If you are building your own system then you are expected to be technically competent... So you should know what the OS comes with, and what else you need to acquire in order to make it useful (noone uses a default windows install anyway, people always install additional apps). You acquired a CD with windows on it, why not acquire a CD containing a browser too?
Opera is ahead of IE on features and has been for many years... Virtually any browser in existence is superior to IE...
If you had no browser, and no prior experience of a browser (ie a level playing field) and you could test out IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari in a store and read reviews, which would you choose?
Among people who have used multiple browsers enough to get used to them, IE always comes out dead last, and quite a lot of these people consider Opera their browser of choice.
Yes.. When this all happened the first time round....
ISPs and OEMs used to bundle Netscape...
Netscape was the dominant player in the browser market... Customers wanted to buy systems preinstalled with Netscape.. OEMs wanted to supply Netscape... MS forbade OEMs from supplying Netscape, and also tried to make it impossible to remove IE.
IE was available for MacOS, Solaris and HPUX as well... Solaris used to ship with Netscape by default because MS had no leverage over Sun... MacOS came with both Netscape and IE
Apple may bundle their own browser with their OS, but what they're doing isn't as bad as what MS does for a number of reasons...
Safari is easily removed. Apple used to bundle third party browsers (Netscape and IE) with MacOS, Netscape stopped being updated and Mozilla wasn't ready yet, and IE stopped being developed for MacOS. Had there been viable third party browsers at the time perhaps Apple would have bundled them. Apple do not have enough market share to unduly influence the market, they are a small player who can be ignored if you so desire. If apple stop updating Safari, then Safari users will suffer... If MS stop updating IE (as they have done before) then everyone suffers because people won't make sites which are incompatible with IE, thus stagnating everyone.
Linux on the other hand is completely different...
Linus does not distribute a browser with the Linux kernel.
Ubuntu is merely a distribution of Linux, OEMs already produce distributions of Windows with all kinds of extra stuff bundled in, third party bundles are not the problem here.
As you pointed out, Ubuntu ships with a third party browser (firefox), there is another version of ubuntu (kubuntu) which ships with a different browser, and multiple browsers are available to choose from the standard ubuntu repositories.
And as with Apple, Ubuntu don't have enough market share to force the market to bend to their will.
This is what the original antitrust investigation in the US is about... OEMs used to bundle Netscape, and wanted to continue doing so because that's what their customers wanted. Microsoft forced them to include IE (meaning at best they would have to bloat the install with 2 browsers) and in some cases forced the OEMs to not install Netscape.
Actually, a lower market share of IE in it's current form is bad for web developers... Since they now need to produce 2 versions of every page, a standards compliant one and an IE specific one, unless they want to stick to really simple stuff.
1) Apple don't have sufficient market share to wield much influence over the market. If you don't like Apple, it is entirely possible to completely ignore them and not suffer any ill effects... Many people are not even aware that Apple exists.
2) Safari is easily and completely removed from OSX
Completely ignoring MS doesn't work, because sooner or later you will encounter a nonstandard website that demands IE, or a file stored in a proprietary format.
The end user won't install anything, the OEM who supplied the computer will make a choice and install what they choose. Before IE was grafted in to windows, OEMs used to bundle netscape with new computers, ISPs used to bundle netscape with their setup discs, . If you remove IE from the default install, then third parties will be able to bundle different browsers again....
If the browser market is diverse, then everyone benefits... When IE controlled over 95% of the market MS stopped development of it and let it stagnate completely... And with such a vast majority of users running exactly the same code, a 0day exploit was extremely deadly, especially when coupled with the slow pace at which microsoft fixed the holes...
If you have several competing browsers with roughly equal market share, then all browsers will be forced to improve their products, vulnerabilities will only ever hit a smaller percentage of users at once, and browser-specific sites will cease to exist meaning users have a hassle free alternative browser available to them if necessary, for instance a 0day exploit.
And yes, to answer your question, Linux should be held to the same standards... Linux does not come with a browser, or pretty much any other user facing applications for that matter... Linus distributes a kernel and third parties take this kernel, and creates a bundle including the kernel and a set of applications. If linus included a web browser with the kernel, especially one which was difficult to remove then i'm sure many people would be complaining about that too.
Your new computer will come with a browser installed by whoever sold you the hardware... Remember before IE came bundled with windows, and new machines often came with Netscape preinstalled?
Making MS unbundle IE is not going to do any good, you will end up with another -N version which costs the same as the regular version and doesn't even get advertised, meaning noone will buy it.
A few years ago, when the trial in the US happened, there was talk of splitting MS into 2 companies... This is a much better idea.. Have an OS company that distributes a basic OS, and then other companies step up to produce bundles consisting of OS, Applications, Hardware etc... Like OEMs currently do when they bundle all kinds of extra stuff, only give them more freedom.
This is how Linux is distributed too, Linus maintains a kernel, and then third parties distribute it together with a set of applications... And hardware is also distributed much the same, companies like Dell choose parts from hundreds of possible suppliers, before assembling them together into a final product to be sold to an end user.
The windows counterpart to samba also runs as SYSTEM... Not sure if samba needs root for anything other than binding to the ports it uses and accessing files as specific users... I wonder how hard it would be to make it run as a normal user, losing filesystem permissions in the process ofcourse.
Yes, perpetually behind, not fully compatible etc... And what are the chances of MS continuing to assist the mono project once they have achieved their goals of eliminating the competition?
You can do that in Flash and Java too, and far more people will be able to use it.... You will find that there are even pre written ones widely available already.
Silicon costs money to produce, you can't give it away for free without some other source of revenue to carry it, or you will eventually run out of money to buy the source materials. Software can be given away for free.
People had computers at home long before MS... Commodore were big, Atari, Sinclair, and countless others... Commodore's Amiga line was actually massively superior to the offerings from IBM and Apple in those days, and a big part of that was the software.
The existing 2 parties control the media, without which a third party has no hope of being noticed... There is really only 1 party, they just make it look like you have 2 because making the people think they have some say is a very effective way to keep them in check. People think they have a way out, when in reality they don't, but the fake way out is a lot easier than banding together to overthrow the government.
So basically a monopolistic cartel... Neither party needs to bother, because worst case the other party will get to sit in power for a couple of terms before it flips back.
You make people *think* they have some power and they are far less likely to rise up than in a situation where they realise that they have none.
Flash has an open spec available: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/, silverlight does not. Flash is available for linux, silverlight is not Flash is available for PPC macs, silverlight is not Flash is already installed on most systems, silverlight is not (i have an intel mac and never even thought about installing it) Flash is a tried and tested, mature technology with years of usage and any large websites using it, silverlight is not and does not. Flash is available for some embedded devices such as nokia internet tablets and the nintendo wii, silverlight is not
So Flash is clearly a better option than silverlight on so many levels, even if it isn't an ideal option. If you have to make tradeoffs, why make unnecessary ones?
For how long? MS have a history of porting technology to mac (and other platforms) just long enough for that technology to dominate it's field, and then pull it away to try and force mac users onto windows...
IE used to run on mac, solaris and hpux... it doesn't anymore, and they stopped making it around the time it's market share peaked, leaving some people out in the cold being unable to access ie-only websites.
I doubt silverlight will be any different, if it achieves sufficient market share then all support for non windows platforms will be cut.
Joe public is more likely to be watching the TV... Technically oriented people are more likely to be using the Internet to stream, and the use of Linux (and linux devices like nokia tablets etc) is much higher among technically literate people.
Slashdot Mirror
And the fact that FTP paths use a forward slash while windows paths use a backwards slash...
This comes from windows doing basic things like that in a completely inconsistent way to everyone else.
If you are building your own system then you are expected to be technically competent...
So you should know what the OS comes with, and what else you need to acquire in order to make it useful (noone uses a default windows install anyway, people always install additional apps).
You acquired a CD with windows on it, why not acquire a CD containing a browser too?
Opera is ahead of IE on features and has been for many years...
Virtually any browser in existence is superior to IE...
If you had no browser, and no prior experience of a browser (ie a level playing field) and you could test out IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari in a store and read reviews, which would you choose?
Among people who have used multiple browsers enough to get used to them, IE always comes out dead last, and quite a lot of these people consider Opera their browser of choice.
If free options like OpenOffice start taking significant levels of marketshare then you can pretty much guarantee they would do that...
Yes..
When this all happened the first time round....
ISPs and OEMs used to bundle Netscape...
Netscape was the dominant player in the browser market...
Customers wanted to buy systems preinstalled with Netscape..
OEMs wanted to supply Netscape...
MS forbade OEMs from supplying Netscape, and also tried to make it impossible to remove IE.
IE was available for MacOS, Solaris and HPUX as well... Solaris used to ship with Netscape by default because MS had no leverage over Sun... MacOS came with both Netscape and IE
Apple may bundle their own browser with their OS, but what they're doing isn't as bad as what MS does for a number of reasons...
Safari is easily removed.
Apple used to bundle third party browsers (Netscape and IE) with MacOS, Netscape stopped being updated and Mozilla wasn't ready yet, and IE stopped being developed for MacOS. Had there been viable third party browsers at the time perhaps Apple would have bundled them.
Apple do not have enough market share to unduly influence the market, they are a small player who can be ignored if you so desire. If apple stop updating Safari, then Safari users will suffer... If MS stop updating IE (as they have done before) then everyone suffers because people won't make sites which are incompatible with IE, thus stagnating everyone.
Linux on the other hand is completely different...
Linus does not distribute a browser with the Linux kernel.
Ubuntu is merely a distribution of Linux, OEMs already produce distributions of Windows with all kinds of extra stuff bundled in, third party bundles are not the problem here.
As you pointed out, Ubuntu ships with a third party browser (firefox), there is another version of ubuntu (kubuntu) which ships with a different browser, and multiple browsers are available to choose from the standard ubuntu repositories.
And as with Apple, Ubuntu don't have enough market share to force the market to bend to their will.
This is what the original antitrust investigation in the US is about...
OEMs used to bundle Netscape, and wanted to continue doing so because that's what their customers wanted.
Microsoft forced them to include IE (meaning at best they would have to bloat the install with 2 browsers) and in some cases forced the OEMs to not install Netscape.
Actually, a lower market share of IE in it's current form is bad for web developers...
Since they now need to produce 2 versions of every page, a standards compliant one and an IE specific one, unless they want to stick to really simple stuff.
1) Apple don't have sufficient market share to wield much influence over the market. If you don't like Apple, it is entirely possible to completely ignore them and not suffer any ill effects... Many people are not even aware that Apple exists.
2) Safari is easily and completely removed from OSX
Completely ignoring MS doesn't work, because sooner or later you will encounter a nonstandard website that demands IE, or a file stored in a proprietary format.
The end user won't install anything, the OEM who supplied the computer will make a choice and install what they choose.
Before IE was grafted in to windows, OEMs used to bundle netscape with new computers, ISPs used to bundle netscape with their setup discs, . If you remove IE from the default install, then third parties will be able to bundle different browsers again....
If the browser market is diverse, then everyone benefits...
When IE controlled over 95% of the market MS stopped development of it and let it stagnate completely... And with such a vast majority of users running exactly the same code, a 0day exploit was extremely deadly, especially when coupled with the slow pace at which microsoft fixed the holes...
If you have several competing browsers with roughly equal market share, then all browsers will be forced to improve their products, vulnerabilities will only ever hit a smaller percentage of users at once, and browser-specific sites will cease to exist meaning users have a hassle free alternative browser available to them if necessary, for instance a 0day exploit.
And yes, to answer your question, Linux should be held to the same standards...
Linux does not come with a browser, or pretty much any other user facing applications for that matter... Linus distributes a kernel and third parties take this kernel, and creates a bundle including the kernel and a set of applications. If linus included a web browser with the kernel, especially one which was difficult to remove then i'm sure many people would be complaining about that too.
I also care about the ability to cleanly remove the bundled browser if i don't want to use it.
Your new computer will come with a browser installed by whoever sold you the hardware...
Remember before IE came bundled with windows, and new machines often came with Netscape preinstalled?
Making MS unbundle IE is not going to do any good, you will end up with another -N version which costs the same as the regular version and doesn't even get advertised, meaning noone will buy it.
A few years ago, when the trial in the US happened, there was talk of splitting MS into 2 companies... This is a much better idea.. Have an OS company that distributes a basic OS, and then other companies step up to produce bundles consisting of OS, Applications, Hardware etc... Like OEMs currently do when they bundle all kinds of extra stuff, only give them more freedom.
This is how Linux is distributed too, Linus maintains a kernel, and then third parties distribute it together with a set of applications...
And hardware is also distributed much the same, companies like Dell choose parts from hundreds of possible suppliers, before assembling them together into a final product to be sold to an end user.
The windows counterpart to samba also runs as SYSTEM...
Not sure if samba needs root for anything other than binding to the ports it uses and accessing files as specific users... I wonder how hard it would be to make it run as a normal user, losing filesystem permissions in the process ofcourse.
Samba comes with SWAT, which is a web based admin tool... Not sure how good it is.
Yes, perpetually behind, not fully compatible etc...
And what are the chances of MS continuing to assist the mono project once they have achieved their goals of eliminating the competition?
You can do that in Flash and Java too, and far more people will be able to use it.... You will find that there are even pre written ones widely available already.
Silicon costs money to produce, you can't give it away for free without some other source of revenue to carry it, or you will eventually run out of money to buy the source materials.
Software can be given away for free.
People had computers at home long before MS...
Commodore were big, Atari, Sinclair, and countless others... Commodore's Amiga line was actually massively superior to the offerings from IBM and Apple in those days, and a big part of that was the software.
The existing 2 parties control the media, without which a third party has no hope of being noticed...
There is really only 1 party, they just make it look like you have 2 because making the people think they have some say is a very effective way to keep them in check. People think they have a way out, when in reality they don't, but the fake way out is a lot easier than banding together to overthrow the government.
So basically a monopolistic cartel...
Neither party needs to bother, because worst case the other party will get to sit in power for a couple of terms before it flips back.
You make people *think* they have some power and they are far less likely to rise up than in a situation where they realise that they have none.
Flash has an open spec available: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/, silverlight does not.
Flash is available for linux, silverlight is not
Flash is available for PPC macs, silverlight is not
Flash is already installed on most systems, silverlight is not (i have an intel mac and never even thought about installing it)
Flash is a tried and tested, mature technology with years of usage and any large websites using it, silverlight is not and does not.
Flash is available for some embedded devices such as nokia internet tablets and the nintendo wii, silverlight is not
So Flash is clearly a better option than silverlight on so many levels, even if it isn't an ideal option. If you have to make tradeoffs, why make unnecessary ones?
You can also use one of the many tools for ripping videos from youtube, and then play then with mplayer, which does run on ppc.
For how long?
MS have a history of porting technology to mac (and other platforms) just long enough for that technology to dominate it's field, and then pull it away to try and force mac users onto windows...
IE used to run on mac, solaris and hpux... it doesn't anymore, and they stopped making it around the time it's market share peaked, leaving some people out in the cold being unable to access ie-only websites.
I doubt silverlight will be any different, if it achieves sufficient market share then all support for non windows platforms will be cut.
Joe public is more likely to be watching the TV...
Technically oriented people are more likely to be using the Internet to stream, and the use of Linux (and linux devices like nokia tablets etc) is much higher among technically literate people.