... all you Linux users thinking of running Safari with wine...
[cricket sounds]
Was anyone really thinking of running something like their Web browser in WINE? I mean, I'll use it to run the odd bit of Windows software, but only if there aren't any other options. I guess I can see it for smoke testing browser compatibility, but since WINE is a big question mark in the middle there, it makes more sense in my mind to go another route, like VMs or a dedicated, remote machine.
The problem with both Chrome and Safari is a lack of an add-on community.
Well, they certainly don't have the market share of Firefox, but they do have useful and usable plug-ins on Safari. Also, this beta revamps the plug-in architecture of Safari to some degree, while still conforming to the Netscape plug-in standard.
It looks to me like all they've done is rework Safari to make it emulate Chrome.
They pulled in a much, much newer version of Webkit including the new javascript engine Chrome does not use. They added a huge amount of support for HTML 5, CSS 3, XML, SVG 1.1 and a lot of other cool, new technologies that have been languishing. They added resolution independent zoom, anti-phishing, and revamped their plug-in architecture. Those speed and functional improvements are the major items in my mind. They changed up the UI and the tabs are more similar to Chrome, as is the default start page, but neither is quite the same and while more visible at first blush, are pretty minor.
So, you could use Safari and get the features of Chrome at a larger memory footprint or you could just run Chrome.
Or, if you're running OS X you can't run Chrome because they haven't even released a version yet.
. Chrome isn't as full featured as Safari, but covers 95% of what people need for normal web browser.
If you're on Windows I'd argue Safari isn't your best choice as a browser... but then that is not Safari's main market. On OS X it crushes most of the competition including Firefox. It is fast and has features that have not been cloned yet. You seem to take issue with browsers cloning the innovations of others, I wish other browser makers would do it. Every time I find myself on a Windows box using any other browser I wish I could expand text boxes (like the one I'm typing in now) to be able to see my whole comment. It's been years now.
Until they fix the title-bar abuse, I'm sticking with Safari 3.
I prefer the new title bar. It saves me a little bit of vertical space without losing any utility. I call that a win. I suppose they could add a preference for the "old way" for curmudgeons that don't like change.
How many of these new users actually even know they are new users ? I bet the majority of them are idiots who just click on the apple update for their itunes/ipod and done even realise Apple are basicaslly pushing crap onto their PCs that they done even know or want.
Zero. This is a beta release and is not distributed via software update yet. You have to go to Apple's Web site and download it.
Who gives a fuck? Japan hates the iPhone, Japan doesn't hate the iPhone;
I don't think that is the story here. I think the story is that the longer Fox owns the Wall Street Journal, the last we can trust their articles to not be utter fabrications or intentionally misleading. The real question to ask is what caused this particular bias.
The only reason that makes sense is too facilitate their normal internet based market model, namely insuring their browser is superior so that they can design sites and net apps to work with it. Sooo essentially they just wanna take IE's place? Otherwise they would just fight for standards...
Please pay attention. The one and only item Opera specifically asked the EU to address was standards compliance. Your comment is 100% wrong and you should find better sources for your facts.
Ok, the problem is, the ability to embed trident in applications is a service provided by windows.
Agreed. The solution is to make the service of providing an embedded HTML service to applications needs to be divorced from Trident and abstracted.
If trident has to be on the system...
It doesn't and shouldn't be.
...is there any reason to not have IE present as well, particularly when it makes life easier for users.
Yes. It removes the possibility of fair competition, stifling innovation and holding Web technologies back. It hurts all users in the long run because they are forced to use inferior technologies because developers are unable to implement better ones given the broken market.
Yeah, for the last what, three months? How long has the case been going on?
MS was informed the case was going to be prosecuted against them two months ago.
Would you even consider installing an OS that doesn't even have a browser?
Sure, I'd just install a browser after the OS.
Nevermind the fact that home Windows installs depend heavily on being able to download drivers for everything.
Drivers usually ship on the hardware, pre-installed and on disk, just as a browser likely would ship pre-installed by the hardware maker.
The computing landscape has changed significantly since the case started.
Two months ago? Maybe you're confusing this with the US case where the DoJ convicted them years ago, or maybe the EU's previous case for other antitrust abuses?
Now the main issue is preinstalled Windows without offering preinstalled free alternatives, or even offering computers with no OS at all.
Coming up with a remedy that addresses all the issues will be difficult.
let me see they offer the same things in their OS as Apple and any Linux distro
Yeah, and Vaughn Greenwood just cut meat like many butchers do. That is if you fundamentally misunderstand that he was arrested for murder instead of cutting meat, as you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding that MS is being convicted of undermining markets instead of bundling two pieces of software.
A free market is a place where a company can choose if they want to sell a 15 case of beer for the same price as a 12 pack.
True. It's also one where the electrical distribution monopoly in your area can't raise your bill then ship you some "free" beer every month.
So since MS has given us more for our money they are now being doing something wrong.
"Free" is just marketing. When you buy Windows or a computer that comes with Windows you're paying the salaries of the developers that program IE. Bundled cost is not free.
The anti trust suit actually came about for all you who don't know , because of the way MS used to sell their licenses.
Get your facts straight. There is no lawsuit. This is a criminal prosecution. It is about illegal tying one of the classic forms of antitrust abuse. The pressure they put on OEMs was only an addition on top of the crime.
This browser issue was always a EU thing, they needed to feel different and superior to the US as Europeans always do.
Pathetic. The EU enforces their antitrust laws against EU companies all the time. This is about enforcing the same laws as the US has and most other countries have. The difference is MS has not been able to "lobby" the EU commissioners the way they did US politicians.
. So they tried to insist that bundling IE was giving them a monopoly...
Except that isn't what they're saying at all. They're saying MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and is using that to gain an unfair advantage in the Web browser market. It's perfectly legal to gain a monopoly, just not to abuse it to gain market share in a separate, preexisting market.
I actually think there are more browsers available.
You're fundamentally misunderstood both antitrust law and this case. MS's monopolized market is "desktop OS's". The abused market is Web browsers. They aren't accused of having a monopoly on Web browsers.
There is zero reason to prevent Microsoft from including a browser with their operating system. A survey of any number of other operating systems will show they all include browsers, some of them even developed in-house.
There is zero reason to prevent Bob from discharging a firearm. A survey of any number of other people will show they all discharge firearms, some of them even the same caliber.
Does that sound like a good argument in your mind to not prevent Bob (who was just convicted of armed robbery) from owning and using firearms in future? You're completely ignoring that MS has just been convicted of a crime and this is a punishment for that crime. The fact that MS's antitrust abuse happened to be by bundling a Web browser and OS does not imply that action is illegal in the general case, just as firing a firearm is not illegal in the general case, but certainly can be illegal if done while demanding money from a sales clerk.
Nor is there sufficient cause to force Microsoft to include other browsers...
There is plenty of cause. MS broke the law and the market needs to be repaired and MS needs to be punished so they don't do it again. Whether or not including other browsers is a good way to do that, is a matter of debate, but since no one but MS has mentioned any such thing, it's a bit early to be critiquing it, don't you think?
As long as there's nothing stopping OEMs from adding a browser to their systems, and nothing stopping individuals from using a browser of their choice, I really don't see a problem.
That's because you don't understand what antitrust abuse is and why it is illegal in the first place. It's not about forcing people to take an action, but about undermining free markets so the best financial decisions people make are no longer fostering innovation and efficiency and the other benefits we gain from having a free, capitalist market. It's not even about individuals directly as the main victims are browser developers and computer OEMs.
Are you going to force other software developers to not use IE? Seems unfair to me.
It isn't about forcing developers or OEMs or individuals to do anything. It is about restoring competition so that there are no artificial reasons for them to choose IE over competitors, rooted in MS's OS dominance.
I'll ask you a few questions. Do you think antitrust law, in general, is important and makes sense? Do you think a monopolist in one market should be able to gain share in a different market despite having a more expensive or more poorly made product than competitors in the second market? Do you have some reason why the OS and Web browser markets are qualitatively different from other markets regulated by antitrust law? If you were writing the laws, how would you change antitrust law such that MS's actions (which you don't seem to object to) were legal, but antitrust law still worked to stop abuses like we had with AT&T years ago?
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Asking people to know the basics of what the hell they're talking about isn't an appeal to authority. The previous person asked a question clearly demonstrating they don't even know the definition of "antitrust" while discussing enforcement of an antitrust law.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
Every time I see your posts I know what I'm in for too, ad hominem attacks, and arguments from someone who made up their mind long before they had any clue what they were talking about and who refuses to find out because it might make them change their mind which would threaten their fragile ego.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS?
Sure it is. But it's also a valid technical decision to remove the catalytic converter when designing a car and ignore emissions entirely. What does that have to do with if it causes harm to society or is illegal?
Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Maybe in the short term, maybe not. Certainly not in the long term, especially if it is as part of illegal antitrust abuse.
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
It's just sad. You insist the only consideration is technical and refuse to even consider why these laws exist or what they say... and you think you can make a valid argument from such a perspective.
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
Here's a lisiting of hundreds of them. If you want a software case, look at Telfonica last year. It was a major one tying software and services.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Monopolies make it possible to easily undermine the free market. That's why it is illegal for trusts to take actions that will undermine the operation of the free market. Anarchy is not a free market as simpletons who have never picked up an economics text would assert.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it?:)
How is OEMs installing a variety of text editors and users realizing they have choices worse for competition than everyone being given one inferior one and people who can't stand it looking for more options? If you made a text editor would you seriously like to have no chance of licensing it to OEMs because MS already includes one and forces OEMs to pay their dev fees?
OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they?
Sure, but MS has undermined the market in such a way that it is no longer in their best financial interest to include the best browser because all browsers other than IE are artificially broken. Antitrust abuse isn't about holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to take an action. We already have other laws against that. It is about abusing a monopoly to make the best choice one that is detrimental to society and end users and no longer fosters innovation and efficiency.
"No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows."
Nice strawman,
Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux.
Maybe you're not understanding monopoly influence.
Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well?
Linux is not usable by the average person partly because companies are not motivated to make it so because the market is undermined and innovation is slowed and partly because it is artificially broken by MS's dominance and illegal actions... but all that is beside the point. This is about the browser market being broken by an illegal action, not the OS market.
. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit
Please educate yourself or RTFA. There is no lawsuit here. This is a criminal court case, not a civil suit.
All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers.:)
Could be, but maybe you might want to wait until a remedy is actually proposed before critiquing it. What's the point in your complaining about guesses as to what you think the EU might propose?
End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market... by what?
Enforcing the law we've been enforcing for a hundred years.
By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave?
Please give up the strawman arguments already.
By forcing Microsoft to compete on even ground with every other browser developer so the best product can gain share in a free market. I really don't see why you are so opposed to MS having to compete with others fairly. If their browser is the best it will win. If it isn't it will lose. How can you object to that?
This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
Yeah, I'm sure enforcing the same laws they enforce against everyone else must seem like a political game if you live in a country where MS gives huge amounts of money to politicians and those same politicians make sure laws aren't enforced against MS.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous.
Speak for yourself. Some of us actually understand antitrust law and the damage MS's illegal actions have done to all of us and would like to see the advantages of a free market apply again. Why do you hate the free market? Are you a commie or something:)
Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered;)
Sounds good to me, maybe MS will finally be motivated to fix Notepad to properly handle all unicode and line endings.
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE...
Okay, so OEMs preinstall other browsers and users use Firefox or Safari by default sometimes. I don't see the problem. Maybe developers will then target standards more and we won't have to worry about broken "IE only " pages as much and developers may even use some f the cool new HTML5 features and just tell users to get any browser but IE until IE catches up. Again, sounds like a good thing to me.
or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey?
All of them that want to be included, of course. Mind you this is just speculation as the only one to mention such a potential remedy so far has been MS themselves, not Google or Opera or the EU.
And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about...
What about them? Why should MS get a free pass to have crappy applications installed. End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market. Let MS sell their crappy calculator and text editor and word processor on their merits the same way every other developer does.
It's stupid. I use Firefox and really don't like IE at all, and I still think its stupid...
That's fine. Think it is stupid if you want. I, on the other hand applaud restoring free market competition because I understand and believe in the benefits of competition and the innovation that results. Of course I passed Econ 101, which seems to be pretty abnormal here.
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers? Will they force Google to allow other browsers to be shipped with android? Ok, these are not desktop platforms, but the same should apply.
The same laws do apply, you just don't seem to have a clue what they are. You first clue should be the word "antitrust". Find out what a "trust" is and you'll be most of the way to understanding why MS's action violates an antitrust law while Neither Apple nor Google's bundling of a browser does.
I suspect that will be MS's essential defense of bundling a default brower (IE) with Windows. People EXPECT any modern OS to come with a default browser.
I don't think their lawyers are that incompetent. People expect a modern computer to come with an OS and browser and CPU and monitor. Which of those components is supplied by MS, however, is a very different matter.
MS can try to argue, again, that, they are unable to separate their browser and OS because of technical problems, but no one is likely to buy it. Frankly, they're going to lose any antitrust case because they are so clearly breaking the law, just as they have lost so many similar cases in the past, except when they managed to "lobby" their way into getting the courts to do nothing about their crimes.
These days it would be suicide for anyone to release an OS without built-in web capability right out of the box.
Why is that? Do you think it would be too hard for them to allow a plug-in Web engine and have OEMs install either trident and IE or Firefox and Gecko or Chrome and Webkit? Why do you think that is impossible and why do you think end purchasers of computers from Dell or Sony (who ship them preinstalled) would ever notice?
The lawsuit concerns the question of whether or not a web browser is structurally distinct from the OS or not: is it an integral component, or an instance of bundling of two essentially unrelated things.
Do you really think countries around the world passed laws specifically regarding structural components of software? These are economic laws and are concerned with markets, not software architecture. They apply to the market for telephone service, bananas, and OS's without getting into the details of if voicemail and telephone service are distinct services, because it is clear if they are distinct markets.
As we've seen with Windows and IE.... the distinction between browser and and OS matters quite a bit. That is if you don't want to get accused of being and evil monopoly.
I take it you don't know what a monopoly is? MS is a monopoly. Their tying/bundling of their browser with their monopolized desktop OS is antitrust abuse. What exactly do you think Google has monopoly influence on that would prevent them from merging an OS and browser?
Second reason is that Apple is a straight competitor. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer ain't enemies, they believe the same thing: Software should be paid for and the end user does NOT get to own the piece of software let alone use it in any way that they want to.
Linux on the other hand says "Here is all this great software, use it, don't pay for it and do with it what you want how you want to for as long as you want to." EEK!
Do you know many Linux developers? Do you know where the average person is likely to get Linux? Linux ships pre-installed by for profit companies, just like OS X and Apple. Most Linux developers are not freaky hippy socialists, but are paid by commercial companies and enjoy spending those paychecks. Apple develops FOSS software and contributes their changes, just like most other companies that work in it. They don't just make FOSS but few major contributors do. Most profit from closed source software, hardware, and/or services and they use FOSS to save money and have more flexibility for the commodity parts. For Apple, the money maker is the polished interface and usability experience. For IBM it is services to get that stuff up and running. For Juniper it is specialty hardware and software in combination. It's all the same business model from MS's perspective though.
Or to keep it simple, an Apple buyer might be persuaded to buy MS office for the Mac. A linux user is a far thougher sell and might even use something like OpenOffice or even worse Abiword...
That's not what scares MS. They've built their entire business on leveraging their monopoly market share. Apple has avoided competing in the desktop OS market, bypassing it entirely. Sure they weaken MS's power, but only a small amount and only increasing gradually. Linux, on the other hand, is a direct competitor and can't be killed by MS's usual tactics because of the licensing. OS X install base may grow a few percent a year. Linux could explode into huge share in only a few years especially as it is cheaper than Windows can be and flexible enough to be a good fit in emerging markets like netbooks, where Windows is very weak.
If MS is ever considering having to market MSWord to Linux users, they have already lost the war and will have to retool all of their business plans in dozens of markets at the cost of huge amounts of their profit.
I disagree and think the post you replied to was more right. Apple sees itself as a premium brand experience that would be destroyed if they ever went double digit penetration. How special would a Mercedes owner feel if the rabble started driving them. Even if they were cheaper models, just seeing the logo on non rich people's cars would drive their current customers to brands that still carried the cache of luxury goods.
That's a fine opinion, but I don't see any real support for it. You're basing your premise entirely on the idea that Apple's customers continue using it because they think it is exclusive. I've personally never seen that behavior demonstrated. I know one person who used a Ma as their regular computer who stopped using it and went back to Windows. They did a lot of development for a desktop Linux distro as their hobby and found it too cumbersome to use a different OS than the one they were doing so much development for. Everyone else I personally know has stuck with the Mac because they like using OS X better than the alternatives (Windows and Linux and in a few rare cases BSDs).
At least half the appeal of owning a Mac is being SEEN owning a Mac.
So you have asserted, but do you know any people who stopped using Macs after they saw it becoming less exclusive? Do you have any actual evidence they would switch and what do you think they would switch to? There are certainly computers that are more exclusive, like toughbooks, but despite the serious hardware advantages, I've never heard of anyone to switching to a toughbook from a Mac because of the exclusivity instead of because they absolutely needed the hardening.
...much like a Mercedes IS indeed a quality machine but that quality is only a small part of the reason a stockbroker or drug dealer wants one.
For the average person, however, the advantages of having a Mercedes that they actually use can be had from a number of other vendors. (I might mention Mercedes actually is not doing so well for reliability these days) The advantages of using a Mac for the average person, however, are hard to find from any other vendor. A Mercedes driver can buy a Lexus and have as or more reliable of a car if the Mercedes is not "exclusive" enough for them. What will people who currently use Macs buy to get the same level of polished usability?
The iPod was a dangerous but so far successful gambit.
The iPod was a parry that turned into a riposte. The idea was to stop MS from shutting Macs out of the digital music scene and it succeeded better than Apple anticipated and really ran off into an unexpected success. It was successful, but not a real risk to their brand because they were focused on making a premium player. It was more expensive but "better" as a business model.
And that's why Linux shares[sic] the crap out of Microsoft.
Linux is a direct competitor that is guaranteed to undercut MS's prices because of the licensing. The branding is not the issue, the business model is. MS has been hurting hardware vendors for years and there is a real market for an alternative and it is slipping in through a few cracks already. Apple has weakened MS's ability to leverage their monopoly and they screwed up in failing to anticipate the Netbook and not being flexible enough to shift to it quickly. MS fears losing overwhelming dominance because as soon as that happens, they have to compete on quality and that's something they have not been good at for a long time and which would require reworking all their business models.
Apple has never been a real threat to MS...And so long as they refuse to license their OS, they never will be.
I think you have your cart and horse bit backwards at this point. Any competent businessman or economist will tell you Apple will fail miserably just like OS/2 and BeOS is they try to license their OS and compete directly at this point. They already tried that and bled money until they bought out those they had licensed to and went back to bypassing the desktop OS market. Until the courts begin to effectively and responsively stop antitrust abuse, Apple is stuck bypassing the market. Unless MS's share drops below about 70%, licensing OS X is simply not a viable business model.
Apple's current strategy is to stay in the game and make good money targeting niches and slowly growing, which they have been doing. They're also going after emerging, complementary markets, as with the iPhone. It is the slow, but responsible route. When you run a multibillion dollar company, betting that company's major revenue stream on directly competing with an abusive monopoly is a great way to be fired.
For OS X and Windows the components are only there if you are ignoring other software installation methods and locations, such as installation from a Web page, arguably the most common use case.
And that is a flaw in the Windows software ecosystem.
It's worth mentioning that the same works elsewhere -- I can download an installer binary from a website and run it. The problem is, on Windows and OS X, there really isn't a good alternative.
Having multiple methods of installation is problematic from both a security and usability perspective. Also, the usability of repositories right now can be pretty poor for methods where it is easy on Windows and OS X. Here's a really common use case:
I need software to do something. I research on the Web until I find a package I want to try. I go to my package manager, re-enter the name and try to find it in the repository, and install it from there.
It's a lot easier to simply, click a link on the Web page I already have open, but very rarely does that properly add the software in my package manager under Ubuntu. It is possible to make a Web link to do this but only if you're only targeting one package manager in one Linux distro and if you go out of you way to deal with the complexity. The right way to do it (IMHO), is simply have packages contain a standard link to their repository and let the package manager be the default program for that file type. It can be done, but generally isn't today for Linux.
They easily allow third party repositories that are appropriate for free software, but not so much for commercial payware.
Canonical does this [ubuntu.com].
Yeah, it is possible to have payware in a repository, it just sucks badly for software developers, sellers so very few of them do it. Package managers that are popular were designed to work with freeware and none I've seen contains any service for checking registration info or selling the software and no one package will work on all distros so every commercial developer just rolls their own installer. This is a serious failing of package managers for use in the mainstream. Users have to learn two methods of software installation and don't know when each will happen, leaving room for social engineering malware.
So do open source repositories. They generally use PGP, as it's easier to manage without having to pay absurd signing keys.
You're mistaking authenticating servers and authenticating software packages. These are different problems. Much software ships on CD or DVD or is downloaded. One mechanism for authenticating the packages is a lot simpler than trying to authenticate all the sources via different means. It also complicates mirroring. I don't care where a package comes from so long as it is the valid package. Signing solves this problem and there is no need for keys to cost money.
I's argue that most package managers these days don't have very good usability for the average user.
Perhaps, but they are the best we've got.
And that is why I suggested writing a frontend. I see no reason something like dpkg/apt can't be used, given a sufficiently usable (and pretty) frontend.
Right, which is not good enough for mainstream use (IMHO) and it takes more than a frontend. The package managers in use today don't handle the currently used package formats for Windows and OS X and reverting to Linux style packages loses significant functionality on OS X.
Traditional package managers tend to distribute packages as single files, containing both package metadata and an archive. That archive contains many files, in many directories -- also known as folders -- and Apple has certainly shown that it can embed metadata in formats like Zip. In fact, I know I've seen OS X.app files distributed as zipfiles.
So, in what way would a pa
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah it's really fucking hard to gain share when the browser comes bundled with your OS...
...except the beta we're talking about doesn't come bundled with the OS.
I used Safari 4 beta for a while since it was faster than Firefox, but then it crashed and forgot all my open tabs.
On what OS? It has been rock stable for me so far on OS X. I haven't tried it on Windows (and probably won't) but I'm curious about the stability.
... all you Linux users thinking of running Safari with wine...
[cricket sounds]
Was anyone really thinking of running something like their Web browser in WINE? I mean, I'll use it to run the odd bit of Windows software, but only if there aren't any other options. I guess I can see it for smoke testing browser compatibility, but since WINE is a big question mark in the middle there, it makes more sense in my mind to go another route, like VMs or a dedicated, remote machine.
The problem with both Chrome and Safari is a lack of an add-on community.
Well, they certainly don't have the market share of Firefox, but they do have useful and usable plug-ins on Safari. Also, this beta revamps the plug-in architecture of Safari to some degree, while still conforming to the Netscape plug-in standard.
It looks to me like all they've done is rework Safari to make it emulate Chrome.
They pulled in a much, much newer version of Webkit including the new javascript engine Chrome does not use. They added a huge amount of support for HTML 5, CSS 3, XML, SVG 1.1 and a lot of other cool, new technologies that have been languishing. They added resolution independent zoom, anti-phishing, and revamped their plug-in architecture. Those speed and functional improvements are the major items in my mind. They changed up the UI and the tabs are more similar to Chrome, as is the default start page, but neither is quite the same and while more visible at first blush, are pretty minor.
So, you could use Safari and get the features of Chrome at a larger memory footprint or you could just run Chrome.
Or, if you're running OS X you can't run Chrome because they haven't even released a version yet.
. Chrome isn't as full featured as Safari, but covers 95% of what people need for normal web browser.
If you're on Windows I'd argue Safari isn't your best choice as a browser... but then that is not Safari's main market. On OS X it crushes most of the competition including Firefox. It is fast and has features that have not been cloned yet. You seem to take issue with browsers cloning the innovations of others, I wish other browser makers would do it. Every time I find myself on a Windows box using any other browser I wish I could expand text boxes (like the one I'm typing in now) to be able to see my whole comment. It's been years now.
Until they fix the title-bar abuse, I'm sticking with Safari 3.
I prefer the new title bar. It saves me a little bit of vertical space without losing any utility. I call that a win. I suppose they could add a preference for the "old way" for curmudgeons that don't like change.
How many of these new users actually even know they are new users ? I bet the majority of them are idiots who just click on the apple update for their itunes/ipod and done even realise Apple are basicaslly pushing crap onto their PCs that they done even know or want.
Zero. This is a beta release and is not distributed via software update yet. You have to go to Apple's Web site and download it.
Who gives a fuck? Japan hates the iPhone, Japan doesn't hate the iPhone;
I don't think that is the story here. I think the story is that the longer Fox owns the Wall Street Journal, the last we can trust their articles to not be utter fabrications or intentionally misleading. The real question to ask is what caused this particular bias.
The only reason that makes sense is too facilitate their normal internet based market model, namely insuring their browser is superior so that they can design sites and net apps to work with it. Sooo essentially they just wanna take IE's place? Otherwise they would just fight for standards...
Please pay attention. The one and only item Opera specifically asked the EU to address was standards compliance. Your comment is 100% wrong and you should find better sources for your facts.
Ok, the problem is, the ability to embed trident in applications is a service provided by windows.
Agreed. The solution is to make the service of providing an embedded HTML service to applications needs to be divorced from Trident and abstracted.
If trident has to be on the system...
It doesn't and shouldn't be.
...is there any reason to not have IE present as well, particularly when it makes life easier for users.
Yes. It removes the possibility of fair competition, stifling innovation and holding Web technologies back. It hurts all users in the long run because they are forced to use inferior technologies because developers are unable to implement better ones given the broken market.
They market their own browser?
Yeah, for the last what, three months? How long has the case been going on?
MS was informed the case was going to be prosecuted against them two months ago.
Would you even consider installing an OS that doesn't even have a browser?
Sure, I'd just install a browser after the OS.
Nevermind the fact that home Windows installs depend heavily on being able to download drivers for everything.
Drivers usually ship on the hardware, pre-installed and on disk, just as a browser likely would ship pre-installed by the hardware maker.
The computing landscape has changed significantly since the case started.
Two months ago? Maybe you're confusing this with the US case where the DoJ convicted them years ago, or maybe the EU's previous case for other antitrust abuses?
Now the main issue is preinstalled Windows without offering preinstalled free alternatives, or even offering computers with no OS at all.
Coming up with a remedy that addresses all the issues will be difficult.
let me see they offer the same things in their OS as Apple and any Linux distro
Yeah, and Vaughn Greenwood just cut meat like many butchers do. That is if you fundamentally misunderstand that he was arrested for murder instead of cutting meat, as you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding that MS is being convicted of undermining markets instead of bundling two pieces of software.
A free market is a place where a company can choose if they want to sell a 15 case of beer for the same price as a 12 pack.
True. It's also one where the electrical distribution monopoly in your area can't raise your bill then ship you some "free" beer every month.
So since MS has given us more for our money they are now being doing something wrong.
"Free" is just marketing. When you buy Windows or a computer that comes with Windows you're paying the salaries of the developers that program IE. Bundled cost is not free.
The anti trust suit actually came about for all you who don't know , because of the way MS used to sell their licenses.
Get your facts straight. There is no lawsuit. This is a criminal prosecution. It is about illegal tying one of the classic forms of antitrust abuse. The pressure they put on OEMs was only an addition on top of the crime.
This browser issue was always a EU thing, they needed to feel different and superior to the US as Europeans always do.
Pathetic. The EU enforces their antitrust laws against EU companies all the time. This is about enforcing the same laws as the US has and most other countries have. The difference is MS has not been able to "lobby" the EU commissioners the way they did US politicians.
. So they tried to insist that bundling IE was giving them a monopoly...
Except that isn't what they're saying at all. They're saying MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and is using that to gain an unfair advantage in the Web browser market. It's perfectly legal to gain a monopoly, just not to abuse it to gain market share in a separate, preexisting market.
I actually think there are more browsers available.
You're fundamentally misunderstood both antitrust law and this case. MS's monopolized market is "desktop OS's". The abused market is Web browsers. They aren't accused of having a monopoly on Web browsers.
There is zero reason to prevent Microsoft from including a browser with their operating system. A survey of any number of other operating systems will show they all include browsers, some of them even developed in-house.
There is zero reason to prevent Bob from discharging a firearm. A survey of any number of other people will show they all discharge firearms, some of them even the same caliber.
Does that sound like a good argument in your mind to not prevent Bob (who was just convicted of armed robbery) from owning and using firearms in future? You're completely ignoring that MS has just been convicted of a crime and this is a punishment for that crime. The fact that MS's antitrust abuse happened to be by bundling a Web browser and OS does not imply that action is illegal in the general case, just as firing a firearm is not illegal in the general case, but certainly can be illegal if done while demanding money from a sales clerk.
Nor is there sufficient cause to force Microsoft to include other browsers...
There is plenty of cause. MS broke the law and the market needs to be repaired and MS needs to be punished so they don't do it again. Whether or not including other browsers is a good way to do that, is a matter of debate, but since no one but MS has mentioned any such thing, it's a bit early to be critiquing it, don't you think?
As long as there's nothing stopping OEMs from adding a browser to their systems, and nothing stopping individuals from using a browser of their choice, I really don't see a problem.
That's because you don't understand what antitrust abuse is and why it is illegal in the first place. It's not about forcing people to take an action, but about undermining free markets so the best financial decisions people make are no longer fostering innovation and efficiency and the other benefits we gain from having a free, capitalist market. It's not even about individuals directly as the main victims are browser developers and computer OEMs.
Are you going to force other software developers to not use IE? Seems unfair to me.
It isn't about forcing developers or OEMs or individuals to do anything. It is about restoring competition so that there are no artificial reasons for them to choose IE over competitors, rooted in MS's OS dominance.
I'll ask you a few questions. Do you think antitrust law, in general, is important and makes sense? Do you think a monopolist in one market should be able to gain share in a different market despite having a more expensive or more poorly made product than competitors in the second market? Do you have some reason why the OS and Web browser markets are qualitatively different from other markets regulated by antitrust law? If you were writing the laws, how would you change antitrust law such that MS's actions (which you don't seem to object to) were legal, but antitrust law still worked to stop abuses like we had with AT&T years ago?
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Asking people to know the basics of what the hell they're talking about isn't an appeal to authority. The previous person asked a question clearly demonstrating they don't even know the definition of "antitrust" while discussing enforcement of an antitrust law.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
Every time I see your posts I know what I'm in for too, ad hominem attacks, and arguments from someone who made up their mind long before they had any clue what they were talking about and who refuses to find out because it might make them change their mind which would threaten their fragile ego.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS?
Sure it is. But it's also a valid technical decision to remove the catalytic converter when designing a car and ignore emissions entirely. What does that have to do with if it causes harm to society or is illegal?
Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Maybe in the short term, maybe not. Certainly not in the long term, especially if it is as part of illegal antitrust abuse.
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
It's just sad. You insist the only consideration is technical and refuse to even consider why these laws exist or what they say... and you think you can make a valid argument from such a perspective.
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
Here's a lisiting of hundreds of them. If you want a software case, look at Telfonica last year. It was a major one tying software and services.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Monopolies make it possible to easily undermine the free market. That's why it is illegal for trusts to take actions that will undermine the operation of the free market. Anarchy is not a free market as simpletons who have never picked up an economics text would assert.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it? :)
How is OEMs installing a variety of text editors and users realizing they have choices worse for competition than everyone being given one inferior one and people who can't stand it looking for more options? If you made a text editor would you seriously like to have no chance of licensing it to OEMs because MS already includes one and forces OEMs to pay their dev fees?
OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they?
Sure, but MS has undermined the market in such a way that it is no longer in their best financial interest to include the best browser because all browsers other than IE are artificially broken. Antitrust abuse isn't about holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to take an action. We already have other laws against that. It is about abusing a monopoly to make the best choice one that is detrimental to society and end users and no longer fosters innovation and efficiency.
"No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows."
Nice strawman,
Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux.
Maybe you're not understanding monopoly influence.
Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well?
Linux is not usable by the average person partly because companies are not motivated to make it so because the market is undermined and innovation is slowed and partly because it is artificially broken by MS's dominance and illegal actions... but all that is beside the point. This is about the browser market being broken by an illegal action, not the OS market.
. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit
Please educate yourself or RTFA. There is no lawsuit here. This is a criminal court case, not a civil suit.
All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers. :)
Could be, but maybe you might want to wait until a remedy is actually proposed before critiquing it. What's the point in your complaining about guesses as to what you think the EU might propose?
End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market ... by what?
Enforcing the law we've been enforcing for a hundred years.
By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave?
Please give up the strawman arguments already.
By forcing Microsoft to compete on even ground with every other browser developer so the best product can gain share in a free market. I really don't see why you are so opposed to MS having to compete with others fairly. If their browser is the best it will win. If it isn't it will lose. How can you object to that?
Maybe bad MS products
I don't get it.
No you don't. Why don't you look up what antitrust law is and gain an understanding?
This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
Yeah, I'm sure enforcing the same laws they enforce against everyone else must seem like a political game if you live in a country where MS gives huge amounts of money to politicians and those same politicians make sure laws aren't enforced against MS.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous.
Speak for yourself. Some of us actually understand antitrust law and the damage MS's illegal actions have done to all of us and would like to see the advantages of a free market apply again. Why do you hate the free market? Are you a commie or something :)
Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Sounds good to me, maybe MS will finally be motivated to fix Notepad to properly handle all unicode and line endings.
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE...
Okay, so OEMs preinstall other browsers and users use Firefox or Safari by default sometimes. I don't see the problem. Maybe developers will then target standards more and we won't have to worry about broken "IE only " pages as much and developers may even use some f the cool new HTML5 features and just tell users to get any browser but IE until IE catches up. Again, sounds like a good thing to me.
or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey?
All of them that want to be included, of course. Mind you this is just speculation as the only one to mention such a potential remedy so far has been MS themselves, not Google or Opera or the EU.
And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
What about them? Why should MS get a free pass to have crappy applications installed. End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market. Let MS sell their crappy calculator and text editor and word processor on their merits the same way every other developer does.
It's stupid. I use Firefox and really don't like IE at all, and I still think its stupid...
That's fine. Think it is stupid if you want. I, on the other hand applaud restoring free market competition because I understand and believe in the benefits of competition and the innovation that results. Of course I passed Econ 101, which seems to be pretty abnormal here.
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers? Will they force Google to allow other browsers to be shipped with android? Ok, these are not desktop platforms, but the same should apply.
The same laws do apply, you just don't seem to have a clue what they are. You first clue should be the word "antitrust". Find out what a "trust" is and you'll be most of the way to understanding why MS's action violates an antitrust law while Neither Apple nor Google's bundling of a browser does.
I suspect that will be MS's essential defense of bundling a default brower (IE) with Windows. People EXPECT any modern OS to come with a default browser.
I don't think their lawyers are that incompetent. People expect a modern computer to come with an OS and browser and CPU and monitor. Which of those components is supplied by MS, however, is a very different matter.
MS can try to argue, again, that, they are unable to separate their browser and OS because of technical problems, but no one is likely to buy it. Frankly, they're going to lose any antitrust case because they are so clearly breaking the law, just as they have lost so many similar cases in the past, except when they managed to "lobby" their way into getting the courts to do nothing about their crimes.
These days it would be suicide for anyone to release an OS without built-in web capability right out of the box.
Why is that? Do you think it would be too hard for them to allow a plug-in Web engine and have OEMs install either trident and IE or Firefox and Gecko or Chrome and Webkit? Why do you think that is impossible and why do you think end purchasers of computers from Dell or Sony (who ship them preinstalled) would ever notice?
The lawsuit concerns the question of whether or not a web browser is structurally distinct from the OS or not: is it an integral component, or an instance of bundling of two essentially unrelated things.
Do you really think countries around the world passed laws specifically regarding structural components of software? These are economic laws and are concerned with markets, not software architecture. They apply to the market for telephone service, bananas, and OS's without getting into the details of if voicemail and telephone service are distinct services, because it is clear if they are distinct markets.
As we've seen with Windows and IE.... the distinction between browser and and OS matters quite a bit. That is if you don't want to get accused of being and evil monopoly.
I take it you don't know what a monopoly is? MS is a monopoly. Their tying/bundling of their browser with their monopolized desktop OS is antitrust abuse. What exactly do you think Google has monopoly influence on that would prevent them from merging an OS and browser?
Second reason is that Apple is a straight competitor. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer ain't enemies, they believe the same thing: Software should be paid for and the end user does NOT get to own the piece of software let alone use it in any way that they want to. Linux on the other hand says "Here is all this great software, use it, don't pay for it and do with it what you want how you want to for as long as you want to." EEK!
Do you know many Linux developers? Do you know where the average person is likely to get Linux? Linux ships pre-installed by for profit companies, just like OS X and Apple. Most Linux developers are not freaky hippy socialists, but are paid by commercial companies and enjoy spending those paychecks. Apple develops FOSS software and contributes their changes, just like most other companies that work in it. They don't just make FOSS but few major contributors do. Most profit from closed source software, hardware, and/or services and they use FOSS to save money and have more flexibility for the commodity parts. For Apple, the money maker is the polished interface and usability experience. For IBM it is services to get that stuff up and running. For Juniper it is specialty hardware and software in combination. It's all the same business model from MS's perspective though.
Or to keep it simple, an Apple buyer might be persuaded to buy MS office for the Mac. A linux user is a far thougher sell and might even use something like OpenOffice or even worse Abiword...
That's not what scares MS. They've built their entire business on leveraging their monopoly market share. Apple has avoided competing in the desktop OS market, bypassing it entirely. Sure they weaken MS's power, but only a small amount and only increasing gradually. Linux, on the other hand, is a direct competitor and can't be killed by MS's usual tactics because of the licensing. OS X install base may grow a few percent a year. Linux could explode into huge share in only a few years especially as it is cheaper than Windows can be and flexible enough to be a good fit in emerging markets like netbooks, where Windows is very weak.
If MS is ever considering having to market MSWord to Linux users, they have already lost the war and will have to retool all of their business plans in dozens of markets at the cost of huge amounts of their profit.
I disagree and think the post you replied to was more right. Apple sees itself as a premium brand experience that would be destroyed if they ever went double digit penetration. How special would a Mercedes owner feel if the rabble started driving them. Even if they were cheaper models, just seeing the logo on non rich people's cars would drive their current customers to brands that still carried the cache of luxury goods.
That's a fine opinion, but I don't see any real support for it. You're basing your premise entirely on the idea that Apple's customers continue using it because they think it is exclusive. I've personally never seen that behavior demonstrated. I know one person who used a Ma as their regular computer who stopped using it and went back to Windows. They did a lot of development for a desktop Linux distro as their hobby and found it too cumbersome to use a different OS than the one they were doing so much development for. Everyone else I personally know has stuck with the Mac because they like using OS X better than the alternatives (Windows and Linux and in a few rare cases BSDs).
At least half the appeal of owning a Mac is being SEEN owning a Mac.
So you have asserted, but do you know any people who stopped using Macs after they saw it becoming less exclusive? Do you have any actual evidence they would switch and what do you think they would switch to? There are certainly computers that are more exclusive, like toughbooks, but despite the serious hardware advantages, I've never heard of anyone to switching to a toughbook from a Mac because of the exclusivity instead of because they absolutely needed the hardening.
...much like a Mercedes IS indeed a quality machine but that quality is only a small part of the reason a stockbroker or drug dealer wants one.
For the average person, however, the advantages of having a Mercedes that they actually use can be had from a number of other vendors. (I might mention Mercedes actually is not doing so well for reliability these days) The advantages of using a Mac for the average person, however, are hard to find from any other vendor. A Mercedes driver can buy a Lexus and have as or more reliable of a car if the Mercedes is not "exclusive" enough for them. What will people who currently use Macs buy to get the same level of polished usability?
The iPod was a dangerous but so far successful gambit.
The iPod was a parry that turned into a riposte. The idea was to stop MS from shutting Macs out of the digital music scene and it succeeded better than Apple anticipated and really ran off into an unexpected success. It was successful, but not a real risk to their brand because they were focused on making a premium player. It was more expensive but "better" as a business model.
And that's why Linux shares[sic] the crap out of Microsoft.
Linux is a direct competitor that is guaranteed to undercut MS's prices because of the licensing. The branding is not the issue, the business model is. MS has been hurting hardware vendors for years and there is a real market for an alternative and it is slipping in through a few cracks already. Apple has weakened MS's ability to leverage their monopoly and they screwed up in failing to anticipate the Netbook and not being flexible enough to shift to it quickly. MS fears losing overwhelming dominance because as soon as that happens, they have to compete on quality and that's something they have not been good at for a long time and which would require reworking all their business models.
Apple has never been a real threat to MS ...And so long as they refuse to license their OS, they never will be.
I think you have your cart and horse bit backwards at this point. Any competent businessman or economist will tell you Apple will fail miserably just like OS/2 and BeOS is they try to license their OS and compete directly at this point. They already tried that and bled money until they bought out those they had licensed to and went back to bypassing the desktop OS market. Until the courts begin to effectively and responsively stop antitrust abuse, Apple is stuck bypassing the market. Unless MS's share drops below about 70%, licensing OS X is simply not a viable business model.
Apple's current strategy is to stay in the game and make good money targeting niches and slowly growing, which they have been doing. They're also going after emerging, complementary markets, as with the iPhone. It is the slow, but responsible route. When you run a multibillion dollar company, betting that company's major revenue stream on directly competing with an abusive monopoly is a great way to be fired.
For OS X and Windows the components are only there if you are ignoring other software installation methods and locations, such as installation from a Web page, arguably the most common use case.
And that is a flaw in the Windows software ecosystem. It's worth mentioning that the same works elsewhere -- I can download an installer binary from a website and run it. The problem is, on Windows and OS X, there really isn't a good alternative.
Having multiple methods of installation is problematic from both a security and usability perspective. Also, the usability of repositories right now can be pretty poor for methods where it is easy on Windows and OS X. Here's a really common use case:
I need software to do something. I research on the Web until I find a package I want to try. I go to my package manager, re-enter the name and try to find it in the repository, and install it from there.
It's a lot easier to simply, click a link on the Web page I already have open, but very rarely does that properly add the software in my package manager under Ubuntu. It is possible to make a Web link to do this but only if you're only targeting one package manager in one Linux distro and if you go out of you way to deal with the complexity. The right way to do it (IMHO), is simply have packages contain a standard link to their repository and let the package manager be the default program for that file type. It can be done, but generally isn't today for Linux.
They easily allow third party repositories that are appropriate for free software, but not so much for commercial payware.
Canonical does this [ubuntu.com].
Yeah, it is possible to have payware in a repository, it just sucks badly for software developers, sellers so very few of them do it. Package managers that are popular were designed to work with freeware and none I've seen contains any service for checking registration info or selling the software and no one package will work on all distros so every commercial developer just rolls their own installer. This is a serious failing of package managers for use in the mainstream. Users have to learn two methods of software installation and don't know when each will happen, leaving room for social engineering malware.
So do open source repositories. They generally use PGP, as it's easier to manage without having to pay absurd signing keys.
You're mistaking authenticating servers and authenticating software packages. These are different problems. Much software ships on CD or DVD or is downloaded. One mechanism for authenticating the packages is a lot simpler than trying to authenticate all the sources via different means. It also complicates mirroring. I don't care where a package comes from so long as it is the valid package. Signing solves this problem and there is no need for keys to cost money.
I's argue that most package managers these days don't have very good usability for the average user.
Perhaps, but they are the best we've got. And that is why I suggested writing a frontend. I see no reason something like dpkg/apt can't be used, given a sufficiently usable (and pretty) frontend.
Right, which is not good enough for mainstream use (IMHO) and it takes more than a frontend. The package managers in use today don't handle the currently used package formats for Windows and OS X and reverting to Linux style packages loses significant functionality on OS X.
Traditional package managers tend to distribute packages as single files, containing both package metadata and an archive. That archive contains many files, in many directories -- also known as folders -- and Apple has certainly shown that it can embed metadata in formats like Zip. In fact, I know I've seen OS X .app files distributed as zipfiles.
So, in what way would a pa