If it takes until version 8 to support Acid 2, or 2^3,
then, when Acid 3 comes out, we can expect conformance by IE27?
More like: Acid2 was released when IE6 was current, and will be passed in IE8. 6+2=8. So if Acid3 is announced while IE8 is current, version 8+3, or IE 11, will be the first to pass Acid3.
So if we want anything new supported by IE 10, we need to get that Acid3 test developed now!
Actually, right now I am testing Acid Test 2 with Firefox Beta 2 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9b2) Gecko/2007121016 Firefox/3.0b2) and it DOES NOT pass the test.
Interesting -- I just checked it myself as well. I could swear it worked in beta 1, so it looks like something's regressed.
IE requires the user to turn on a special "standards mode" to correctly render STANDARD WEBSITES.
The concept of "standards mode" and "quirks mode" has been around for several years, and is implemented in IE6, IE7, Firefox, and Opera, and for all I know in Gecko as well. The user does not have to flip a switch. The developer has to put some code at the beginning to show that he knows what he's doing, usually in the form of an appropriate DOCTYPE.
How would decoupling IE or making MS follow web-standards benefit Opera at all?
It's all about website compatibility. People who try Opera and then go back to what they were using before often do so because Opera doesn't work with some website they really like (or need, like their bank). And that's usually because the developer was laboring under the outdated two-browser mentality: Build for IE, then add workarounds for Firefox. Or, in many cases, build for IE6, then workarounds for IE7, then more workarounds for Firefox, and dammit, what's with all these other browsers? They're only single-digit percentages, so screw 'em!
Put a standards-compliant browser on the majority of desktops, and (in theory) more developers will target standards instead. (I'm sure there would still be issues with broken code and differing error-correction schemes, though.) Fewer sites that break in Opera means people trying it out will be less likely to encounter a deal-breaker, which should increase the retention rate. And that should increase marketshare, which will increase visibility.
if MS did make a feature-full, standards-compliant browser, wouldn't that lower Opera usage?
Not necessarily. End users don't pick their browsers for standards compliance. They do pick them by questions like, "Does this browser work with my bank's website?"
If the most-used browser (IE or otherwise) is fully standards-compliant, that lowers the bar for developers to build sites that work with multiple browsers: target standards and you get something that works in IE8, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc., instead of targeting IE6, tweaking for IE7, tweaking for Firefox, and deciding anyone running another browser is just SOL.
End result: More websites are compatible across the board, so when people try Opera, fewer of them will run it for 2 days and say, "Well, I sorta like it, but the POS browser can't handle my favorite website. I'm going back to IE."
IMO, the way to go would be for Microsoft to just make IE an optional component. That way it's still on the install disc for people building their own systems (assuming they haven't already grabbed an installer for some browser via another computer), and it's easy to leave it out and put something else on instead.
removing IE from Windows will leave users without the ability to browse the web without using command line FTP to first obtain a browser.
Not necessarily. OEMs could (and most likely would) still install a browser, and the actual complaint cites pre-installing alternatives as another valid remedy.
Opera wants users to either buy a copy of Opera...
I take it you missed the news that the desktop version of Opera has been free-as-in-beer for the last 2 years.
Really, it all starts with getting rid of the damned thing in the first place--End 6!
Hey, thanks for posting that. I've seriously been planning to set up an "upgrade or switch" page focusing on IE6, and it looks like you (or whoever built the site, if it's not you) have beat me to it. I'm not thrilled about the big annoying pop-up method, though.
Opera's developers need to admit that their "standards" are nothing but the constructs of the companies who failed to challenge IE so they took their ball and went home. "I'm going to invent my own internet. That'll show those meanies"
You are aware that Microsoft is a member of the W3C, right? And that they contributed to the development of such standards as CSS2? And that Microsoft pledged to support these standards back in 1998, and yet somehow their competitors support considerably more parts of that spec than they do? (I suspect ceasing all development other than security fixes for 3-4 years had quite a bit to do with that.)
A bunch of companies didn't get together and say, "We don't like how Microsoft does the web, let's design another one." A bunch of companies including Microsoft got together and said, "Here's how we're going to design the web," Microsoft signed off on it, and then went off in their own direction.
You can't really tell them they have to provide a browser written by a competitor, so how would people go to websites to download the browser they want?
That's where the OEM comes in. Decouple IE from Windows, and the OEM is free to install IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever.
Those who continue using IE either don't care or simply don't want to change the browser they've used for years.
That's my point: some of them just don't care, and still wouldn't care if their new computer came with Firefox instead of IE. It would have as much impact on that crowd as IE7 had on people replacing Win2K boxes with Vista machines.
Yes, some people actually prefer IE, and would go straight to Microsoft and download it if they got a Windows box that had another browser. Your previous post implied that most IE users fell into this category, as people were "massively choosing" IE. Personally, I'd guess most of them fall into the "don't care" category, but it would take an actual survey or study to find out.
Has anyone bothered asking customers whether they want IE bundled with Windows? I'm sure not because it's so painfully obvious they do. Alternatives do exist out there, but customers are massively choosing Windows and IE. Respect this.
No, it's not painfully obvious. Customers are massively choosing Windows, yes. But IE comes along for the ride. Clearly IE is sufficient for many customers' needs, but going along with what's provided and actively choosing are not the same thing.
An analogy: I prefer Round Table Pizza to Pizza Hut. If I'm going to order a pizza, I'm going to call Round Table. If I go to a lunch meeting or a party that has one pizza from Round Table and one from Pizza Hut, I'll choose the Round Table. But if all they have is Pizza Hut, then you know what, I'm going to eat the Pizza Hut. That doesn't mean I prefer Pizza Hut, just that my opinion on the issue isn't strong enough to override the convenience of having the pizza there in front of me.
We know that, when handed IE, some people use it and others choose to install Firefox or Opera. Because it takes effort, we can assume that those who run Firefox or Opera do so out of a preference. We don't know how many of those IE users actually prefer it, and how many of them don't care and just use what's been provided.
The questions we should asking are these: How many would choose to install IE if they were handed Firefox or Opera? If Windows came with both IE and Firefox, how many would choose each browser? If Windows came with no browser, but a utility that would download and install one of several options, which browser would most people choose? And how would experience (total newbies, people who've only used one of the current major players, people who've used at least two of them) change these answers?
Considering that he's been representing the same district since 1983, I don't think the Republican/Democrat shift had much to do with this bill.
And since his district includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, it's likely that anyone who replaced him would be just as favorable to the film industry.
Has he been getting letters from his voters / constituents that the DMCA needs to be tougher?
"The representative from Hollywood" isn't just hyperbole. He represents the 28th congressional district in California, which includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley. People in the film industry are his constituents.
If Opera wants to sue Microsoft into following established web standards (not that anyone has any true authority, but anyway...), that would be an interesting lawsuit
That "would be" an interesting lawsuit? That is part of this one. Re-read the summary. Then go read the press release:
Second, it asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities. The complaint calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy. Microsoft's unilateral control over standards in some markets creates a de facto standard that is more costly to support, harder to maintain, and technologically inferior and that can even expose users to security risks.
Are there any Linux distributions that have Opera pre-installed?
I believe the commercial versions of SuSE and Mandriva include Opera. I know there's an apt repository for Debian-based distros, and it's included a major third-party repository for Ubuntu (can't think of the name). Plus of course they have binary packages available.
My Nokia 770 (Linux based) came with Opera. I assumed that was because Opera has a smaller footprint than Firefox (but none too small for my 64 MB RAM (and no swap) pocket computer). However, it might be that Opera was written with GTK, or had been optimized for a stylus based user interface, or something.
Opera has a version of the browser optimized for small devices. It runs the same engine, though the version is trailing a bit. (And as others have pointed out, it uses QT.)
P.S. Apologies if this shows up repeatedly. I'm getting "There was an unknown error in the submission."
First, it requests the Commission to obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop. (emphasis added)
Unbundling IE doesn't necessarily mean shipping an OS without a browser. If IE is an optional component, OEMs could still preinstall one browser or another. Even Opera is taking into account the fact that removing IE entirely might not be feasible, and suggesting that the system come with at least one alternative.
I agree that an OS needs to ship with a web browser. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific browser except for company policy. Witness Apple replacing IE with Safari, or Red Hat replacing Mozilla with Firefox, etc.
Fantastic! Maybe they could call it... uhh... Windows Update! Or Microsoft Update! Yeah!
The problem with Windows Update / Microsoft Update is that, aside from the app that automatically checks for critical updates, it runs inside a web browser. Worse, it runs inside one specific web browser (or rather one specific engine).
By contrast, programs like yum and apt and their respetive GUIs (synaptic, etc.) don't require an HTML engine. Even Apple's software update doesn't use WebKit as far as I can tell (though I have some nitpicks with the UI design). So if you want to run, say, Konqueror, you don't need to have Firefox installed just to update your system.
The other thing is that as it stands, Microsoft's and Apple's updaters only allow access to their own software (plus the occasional third-party driver that Microsoft has agreed to distribute). It's frustrating that eveyone has to re-invent the wheel to provide automatic updates. My Windows box has updaters for Microsoft, Symantec & Apple, plus specific updaters for Firefox & Adobe Reader. My Linux box has just one updater -- yum. Fedora provides a lot of third-party software, plus some companies (like Adobe) offer their own yum repositories, so I can update Flash using the same program and mechanism that I use to update the rest of my system. (Though if you're running KDE, you pretty much have to have Konqueror installed whether you use it or not.)
Now, back to the GP post, imagine if this hypothetical software updater/installer for Windows could add channels of software from different providers?
I have a bright blue T-shirt that I refer to as my "Best Buy Shirt" because I was once mistaken for an employee while wearing it. It wasn't even a polo shirt, and I probably wasn't wearing khakis. No name tag, no logo, no collar, wrong pants. Just the blue was enough.
Ever since then, whenever I wear it, I think to myself, "Hmm, I shouldn't go to Best Buy today." Though occasionally I think I should, just to see whether it would happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
More like: Acid2 was released when IE6 was current, and will be passed in IE8. 6+2=8. So if Acid3 is announced while IE8 is current, version 8+3, or IE 11, will be the first to pass Acid3.
So if we want anything new supported by IE 10, we need to get that Acid3 test developed now!
Interesting -- I just checked it myself as well. I could swear it worked in beta 1, so it looks like something's regressed.
The concept of "standards mode" and "quirks mode" has been around for several years, and is implemented in IE6, IE7, Firefox, and Opera, and for all I know in Gecko as well. The user does not have to flip a switch. The developer has to put some code at the beginning to show that he knows what he's doing, usually in the form of an appropriate DOCTYPE.
Has someone been removing info from the article? Opera 9 and iCab 3(?) also pass Acid2. Not to mention other WebKit-based browsers.
It's all about website compatibility. People who try Opera and then go back to what they were using before often do so because Opera doesn't work with some website they really like (or need, like their bank). And that's usually because the developer was laboring under the outdated two-browser mentality: Build for IE, then add workarounds for Firefox. Or, in many cases, build for IE6, then workarounds for IE7, then more workarounds for Firefox, and dammit, what's with all these other browsers? They're only single-digit percentages, so screw 'em!
Put a standards-compliant browser on the majority of desktops, and (in theory) more developers will target standards instead. (I'm sure there would still be issues with broken code and differing error-correction schemes, though.) Fewer sites that break in Opera means people trying it out will be less likely to encounter a deal-breaker, which should increase the retention rate. And that should increase marketshare, which will increase visibility.
Not necessarily. End users don't pick their browsers for standards compliance. They do pick them by questions like, "Does this browser work with my bank's website?"
If the most-used browser (IE or otherwise) is fully standards-compliant, that lowers the bar for developers to build sites that work with multiple browsers: target standards and you get something that works in IE8, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc., instead of targeting IE6, tweaking for IE7, tweaking for Firefox, and deciding anyone running another browser is just SOL.
End result: More websites are compatible across the board, so when people try Opera, fewer of them will run it for 2 days and say, "Well, I sorta like it, but the POS browser can't handle my favorite website. I'm going back to IE."
IMO, the way to go would be for Microsoft to just make IE an optional component. That way it's still on the install disc for people building their own systems (assuming they haven't already grabbed an installer for some browser via another computer), and it's easy to leave it out and put something else on instead.
Not necessarily. OEMs could (and most likely would) still install a browser, and the actual complaint cites pre-installing alternatives as another valid remedy.
I take it you missed the news that the desktop version of Opera has been free-as-in-beer for the last 2 years.
Yes. And it's marked as fixed. Firefox 3 will finally have this. You can check out the beta if you want.
Hey, thanks for posting that. I've seriously been planning to set up an "upgrade or switch" page focusing on IE6, and it looks like you (or whoever built the site, if it's not you) have beat me to it. I'm not thrilled about the big annoying pop-up method, though.
Bookmarked!
You are aware that Microsoft is a member of the W3C, right? And that they contributed to the development of such standards as CSS2? And that Microsoft pledged to support these standards back in 1998, and yet somehow their competitors support considerably more parts of that spec than they do? (I suspect ceasing all development other than security fixes for 3-4 years had quite a bit to do with that.)
A bunch of companies didn't get together and say, "We don't like how Microsoft does the web, let's design another one." A bunch of companies including Microsoft got together and said, "Here's how we're going to design the web," Microsoft signed off on it, and then went off in their own direction.
That's where the OEM comes in. Decouple IE from Windows, and the OEM is free to install IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever.
s/Opera/Internet Explorer/ and I'll agree with you.
So the part that you said would be interesting doesn't count because it's not the entirety of the complaint?
That's my point: some of them just don't care, and still wouldn't care if their new computer came with Firefox instead of IE. It would have as much impact on that crowd as IE7 had on people replacing Win2K boxes with Vista machines.
Yes, some people actually prefer IE, and would go straight to Microsoft and download it if they got a Windows box that had another browser. Your previous post implied that most IE users fell into this category, as people were "massively choosing" IE. Personally, I'd guess most of them fall into the "don't care" category, but it would take an actual survey or study to find out.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.
No, it's not painfully obvious. Customers are massively choosing Windows, yes. But IE comes along for the ride. Clearly IE is sufficient for many customers' needs, but going along with what's provided and actively choosing are not the same thing.
An analogy: I prefer Round Table Pizza to Pizza Hut. If I'm going to order a pizza, I'm going to call Round Table. If I go to a lunch meeting or a party that has one pizza from Round Table and one from Pizza Hut, I'll choose the Round Table. But if all they have is Pizza Hut, then you know what, I'm going to eat the Pizza Hut. That doesn't mean I prefer Pizza Hut, just that my opinion on the issue isn't strong enough to override the convenience of having the pizza there in front of me.
We know that, when handed IE, some people use it and others choose to install Firefox or Opera. Because it takes effort, we can assume that those who run Firefox or Opera do so out of a preference. We don't know how many of those IE users actually prefer it, and how many of them don't care and just use what's been provided.
The questions we should asking are these: How many would choose to install IE if they were handed Firefox or Opera? If Windows came with both IE and Firefox, how many would choose each browser? If Windows came with no browser, but a utility that would download and install one of several options, which browser would most people choose? And how would experience (total newbies, people who've only used one of the current major players, people who've used at least two of them) change these answers?
Considering that he's been representing the same district since 1983, I don't think the Republican/Democrat shift had much to do with this bill.
And since his district includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, it's likely that anyone who replaced him would be just as favorable to the film industry.
"The representative from Hollywood" isn't just hyperbole. He represents the 28th congressional district in California, which includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley. People in the film industry are his constituents.
That "would be" an interesting lawsuit? That is part of this one. Re-read the summary. Then go read the press release:
I believe the commercial versions of SuSE and Mandriva include Opera. I know there's an apt repository for Debian-based distros, and it's included a major third-party repository for Ubuntu (can't think of the name). Plus of course they have binary packages available.
Opera has a version of the browser optimized for small devices. It runs the same engine, though the version is trailing a bit. (And as others have pointed out, it uses QT.)
P.S. Apologies if this shows up repeatedly. I'm getting "There was an unknown error in the submission."
Slight correction to the slight correction: Firefox 1.0 used Gecko 1.7.
(I assume it was a typo, but in case anyone's reading this and doesn't click on the link...)
To sum up:
Firefox 1 used Gecko 1.7
Firefox 1.5 and 2 used Gecko 1.8
Firefox 3 uses Gecko 1.9
From the Opera press release:
Unbundling IE doesn't necessarily mean shipping an OS without a browser. If IE is an optional component, OEMs could still preinstall one browser or another. Even Opera is taking into account the fact that removing IE entirely might not be feasible, and suggesting that the system come with at least one alternative.
I agree that an OS needs to ship with a web browser. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific browser except for company policy. Witness Apple replacing IE with Safari, or Red Hat replacing Mozilla with Firefox, etc.
The problem with Windows Update / Microsoft Update is that, aside from the app that automatically checks for critical updates, it runs inside a web browser. Worse, it runs inside one specific web browser (or rather one specific engine).
By contrast, programs like yum and apt and their respetive GUIs (synaptic, etc.) don't require an HTML engine. Even Apple's software update doesn't use WebKit as far as I can tell (though I have some nitpicks with the UI design). So if you want to run, say, Konqueror, you don't need to have Firefox installed just to update your system.
The other thing is that as it stands, Microsoft's and Apple's updaters only allow access to their own software (plus the occasional third-party driver that Microsoft has agreed to distribute). It's frustrating that eveyone has to re-invent the wheel to provide automatic updates. My Windows box has updaters for Microsoft, Symantec & Apple, plus specific updaters for Firefox & Adobe Reader. My Linux box has just one updater -- yum. Fedora provides a lot of third-party software, plus some companies (like Adobe) offer their own yum repositories, so I can update Flash using the same program and mechanism that I use to update the rest of my system. (Though if you're running KDE, you pretty much have to have Konqueror installed whether you use it or not.)
Now, back to the GP post, imagine if this hypothetical software updater/installer for Windows could add channels of software from different providers?
I have a bright blue T-shirt that I refer to as my "Best Buy Shirt" because I was once mistaken for an employee while wearing it. It wasn't even a polo shirt, and I probably wasn't wearing khakis. No name tag, no logo, no collar, wrong pants. Just the blue was enough.
Ever since then, whenever I wear it, I think to myself, "Hmm, I shouldn't go to Best Buy today." Though occasionally I think I should, just to see whether it would happen again.