies to IE and WMP and not the many other apps shipped with windows.
  It applies to all applications and any other product for which there is a pre-existing separate market. It is usually only enforced, however, if it is causing significant problems for the government or in response to one or more complaints or civil suits from competitors in those other markets. Most companies in the, past upon coming close to monopoly influence in one market, break out that product into a separate divisions of the company with separate sales teams just to make sure they don't have any legal liability. If MS were a normal company interested in obeying the law instead of committing crime as a business model they would have broken the application and OS divisions apart years ago and sold app bundles to OEMs separate from Windows. Notepad and Outlook are very likely distributed in violation of the law, but no one has bothered to prosecute them for that yet.
15. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by bmearns · 2009-12-16 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is punishment for monopolistic practices.
  Yes, thank you for summarizing: that was quite well established in the original post. I was not asking the reason these actions are being taken, just calling into question the legitimacy of them.
  
  Its mentality like yours that allowed the DoJ to let MS off with a warning instead of sundering the company.
  That's a thought terminating cliche and an appeal to ridicule; both are logical fallacies meaning you've failed to actually address my point. In fact, even as an appeal to ridicule it fails because that ridicule is requisite upon the fact that the DoJ should not have let them off with a warning, which is an extension of the very point under contention. So congratulations, that was epic.
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
16. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by EnglishDude · 2009-12-16 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  <pedantic> Car companies using engines from different car companies are very common, for example, some diesel Civics has Isuzu engines from GM/Opel, and in return, GM/Opel gets a V6 engine from Honda. </pedantic>
17. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by notrandomly · 2009-12-17 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  How about educating yourself instead of expecting everyone else to feed it to you with a spoon?
18. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by spire3661 · 2009-12-17 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  DO you not understand that IE was given away to kill all other paid browsers? They did this while in a monopoly position, that makes it illegal. This is why they are forced to unbundle now. I dont understand how this is unclear to you. Giving something away for free does not preclude you from behaving properly in the marketplace. The punishment is long overdue, and a lot of people just want to see SOME action taken against them. Its not that they gave IE away for free, its WHY they did it.
  
  --
  Good-bye
19. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by bmearns · 2009-12-18 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Good, now we're actually getting somewhere in this discussion (though, for the record, the fact you don't understand why something is unclear to me is irrelevant for the discourse).
  I did (and do) understand that giving away IE for free was not what they were being charged with (or whatever the proper term is). However you make an excellent point that "Giving something away for free does not preclude you from behaving properly in the marketplace". I was not thinking along those lines, but you are absolutely right.
  Out of curiosity, are there paid browsers with any semblance of a real market share? I understand that's also not the point, I'm just curious, all the browsers I've ever seen are free (as in beer).
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
20. Re:Honda to sell Accord's with Toyota engines... by ClosedSource · 2009-12-18 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  I have no such expectations, but I was responding to a post that suggested that it had been explained on Slashdot "about 10000 times".
  What has been "explained" is typically what people here like to believe.
Depends on the description... by ActionJesus · 2009-12-16 03:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Welcome to Windows!
Looks like you need to install a browser. Would you like:
A) Internet Explorer, the latest and most secure browser from Microsoft
B) Firefox, a browser made by terrorists that want access to your computer.
1. Re:Depends on the description... by bcmm · 2009-12-16 03:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  They'd never get away with that, but they will get away with this:
  
  You must install one of:
  A) Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 *
  C) Mozilla Firefox 3
  
  And let the users form their own uninformed opinions of which one comes with the newest, shiniest internet.
  And of course, if they avoid the phrase "which web browser", a lot of users will think they're being asked to choose between the internet and something they've never heard of (these are the ones who successfully got through XP's network setup wizard by clicking on whatever button was closest to the word "Internet" until it worked).
  
  * Remember, they are currently working on incrementing their version number as fast as they think they can get away with.
  
  --
  # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
  Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
2. Re:Depends on the description... by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2009-12-16 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's just about right, but you forgot another point.....
  The IE choice is a large, attractive button with the word 'Yes' on it. The Firefox choice is a hyperlink in x-small size, off to the side, starting with, "No thanks. I'll try the other one".
3. Re:Depends on the description... by Inda · 2009-12-16 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Then the obvious answer is Mozilla Firefox 12!
  
  Are people really that stupid though? I mean, I was forward another chain email this morning about a virus that had been confirmed by Lord Norton himself, but I don't think these people would fall foul to a crazy, made-up numbering system.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
4. Re:Depends on the description... by selven · 2009-12-16 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You are buying a new computer, please choose:
  A) Windows 7
  B) Mac OSX 10.6
  C) Ubuntu 10.04
  D) OpenSUSE 11.2
  E) Fedora 12
  Look who's winning now.
5. Re:Depends on the description... by flabordec · 2009-12-16 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  * Remember, they are currently working on incrementing their version number as fast as they think they can get away with.
  Really?
  
  IE 6 was released on August 27, 2001
  IE 7 was released on October 18, 2006
  IE 8 was released on March 19, 2009
  OTOH
  
  Firefox 1 was released on November 9, 2004
  Firefox 2 was released on October 24, 2006
  Firefox 3 was released on June 17, 2008
  Firefox 4 is dated for October - November 2010
  From where I see it the release schedule of Firefox is incrementing the version number far more frequently. And besides, who cares? There's some amazing 0.99 version software and some amazing 10.5 version software. Don't hate on IE just for hating.
  --
  "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
6. Re:Depends on the description... by Jimmy+King · 2009-12-16 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  You really think people wouldn't fall for this? Average, non-technical, uninformed computer users? Hell, Slackware had to artifically inflate their version number several years back due to confusion from Linux users because Red Hat's version number was so much higher. This was back in 1999, when the only people using Linux were, for the most part, pretty strong from a technical standpoint (I mean even moreso than today).
7. Re:Depends on the description... by Corporate+Troll · 2009-12-16 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I have one counterexample for you: there are 12MegaPixel compact cameras on the market with the same optical capacities as their 3MegaPixel predecessors. Never mind that for normal printouts (at your local Photoshop) doesn't need more than 3MegaPixel. This also creates secondary problems: I met a kindergarden teacher who couldn't understand why she couldn't burn the pics made of the kids during the year to a CD-Rom (to be given to the parents). Reason? New camera: 12MP.... She needed 3 friggin DVDs to bun that! (Per kid evidently) So, I fixed it with a small script, reducing the pics to an acceptable size.....
  Now, that I'm at it: don't forget the AMD days where CPUs needed to be advertised at rated... Yes, this Athlon XP is a 2400+ (Actual clockrate 2GHz) because they couldn't keep up with the GHz-Battle and their chips looked "weak" compared to Intels offerings. (I know GHz doesn't mean anything, it's an example of higher number = better)
8. Re:Depends on the description... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Where is B) option?
  I want to install fkin B-browser!.
I once thought as you... by tjstork · 2009-12-16 03:14 · Score: 1

then someone asked me to imagine a Honda with a GM V8....

--
This is my sig.
1. Re:I once thought as you... by Totenglocke · 2009-12-16 03:23 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You mean an engine using 60 year old technology?
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Re:I once thought as you... by bmearns · 2009-12-16 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I don't follow.
  
  --
  Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
3. Re:I once thought as you... by tjstork · 2009-12-16 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  You mean an engine using 60 year old technology?
  There's no replacement for displacement!
  
  --
  This is my sig.
4. Re:I once thought as you... by Totenglocke · 2009-12-16 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there is, it's call direct injection - and you get more mpg as well as more power from the same displacement.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
5. Re:I once thought as you... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  You can get that. It will cost you a lot and you'll need to know what you are doing or pay someone a good chunk of change on top of parts, but you can get a Honda with a GM V8.
  Do you even realize how much more things will cost if everyone is able to ask every company to give them options for every component?
  This is how Bentley used to make money. Each car was custom made to order and they used to cost a small fortune. What you want bullet proof plating and a minifridge underneath the passenger seat? Sylvania headlights, hand wrapped leather steering, custom styling? Sure... fork over some cash and you get whatever you want.
  Do you get a better car? Sure. Do they get to save any money by using a set of prepackaged parts? No. Do you pay for the difference and then some extra? You bet.
6. Re:I once thought as you... by spire3661 · 2009-12-16 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Id say this saying no longer holds water
  
  --
  Good-bye
'Change' is Good by LifesABeach · 2009-12-16 03:30 · Score: 0, Troll

Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, IE are on my Virtual Windows Test Area. I can say to my clients, "My product to you is '5 Browser Safe';" With apologies to Mr. Asimov. I don't fully appreciate the "Use Only One Browser Rule". So I don't agree why people don't occasionally check other browsers out. Personal Computers are very flexible these days. And the Browsers I mentioned above all play friendly with each other. But then again, Soccer Mom, and Baseball Dad, IMHO, will never go to Stockholm to collect a prize.

It's also a shame that m$ has to choose names for its products such that they can get a better ranking by using their name on Google, than by their usefulness.
1. Re:'Change' is Good by Richard.g.k · 2009-12-16 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Because, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera were all named because of their usefulness...
2. Re:'Change' is Good by LifesABeach · 2009-12-16 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like someone is not having a good day with their Mod Points; the truth can set one free.
OS X got curl, however... by Ilgaz · 2009-12-16 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

First of all, the engine of Safari is open source, portable. See it at http://webkit.org/ . It is so platform neutral that Gnome camp, KDE Camp (Qt 4) and Apple's toughest smart phone competitor (Nokia) uses it.
Do you see anything like mshtml.org ? Please tell me if you see one. Even Apple is not a convicted monopoly, by offering their Webkit openly, for free to dozens (including competitors) and enabling even MS IE to use it, if they wish, the situation changes instantly.
Stop comparing Apple Safari to Windows IE, they are really, really irrelevant. BTW; where is MS IE 8 for OS X? For what exact reason it is not shipped? Because MS wants to "punish" OS X users for not choosing Windows. Same can be said about Linux/BSD. EU and US Judicial system is dealing with a company like that. A total spoiled 6 year old rich kid.
1. Re:OS X got curl, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  BTW; where is MS IE 8 for OS X?
  Well they did try. When it did fail they told users to move to safari
2. Re:OS X got curl, however... by Turzyx · 2009-12-16 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  A Mac user cannot 'choose' Windows; it's either Mac + MacOS, or PC.
  
  What incentive is there to develop IE for Mac? To tempt Mac users to Windows? Theres no reason to spend development time and resources developing software for an unobtainable customer base.
  
  The same could be said about Apple by the way; there are software restrictions that disable installing MacOS on anything other than a Mac (without lots of tinkering and potential lawsuits), that's punishment for not buying a Mac I take it?
3. Re:OS X got curl, however... by Ilgaz · 2009-12-16 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  No matter what your tech oriented sites say, not having IE in native form having 100% compatibility with Windows (not 99.9, 100%!) is still a "punishment" especially at work place.
  Lets say whole World became "Safari only". On Linux, you could pick Arora, on Windows you can get original, 100% same Safari Windows version. MS is a company who does punish users by locking companies to "works better/only on IE" solutions and not providing the client for operating systems other than Windows.
  Are you sure if you code fine, Mac users won't pick your solution? Check Amazon.com top software sales sometime. You will see MS Office for OS X there, all the time. Don't believe the whining you read everywhere, they buy it and use it, no matter how expensive (compared to Win) it is.
4. Re:OS X got curl, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-17 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  As I understand it, the origin of webkit is the Konqueror browser from the KDE development team.
Good Job Microsoft by Murdoch5 · 2009-12-16 03:42 · Score: 0

Thank god, who really wants to install IE. Besides governement web apps which are programmed poorly to say the best and don't even work what else does any one need IE for?
Windows XP by DrYak · 2009-12-16 03:44 · Score: 1

Even back at the time of Windows XP and Firefox 1.5, users were able to update their machines without IE by using Windizupdates.
Also, the system daemon running periodical downloads and updates in WinXP wasn't IE-dependent either (only the user interface).
Last but not least, the patch themselves are always available for download from MS' website, no matter what (that's how Windizupdate did obtain them).
The only IE-dependencies should be for a couple of applications requiring IE HTML-rendering libraries to render their UI. None the less, the WINE team has managed to create the necessary glue-code libraries to use Gecko's HTML-renderer instead. So it should be possible to go completely IE-free.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Windows XP by brewmage · 2009-12-16 03:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  To clarify then.. I was referring to the interface, not the automatic update that only a fool would use. Sure updates can be downloaded and installed manually as well, but that's a pain in the ass for most users. It's funny regarding the comment about being able to get the updates using Firefox 1.5... Whenever I would use it to go tot he update site to get the updates, the site would tell me I needed to use IE. Experience shapes how you see things. Your experience was obviously different than mine. So I use IE to get updates and Firefox for everything else. Time to go to Windows update and try it again with FF I guess.
2. Re:Windows XP by brewmage · 2009-12-16 04:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Oh.. Would you/someone mind posting how you get updates from WindozeUpdates using Firefox? When I go there (http://www.update.microsoft.com) I get the following:
  Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.
  To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later.
  To upgrade to the latest version of the browser, go to the Internet Explorer Downloads website.
  If you prefer to use a different web browser, you can obtain updates from the Microsoft Download Center or you can stay up to date with the latest critical and security updates by using Automatic Updates. To turn on Automatic Updates: 1. Click Start, and then click Control Panel.
  2. Depending on which Control Panel view you use, Classic or Category, do one of the following:
  * Click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
  * Click Performance and Maintenance, click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
  3. Click the option that you want. Make sure Automatic Updates is not turned off.
3. Re:Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  To clarify then.. I was referring to the interface, not the automatic update that only a fool would use. Sure updates can be downloaded and installed manually as well, but that's a pain in the ass for most users. It's funny regarding the comment about being able to get the updates using Firefox 1.5... Whenever I would use it to go tot he update site to get the updates, the site would tell me I needed to use IE. Experience shapes how you see things. Your experience was obviously different than mine. So I use IE to get updates and Firefox for everything else. Time to go to Windows update and try it again with FF I guess.
  Everything that has to do with update functionality within Windows, automatic og manual, was switched completely off using a browser interface many years ago. Both Vista and Win7 use a dedicated application for this.
  As for only fools using automatic update.. The people behind conficker is very glad for that attitude, because automatic update had it patched really early, long before it became epidemic.
4. Re:Windows XP by flabordec · 2009-12-16 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  In Firefox I get a page telling me to use the Windows Update program in my start menu.
  
  --
  "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
5. Re:Windows XP by 228e2 · 2009-12-16 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419
  
  --
  Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
Done already by DrYak · 2009-12-16 03:52 · Score: 1

Open standards and the ability to cleanly replace applications is what is really needed.
For browsers, open standards have been already existing for ages and are called HTTP/HTML/XML/CSS/PNG/JPEG/etc. (The fact that the main target of today's story - IE - has never tried to follow them, has nothing to do with the fact that the standards do exist).
And this story is about Microsoft pledging to make it possible to cleanly replace their browsing application (Internet Explorer) with any other concurrent one (Firefox, Chrome, etc.).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Done already by SCHecklerX · 2009-12-16 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  web stuff is just one thing, and has nothing to do with communicating with the OS.
SUA by mu51c10rd · 2009-12-16 03:53 · Score: 1

I know this was meant to be funny, but I figured I would point this out. Windows 7 with the subsystem for UNIX installed allows you to download and install the GNU utilities from Interop Systems' SUA community. Included are such things as the Apache server, Perl, openssh, gcc, and bash. I run bash on windows 7 and have found 0 problems with it. Comes in very handy.
MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 04:35 · Score: 0

instead of the idiot who compares browser integration with murder and conveniently forgets a mere 1.3 BILLION dollar fine and then gets a +5 Insightful.
Surprised no one has mentioned MSYS by MaraDNS · 2009-12-16 04:38 · Score: 1

My favorite Unix environment for Windows (that, yes, has Bash) is MSYS, which is a lightweight 3 megabyte one-click install of the essentials for a Unix system. No, it doesn't have Perl. Nor Python. But, it does have Awk (via Gawk), which can do the essentials.

--
MaraDNS is an open-source DNS server.
Re:so um...Apple? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-16 04:38 · Score: 1

Apple doesn't hold a monopoly. (Yes, MS does)
Still don't get your point by DrYak · 2009-12-16 04:54 · Score: 1

Sorry, I'm still failing to see what you're ranting about.
A web browser has 2 ends which communicates with outside :
- the browser must communicate with the Web, and standards have existed for ages
- the browser must integrate with the OS, and Microsoft is making a pledge to make this possible to. That's what current story is about. With this, it should be possible, for example, to completely kick IE out of the installation and use a pure Firefox-only based installation.
(For exemple: Providing an official solution to swap HTML rendering engines to be used by application which formely relied on IE's library to render their UI. Something akin to WINE's Gecko wrapper).
What else do you think is lacking ? What other front isn't covered yet that you complain about regarding IE ?

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
but will it take the usual 18 months to implement by Locutus · 2009-12-16 05:03 · Score: 1

all this says is the the EU accepts their proposal for something as simple as giving users a choice of browser when first starting their computer or changing their browser. And it only took 12 months to get to this point. Now, in typical Microsoft fashion, the length of time it'll take to implement this is most likely going to be out about 18 months. I say 18 months because that's the norm for them implementing things which enable customers to use some other companies product(s). IMO

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It IS ass by ClosedSource · 2009-12-16 05:21 · Score: 1

Yes, I should have said "its ass".
I demand choice in my car as well by spywhere · 2009-12-16 05:57 · Score: 0, Redundant

My General Motors car has a GM radio, and that is monopolistic behavior... furthermore, by programming the radio to remember which key fob unlocked it and to get louder as the car's speed increases, they have tied the radio into the car's operating system in an unfair manner.
I demand that General Motors install a selection of radios in my car, and let me choose between them.

Stupid? No stupider than blaming Microsoft for including a browser in Windows. Can we sue Mac for putting Safari in their OS?
1. Re:I demand choice in my car as well by AntiDragon · 2009-12-16 07:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  General Motors have a 90% share in car sales worldwide? I'm shocked and awed!
  
  --
  "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
2. Re:I demand choice in my car as well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  the point is to have a monopoly you have to have 100 % of the market not 90%. there are still other OS that you can choose. which means they are not forcing you to use there product. it is just the best option.
3. Re:I demand choice in my car as well by StuartHankins · 2009-12-16 16:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When has General Motors been declared a monopoly? Do you really not understand the conversation? Are you so thick you can't understand what being a convicted monopoly means? Wow.
4. Re:I demand choice in my car as well by notrandomly · 2009-12-17 04:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A legal monopoly is far less than even 90%.
5. Re:I demand choice in my car as well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-19 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  No you don't. In my economics class, we were taught a company could be considered a monopoly if it has over 50% of the market. Now this may not match the legal definition, and other classes may have given a different value, but both the legal and economic definitions of a monopoly would be well below 100%.
You aren't a web developer, are you? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 06:06 · Score: 1
First of all, I don't see the ballot requiring 12 different browsers. (Disclaimer: I didn't read TFA. Maybe it does.)
But the sad, simple truth is that IE has been dead last, by a huge margin, ever since Netscape 4 died. I can develop a web app and have it work on:
- Firefox
- Safari
- Chrome
- Opera
- Epiphany
- Konqueror
- OmniWeb
- SeaMonkey
- iCab
- Camino
To name just a few...
And it'll break on IE. In different ways on IE6, IE7, and IE8. And I'll have to spend easily 20% of the development time hacking around IE.
So no...

All this decision will do is increase the number of those retarded "This webpage does not support your browser. Go get a real browser to view this site!" messages.
Unless the browsers I've listed really drop the ball, that's unlikely. We might list browsers a page has been tested with, but at the end of the day,we'll slap a W3C logo on it and say it works. The most we'll do is go out of our way to tell IE users to download a real browser -- but that's because IE is about the only non-real-browser we're likely to run into.
--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
1. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why am I not surprised that the only browser that you listed a version number is IE.
  
  Its as if you think that all those other browsers rendered your pages correctly since their first alpha release.
  
  The fact of the matter is that the same people running an old copy of IE would also be running an old copy of one of those other browsers.
  
  These same people will continue to run IE6 until they have to buy a new machine with a new OS, and then whatever version of whatever browser they chose will be the one they use for years and years and years. They arent suddenly going to become regular upgraders just because they were shown a ballot one time.
  
  You are living in a dream world. The reality is that you have to take the market as it is. You have this nice /. approved woe-is-me excuse right now about IE6, but what woe-is-me excuses will you have when FireFox is up to version 7 but an uncomfortable portion of the market is still running 3.5?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
2. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  The fact of the matter is that the same people running an old copy of IE would also be running an old copy of one of those other browsers.
  Possible, though unlikely -- the default configuration of Firefox on Windows is to auto-update, and this has been the case for some time.
  
  You are living in a dream world.
  Yes, I must have imagined the years I spent as a professional web developer.
  
  what woe-is-me excuses will you have when FireFox is up to version 7 but an uncomfortable portion of the market is still running 3.5?
  Ah, I see -- you must be living in the dream world where the latest release of IE actually makes an effort to support web standards. Chrome, Safari, and Firefox all have 100/100 renderings of Acid3, at least in a developer version. Even the developer versions of IE haven't managed to score even 30/100.
  So no, it's not just the specific version involved -- we actually made a decision at one point to stop supporting IE6, and only support IE7 and later. It helped, but it still didn't let us get rid of our ie.css file -- and there was no corresponding browser-specific css for any other browser.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
3. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  I spoke too soon...
  According to Wikipedia, an internal build of IE9 gets 32/100 on Acid3. Great, and Chrome Beta gets 100/100, as does Safari 4.
  Firefox doesn't have higher than 97/100 -- but the version actually released has 95/100.
  That does pretty much line up with my experience, as far as how obscenely far behind IE is.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
4. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Possible, though unlikely -- the default configuration of Firefox on Windows is to auto-update, and this has been the case for some time.
  ..and wont (rightly) update 2.x to any version of 3
  
  Have you actually checked your assumptions? I mean really spent more than a moment to think them through before bashing on your keyboard like an angry monkey in a dream world?
  
  Yes, I must have imagined the years I spent as a professional web developer.
  Way to miss the point. Missing the point is a key symptom of living in a dream world.
  
  you must be living in the dream world where the latest release of IE actually makes an effort to support web standards.
  The effort is there, its just not obvious to angry monkeys banging on their keyboard while living in a dream world.
  
  You can talk about that Acid3 all you want.. (I am running a browser that scored 100/100 long before FireFox, so why arent you running Opera?) but its meaningless shit. Nobody supports DOM2 completely, and the CSS2 it tests isnt even part of CSS2.1. Acid3 is a fucked up metric to go by and anyone who mentions it as 'evidence' that IE isnt up to snuff obviously isnt a GOOD web developer.
  
  There is a market of IE6 users. Either support them, or don't. Stop being a fucking crybaby and blaming the effort involved to support them on others. You are paid for that effort, jackass.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
5. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-16 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  ..and wont (rightly) update 2.x to any version of 3
  That is true, and I don't believe I claimed it did. It will, however, update 3 to 3.5, after asking permission.
  
  Way to miss the point.
  Spell it out for me. How, exactly, am I missing the point here?
  
  The effort is there, its just not obvious to
  anyone who's been watching.
  It frequently comes across as too little, too late, especially when their competitors are all much farther along than they are.
  
  You can talk about that Acid3 all you want.. (I am running a browser that scored 100/100 long before FireFox, so why arent you running Opera?)
  Because my current browser is also open source, and provides several features Opera doesn't.
  The point is not which browser is fastest to win a particular test, or which is most compliant.
  The point is that most browsers are reasonably close, and getting closer. IE stands out as being by far the worst, and that gap isn't narrowing significantly. It's especially telling when there are several rendering engines available under licenses that would allow them to be included in IE, but Microsoft has chosen to instead try to bring theirs up to speed.
  
  but its meaningless shit.
  For an angry monkey, I sure took longer to resort to personal attacks, and now to profanity.
  
  Nobody supports DOM2 completely,
  What's your point?
  This vaguely sounds like the Creationist who says, "Aha! The universe is expanding faster than they thought! See, science can be wrong! It's really no better than faith. Evolution is just a theory, just like the theory of Intelligent Design."
  IE can't compete on any measurable test of compliance, nor have I seen anyone actually claim it's more compliant. The strongest argument anyone seems to be able to make is that other browsers aren't perfectly compliant, as if that means they're all "just as bad" as IE.
  Yet the fact remains: I can develop a website that runs flawlessly (of course) in the browser I develop it with. I may find a glitch or two in other browsers, causing me to spend maybe an hour or so a month dealing with other browsers. If I were to try to support IE6, it could take (has taken) one day a week.
  
  Stop being a fucking crybaby and blaming the effort involved to support them on others. You are paid for that effort, jackass.
  "Angry monkey" -- projection, much?
  What makes you think being paid for it is a justification? Did you even bother to think about possible rebuttals before bashing on your keyboard? Two obvious ones spring to mind:
  I could be paid to wash dishes for a living. That doesn't mean I enjoy doing so. A dishwashing machine might put me out of work, but it's still a good idea, and I'd probably enjoy my new job better. (And in case it wasn't obvious: This was an analogy.)
  When people pay me to work, if IE didn't exist (or when I don't have to support it), that immediately cuts 20% of my time on the project, thus 20% of the cost of implementing it. It means I can either spend that much less time working, or spend that much more time actually making progress rather than supporting Microsoft's mistake.
  I mean, really, three words: Broken. Window. Fallacy.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
6. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  That is true, and I don't believe I claimed it did.
  Yes, you did.
  
  The point you tried to refute, I will give you one more chance:
  
  The people running IE6 have not updated their browser for at least 3 years (IE7 was late 2006), and maybe have not done so for as many as 8 years (IE6 was released in late 2001)
  
  Now, what makes you think that these people will install FireFox 3.x from a ballot screen once and then update to FireFox 4.x, then 5.x, and then 6.x?
  
  As I explained to you, the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the world does not update their browsers to new versions. FireFox 3.x does not entirely support DOM2 yet, so can I expect you to be crying about millions of FireFox 3.x users about 6 years from now because they dont have a browser that fully supports DOM2, or how about CSS3?
  
  I am an Opera user, and have been for many many many years (long before FireFox.) I am not pro-internet explorer nor am I pro-microsoft. What I am is a bullshit detector and its plain bullshit to think that Microsoft created this "problem." This problem would have existed even if Microsoft never created a browser.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
7. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by Rockoon · 2009-12-16 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  When people pay me to work, if IE didn't exist (or when I don't have to support it), that immediately cuts 20% of my time on the project, thus 20% of the cost of implementing it. It means I can either spend that much less time working, or spend that much more time actually making progress rather than supporting Microsoft's mistake.
  No, it means that your competitors will undercut you by 20% unless you also pass the savings off to the person with the purse strings.
  
  New to the business world?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
8. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-17 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you did.
  Quote me, then, explicitly. Everything I've said is still right here -- if I actually made this claim, it should be obvious.
  
  The point you tried to refute, I will give you one more chance:
  The fact that you won't even read my refutation doesn't invalidate it. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and paste it again, now from two posts ago:
  
  Ah, I see -- you must be living in the dream world where the latest release of IE actually makes an effort to support web standards... So no, it's not just the specific version involved...
  You "addressed" this by claiming that the effort was there, but I couldn't see it because I am an "angry monkey banging on a keyboard". You never actually addressed the fact that no release of IE has come close to the other browsers.
  
  As I explained to you, the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the world does not update their browsers to new versions. FireFox 3.x does not entirely support DOM2 yet
  And as I explained to you:
  
  IE can't compete on any measurable test of compliance, nor have I seen anyone actually claim it's more compliant. The strongest argument anyone seems to be able to make is that other browsers aren't perfectly compliant, as if that means they're all "just as bad" as IE.
  Here, I am indeed referring to the latest version of IE -- yet this has been true pretty much since Firefox has existed, and arguably was true for much of the lifetime of Mozilla -- you have to reach back into the days of Netscape to find a time when the Mozilla codebase was less compliant than IE.
  Now, do you claim IE is more compliant than the other browsers I mentioned? Do you actually claim the other browsers are just as bad?
  If the answer to both of these is "no", I don't see what your point is, or where we disagree. Yes, as you say, there will be people who don't upgrade, and they will be a problem -- however, I suspect Firefox 2 is still much easier to support than IE6.
  
  I am an Opera user, and have been for many many many years (long before FireFox.) I am not pro-internet explorer nor am I pro-microsoft.
  I haven't accused you of being so in this discussion -- nor am I an anti-Micro$oft FOSS zealot. I have engaged you on specific points.
  
  This problem would have existed even if Microsoft never created a browser.
  To a much lesser degree, yes, and I've provided numbers of how much less effort I would have to put into supporting additional browsers if IE didn't exist.
  You might have a point in that much of the rush to standardize is a reaction to just how bad IE is -- but if that's the case, I'm not sure we can really know how different things would be if IE didn't exist. For one thing, we'd likely still be using Netscape, meaning Mozilla would never have been created, meaning Firefox wouldn't exist.
  This is also not the point you have been trying to make. In particular:
  
  There is a market of IE6 users. Either support them, or don't. Stop being a fucking crybaby and blaming the effort involved to support them on others. You are paid for that effort, jackass.
  This is one of several side points you made -- this point has nothing to do with whether the problem would exist without IE. This point is merely calling me a "crybaby" for suggesting the problem exists at all, and further implying that it's not a problem if I'm getting paid for it. The first I didn't address, as it's childish name-calling -- the second, I refuted pretty thoroughly.
  So you've now clung to the one claim you feel I haven't refuted -- for what reason, I can only guess, since the only real disagreement there is that you seem to think my argument revolves around IE6 users not upgrading.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
9. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-12-17 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  It means I can either spend that much less time working, or spend that much more time actually making progress rather than supporting Microsoft's mistake.
  No, it means that your competitors will undercut you by 20% unless you also pass the savings off to the person with the purse strings.
  I think that's implied by "more time making progress" -- which would allow me to undercut my competitors by 20%. That 20% would add up to another project eventually -- which would make me my job more productive and more fun, even if there's no measurable gain for me.
  On the other hand, if my competitors are slow to figure it out, I could simply take one day a week off and remain competitive.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
10. Re:You aren't a web developer, are you? by Rockoon · 2009-12-18 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Quote me, then, explicitly.
  
  It would require quoting you quoting me, and then your response text. If what you wrote was not a refutation to what you quoted, why did you quote it?
  
  I'm still waiting for your refutation.
  
  you have to reach back into the days of Netscape to find a time when the Mozilla codebase was less compliant than IE.
  Whats this about being LESS compliant? One of them has to be LESS compliant, by definition since none are FULLY compliant. The fact that one has MORE compliance is not the subject of discussion. FireFox is less compliant than Opera, Safari, *AND* Chrome. That hurts, doesnt it? You have tried to turn this into a glory discussion about how great FireFox is, but neither the subject nor even true.
  
  IE7 is a large improvement over 6, right? right? But you somehow amazingly, and I quote, "cannot see it"
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
windizupdates by DrYak · 2009-12-16 06:13 · Score: 1

Oh.. Would you/someone mind posting how you get updates from WindozeUpdates using Firefox?
WindizUpdate, a 3rd party update site.
It used to work with Windows XP and Firefox 1.5
Now that both peice of software have moved on (latest Windows is now 7, and latest Firefox is 3.5) I suppose it's not maintained anymore.
But it used to be an alternative do MicrosoftUpdates + IE.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:windizupdates by StuartHankins · 2009-12-16 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...and if I recommended a third-party site to do Windows updates I'd be laughed at. The very first time there was a problem you can bet it would be blamed on the 3rd party app. Not a good idea.
Chrome and Choice by derrickh · 2009-12-16 06:45 · Score: 1

Does ChromeOS let you switch to a different browser?
D

--
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
1. Re:Chrome and Choice by notrandomly · 2009-12-17 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Does Chrome OS hold a monopoly in the market?
Maxthon, AKA The Masked Explorer? by GameboyRMH · 2009-12-16 07:02 · Score: 1

IIRC Maxthon is just a really fancy skin and plugin system for IE, is it not?

System requirements show it requires an IE6+ installation:
http://www.maxthon.com/support.htm
(you need to allow scripts from Maxthon.com)

It seems to support both IE plugins and ActiveX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxthon#Features

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Maxthon, AKA The Masked Explorer? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-16 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  It's a bit more than a fancy skin, but yes, Maxthon and several of the extended browser list use Trident. The rest of the extended list use Gecko (some might mode-switch between both; I can't remember which browsers do that and if they're on the list). Not surprising -- the architecture of IE and the webbrowser control make it relatively easy to make an alternative browser with Trident.
  (There's two webkit browsers right in the main list between Safari and Chrome).
Count me for that by bussdriver · 2009-12-16 07:03 · Score: 1

I'm not interested in another object scripting language with a console and shell bindings. PowerShell is not new, people have thought of this as soon as OOP came into being and it NEVER had any traction which is why we still don't have something like powershell in the unix world (or widely known if it exists.)
When the actual situations arise people have gone to scripting languages with or without bindings to glue things together; its not a standardized form of interaction for all programs - which is useful - but then I've not seen much in the way of conformity with text I/O, language bindings, except perhaps applescript which is a horrid language that undoes such benefits (yet some apps have odd ball interfaces still.)
When you are programming a real language with some development tools it is far more useful than trying to write/run it interactively - I'd say its a rare use case when something like powershell is useful; besides, if you wanted it so badly, I'm sure you can find somebody's implementation of a shell in whatever language you use.
I'm no fan of the unix shells, but for basic uses they serve their job well for me and for everything else there is perl. If I want to program I'll use a real programming language and not the goofy crap the various shells provide. (I know, I know, that sounds funny because I implied perl is less goofy...)

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Re:so um...Apple? by Richard.g.k · 2009-12-16 07:42 · Score: 0

Monopoly: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price ... Now lets see here.... Apple + Microsoft + 2346059 linux distros > 1. Microsoft has an absurdly high market share, that doesn't mean there isn't alternatives...
Re:so um...Apple? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-16 08:13 · Score: 1

Nice, lemme know when I can run legally Internet Explorer 6 on anything non-Windows.
Re:so um...Apple? by Richard.g.k · 2009-12-16 08:33 · Score: 0

Let me know when you can run every bundled mac app on windows?
Re:so um...Apple? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-16 08:42 · Score: 1

Jesus Christ, the article is about browsers and the power MS abused of by having a quasi-monopoly! Are you a bad troll or what? I don't feel like having an off-topic discussion.

I don't think there's a website that you can browse only with Safari (besides proofs of concept)

Sure, we could argue day and night about the power and abuse Apple exercises in other markets, but this is not what TFA is about.
Re:so um...Apple? by Richard.g.k · 2009-12-16 09:04 · Score: 0

TFA is about what the EU has forced microsoft to do. All the while apple is allowed a free pass to engage in the exact same behavior, based on the presumption that microsoft has a monopoly, which they do not.
Re:so um...Apple? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-16 09:27 · Score: 1

No, no. Safari is available both on Windows and on Macs for free. If there is a difference in the rendering among those versions, then I'd agree, but AFAIK, they are the same.
Now go tell those Koreans who can't home-bank on anything but Windows that there isn't a monopoly.

(Yes, I know this was in the EU, but I hope I'm getting my point across)
Re:so um...Apple? by Richard.g.k · 2009-12-16 09:36 · Score: 0

Isnt that the developers fault for not supporting multiple browsers?
Re:so um...Apple? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-16 09:41 · Score: 1

Of course. You still have to get a Windows OS, though.
Re:so um...Apple? by Richard.g.k · 2009-12-16 09:51 · Score: 0

If they supported other browsers...couldnt you then use any OS? Not trying to troll...I just cannot see why its necessary to force someone to promote their competition...
Re:so um...Apple? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-16 10:05 · Score: 1

Because if there isn't a significant amount of other browsers in the market, web developers won't be feeling like making their web pages cross-platform.

Now, having said that, I think this decision is "too little, too late." They should have done this in 2003. Firefox already surpassed IE in Germany, so...

Now, if you'd excuse me, I'll refrain from posting. I'm way too drunk now :P
Re:so um...Apple? by StuartHankins · 2009-12-16 16:25 · Score: 1

Microsoft's a convicted monopoly. Period. Get over it.
Re:so um...Apple? by virg_mattes · 2009-12-21 02:32 · Score: 1

Microsoft does enjoy a monopoly position in the OS market. They don't own every OS out there, but they have significant control over both horizontal and vertical markets based on their OS penetration. For example, if Microsoft said that Windows could only be installed on Intel processors they'd pretty much drive AMD out of the market. That's vertical control. If they said that you were not allowed to run any office software on Windows other than MS Office, and if you did then you'd be violating your Windows license, then it wouldn't matter that OO.o is free, it would phase out. That's hosizontal control. Apple cannot exert anywhere near that level of control on the industry as a whole due to the fact that they don't have the market penetration. This means that Microsoft has to play by different rules than Apple. Antitrust legislation exists for a good reason. Trying to say that Microsoft isn't a monopoly and therefore isn't subject to that legislation is self-deceit.

Virg