Or you know, next time their OEM can simply bundle a browser for them. Dell, HP, Asus bundle tons of crap, what's 1 piece of extra software going to change ? Microsoft could also just offer to install different browsers along with IE or without IE right in the install, if they are so inclined. The elected officials didn't force anything, this decision is 100% Microsoft.
Did you notice that when you did type a URL in explorer, the window would "transform" right into IE ? It would change the menus on top, change the toolbars, change the status bars and you'd essentially end up in iexplore.exe instead of explorer.exe. That one was an easy fix, simply tell the system that a HTTP:// URL in explorer should be opened in the system's default Web browser. Back in those days, that could have been Netscape. That issue is simply minor compared to the big picture.
If you don't see the problem, then you are blind. What is the last 10 years ? What is IE6 ? Heck, haven't you been paying attention to all the crap the web has gone through because of Microsoft locking down the browser market for essentially 6 years ?
Wait what ? Microsoft dictates every bit of what developers do. IE6 should be proof enough of that ("ignore standards, do it our way"). They also dictate what OEMs can and can't do. Want to ship Windows ? Then you have to bundle it with *EVERY* computer you sell, no way you can include other OSes or ship a computer without an OS. Where did you think the term Windows tax came from ?
Also, Apple has about 5% worldwide market share. How is that a Monopoly ? The fact that you can't use an Apple product doesn't lock you out of entire computer market. The day Apple has 90% market share, you can bet your ass that they'll have to change some things about their business practices.
This might be news to you, but back in the Netscape days, pre-Windows 98, Microsoft had a very small market share in the Browser market. The original browser wars, in which Microsoft "coupled" Internet Explorer with the GUI before shipping Windows 98, is what resulted in Microsoft gaining such a high share of the browser market. Essentially, they used their monopoly on desktop OSes in order to gain that monopoly on browsers. The original anti-trust charges in the US were followed shortly.
Because when Microsoft includes a product on its Monopolistic OS, they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market. When Apple does it, it's business as usual. Different rules apply to Monopolies. Thems the breaks kiddo.
It was a lie then, it's a lie now. The browser isn't required at all, only MSHTML.dll which is used to embed the HTML rendering component in applications and is used quite extensively elsewhere. Internet Explorer itself is just another browser than embeds it and adds functionality around it like navigation controls, bookmarks and tabs. You can delete iexplore.exe off any system without much repercussions.
Your analogy fails in 2 ways. One, unless you're refering to WINE which isn't an Apple supported product, there isn't really a way to run Microsoft software on Mac OS X unless it is OS X software in the first place. I doubt Microsoft would go through the trouble of writing an OS X version only to have not run. Two, Microsoft is a Monopoly and plays by different rules than the rest. You can't compare them to everyone else because of that.
And what is Apple trying to obtain using its iPod monopoly (if you can even call it that) illegaly ? I just don't see it sorry. This story is about iTunes not syncing with other devices and has nothing to do with iPods. Don't these devices have software to sync with ? And hard drive based mp3 players is hardly a market. MP3 players as a whole would be a market.
What's wrong with that ? A lot of Open Source software has to reverse engineer stuff. No one is obligated to release full interop specs except for Microsoft (that monopoly thing and the rules attached to it).
He meant a 1/4 pound of meat, not a 1/4 pound patty of something that is part meat, 80% cereal. And don't come back with that 100% pure beef bull, yes, the beef is 100% pure (have you ever seen a cow crossed with something else ?), it's just not 100% of the patty.
And you wonder why EQ2 never got popular ? The problem with catering to hardcore players that love to suffer through leveling and even have the time to do such a thing is that they are very few and far between. That's if they can even afford to play at all, as a college education and a job get in the way of that thing called "playtime". No one is in the business of MMOs to please a few players, they are in it to make money.
And since Google will be using the Linux KERNEL and probably DirectFB over it, they will also benefit from the ENTIRE LINUX COMMUNITY too as far as drivers go. They won't have to have drivers written for Chrome OS. And yes, they are using the Linux kernel, it's already been announced.
Distros don't make the drivers for Intel, nVidia or ATI chipsets. Whatever Google does use in the end (be it X11 or DirectFB), the drivers are already out there, free to use for the most part.
Except you can strip everything you listed. Then you're left with the Linux KERNEL and you can now place whatever you want on top. Your post is nothing but an ignorant rant. For all we know, they could use BusyBox + DirectFB + custom desktop environment and you wouldn't know where the coupling even starts.
Wait, something that provides benefit without a performance hit is poor design ? Maybe you should just understand it before you bash it. X11 is not poorly designed. It provides remote and local display, does the local part without cost, is extensible to support emerging technologies while remaining backwards compatible... What is poor about the design of it all ? Or are you basing all your assumptions on one implementation of it that was poor (XFree86) ? Maybe you should differentiate between the different implementations and the protocol itself.
Except that unnecessary coupling like you call it comes at 0 cost. X11 doesn't suffer from being network transparent. There is nothing to be gained by throwing out its greatest strength.
Or they could you know, ship 2 versions, one for the United States without h.264 and one for the rest of the world where the patent isn't valid. It's been done before with strong encryption browsers, I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to do it again. In the end, that's the Mozilla Foundation's problem and they'll have to find a solution, because I don't see Ogg Theora getting much traction vs h.264 if market forces will dictate the chosen codec.
See, that's the type of over emotional response I'm talking about. No where did I say I didn't think the examples were of real things, I just said the examples as such don't evoke sympathy or empathy from me because they aren't real life occurences, just examples. And I never talked about victimless crimes, we were discussing porn, which is not a crime in and of itself. This has always been my point.
Again, so you can get it in your thick religious zealot head : I don't feel empathy for fiction. This doesn't mean that bad things don't happen or that I believe they don't happen. Also, porn isn't a crime, and as such, I don't see any victims of porn itself (the victims are victims of abuse, rape or their own stupidity).
You cannot move me or evoke feelings of empathy in me or other rational people by just saying "Hey, there is such a thing as rape you know". If a rape victim gives me an account of his story in person, then I will feel empathy and sympathy for him/her.
So again, stop with the emotional manipulation. You're a hypocrite and basically doing the same thing you're denouncing.
This same argument has been made for more than 15 years about every piece of opensource software. In the end, Microsoft gets to decide, if they even implement at all. That's what I've been referring to by saying we've been down that road before. And guess what, Microsoft will probably go over to h.264, not Ogg Theora. And guess what, Firefox will have h.264 support when all is said and done.
I'd say I'm closer to reality than you seem to think. If someone has a shitty story to tell me in order to move me, they can come tell me about it to my face. Then I'll be moved. Reading other's accounts online about things that might not have happened at all, or that are just generic examples, good luck trying to move me with that, I'm not some emo kid in need of crying. I'll stay cold and rational for these, in order to properly respond and not fall victim to emotional propaganda (Why won't somebody please think of the children type discourse).
And please, that doesn't mean I don't believe that pain and misery don't exist, don't go into extremes. What your saying is basically that because I don't believe 1 Internet story, I don't believe in pain at all. And then you have the gall to say you're not just some kind of propaganda machine ? Of course, judging from your pro-religious comments in other replies, I should've known what kind of person you were, I especially laughed at the part where you said you don't like porn. Yeah right.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you know, next time their OEM can simply bundle a browser for them. Dell, HP, Asus bundle tons of crap, what's 1 piece of extra software going to change ? Microsoft could also just offer to install different browsers along with IE or without IE right in the install, if they are so inclined. The elected officials didn't force anything, this decision is 100% Microsoft.
Did you notice that when you did type a URL in explorer, the window would "transform" right into IE ? It would change the menus on top, change the toolbars, change the status bars and you'd essentially end up in iexplore.exe instead of explorer.exe. That one was an easy fix, simply tell the system that a HTTP:// URL in explorer should be opened in the system's default Web browser. Back in those days, that could have been Netscape. That issue is simply minor compared to the big picture.
If you don't see the problem, then you are blind. What is the last 10 years ? What is IE6 ? Heck, haven't you been paying attention to all the crap the web has gone through because of Microsoft locking down the browser market for essentially 6 years ?
Wait what ? Microsoft dictates every bit of what developers do. IE6 should be proof enough of that ("ignore standards, do it our way"). They also dictate what OEMs can and can't do. Want to ship Windows ? Then you have to bundle it with *EVERY* computer you sell, no way you can include other OSes or ship a computer without an OS. Where did you think the term Windows tax came from ? Also, Apple has about 5% worldwide market share. How is that a Monopoly ? The fact that you can't use an Apple product doesn't lock you out of entire computer market. The day Apple has 90% market share, you can bet your ass that they'll have to change some things about their business practices.
This might be news to you, but back in the Netscape days, pre-Windows 98, Microsoft had a very small market share in the Browser market. The original browser wars, in which Microsoft "coupled" Internet Explorer with the GUI before shipping Windows 98, is what resulted in Microsoft gaining such a high share of the browser market. Essentially, they used their monopoly on desktop OSes in order to gain that monopoly on browsers. The original anti-trust charges in the US were followed shortly.
Because when Microsoft includes a product on its Monopolistic OS, they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market. When Apple does it, it's business as usual. Different rules apply to Monopolies. Thems the breaks kiddo.
It was a lie then, it's a lie now. The browser isn't required at all, only MSHTML.dll which is used to embed the HTML rendering component in applications and is used quite extensively elsewhere. Internet Explorer itself is just another browser than embeds it and adds functionality around it like navigation controls, bookmarks and tabs. You can delete iexplore.exe off any system without much repercussions.
Your analogy fails in 2 ways. One, unless you're refering to WINE which isn't an Apple supported product, there isn't really a way to run Microsoft software on Mac OS X unless it is OS X software in the first place. I doubt Microsoft would go through the trouble of writing an OS X version only to have not run. Two, Microsoft is a Monopoly and plays by different rules than the rest. You can't compare them to everyone else because of that.
And what is Apple trying to obtain using its iPod monopoly (if you can even call it that) illegaly ? I just don't see it sorry. This story is about iTunes not syncing with other devices and has nothing to do with iPods. Don't these devices have software to sync with ? And hard drive based mp3 players is hardly a market. MP3 players as a whole would be a market.
What's wrong with that ? A lot of Open Source software has to reverse engineer stuff. No one is obligated to release full interop specs except for Microsoft (that monopoly thing and the rules attached to it).
Apple has a monopoly on MP3 players ? Geez, what are all those other devices on the store shelves then ? Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything.
He meant a 1/4 pound of meat, not a 1/4 pound patty of something that is part meat, 80% cereal. And don't come back with that 100% pure beef bull, yes, the beef is 100% pure (have you ever seen a cow crossed with something else ?), it's just not 100% of the patty.
And you wonder why EQ2 never got popular ? The problem with catering to hardcore players that love to suffer through leveling and even have the time to do such a thing is that they are very few and far between. That's if they can even afford to play at all, as a college education and a job get in the way of that thing called "playtime". No one is in the business of MMOs to please a few players, they are in it to make money.
And since Google will be using the Linux KERNEL and probably DirectFB over it, they will also benefit from the ENTIRE LINUX COMMUNITY too as far as drivers go. They won't have to have drivers written for Chrome OS. And yes, they are using the Linux kernel, it's already been announced.
Which X11 implementation are you talking about ? TinyX ? OpenWin ? Hummingbird Exceed ? X.org ? XFree86 ?
What suckage are you speaking of ? Is it protocol level ? Implementation level ? Extensions ?
Do you even know what you're talking about ?
Distros don't make the drivers for Intel, nVidia or ATI chipsets. Whatever Google does use in the end (be it X11 or DirectFB), the drivers are already out there, free to use for the most part.
Except you can strip everything you listed. Then you're left with the Linux KERNEL and you can now place whatever you want on top. Your post is nothing but an ignorant rant. For all we know, they could use BusyBox + DirectFB + custom desktop environment and you wouldn't know where the coupling even starts.
Or they could use DirectFB instead of X.org or any other X11 server : http://www.directfb.org/.
What's so wrong with using X11 anyway ?
And one-liners aren't proof of that what you say is the truth.
Wait, something that provides benefit without a performance hit is poor design ? Maybe you should just understand it before you bash it. X11 is not poorly designed. It provides remote and local display, does the local part without cost, is extensible to support emerging technologies while remaining backwards compatible... What is poor about the design of it all ? Or are you basing all your assumptions on one implementation of it that was poor (XFree86) ? Maybe you should differentiate between the different implementations and the protocol itself.
Except that unnecessary coupling like you call it comes at 0 cost. X11 doesn't suffer from being network transparent. There is nothing to be gained by throwing out its greatest strength.
Or they could you know, ship 2 versions, one for the United States without h.264 and one for the rest of the world where the patent isn't valid. It's been done before with strong encryption browsers, I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to do it again. In the end, that's the Mozilla Foundation's problem and they'll have to find a solution, because I don't see Ogg Theora getting much traction vs h.264 if market forces will dictate the chosen codec.
See, that's the type of over emotional response I'm talking about. No where did I say I didn't think the examples were of real things, I just said the examples as such don't evoke sympathy or empathy from me because they aren't real life occurences, just examples. And I never talked about victimless crimes, we were discussing porn, which is not a crime in and of itself. This has always been my point.
Again, so you can get it in your thick religious zealot head : I don't feel empathy for fiction. This doesn't mean that bad things don't happen or that I believe they don't happen. Also, porn isn't a crime, and as such, I don't see any victims of porn itself (the victims are victims of abuse, rape or their own stupidity).
You cannot move me or evoke feelings of empathy in me or other rational people by just saying "Hey, there is such a thing as rape you know". If a rape victim gives me an account of his story in person, then I will feel empathy and sympathy for him/her.
So again, stop with the emotional manipulation. You're a hypocrite and basically doing the same thing you're denouncing.
This same argument has been made for more than 15 years about every piece of opensource software. In the end, Microsoft gets to decide, if they even implement at all. That's what I've been referring to by saying we've been down that road before. And guess what, Microsoft will probably go over to h.264, not Ogg Theora. And guess what, Firefox will have h.264 support when all is said and done.
I'd say I'm closer to reality than you seem to think. If someone has a shitty story to tell me in order to move me, they can come tell me about it to my face. Then I'll be moved. Reading other's accounts online about things that might not have happened at all, or that are just generic examples, good luck trying to move me with that, I'm not some emo kid in need of crying. I'll stay cold and rational for these, in order to properly respond and not fall victim to emotional propaganda (Why won't somebody please think of the children type discourse).
And please, that doesn't mean I don't believe that pain and misery don't exist, don't go into extremes. What your saying is basically that because I don't believe 1 Internet story, I don't believe in pain at all. And then you have the gall to say you're not just some kind of propaganda machine ? Of course, judging from your pro-religious comments in other replies, I should've known what kind of person you were, I especially laughed at the part where you said you don't like porn. Yeah right.