Except making it "USA Only" without any single logical reason the day it launched. They are getting smarter, they just need to fire whoever came up with "Lets make it USA only so rest of World will swear at us".
If you make something "USA Only", block all Non USA IP blocks from reaching that "registration" page and show them a polite message, a lie or not.
You write all your details in that inconvenient Flash form (which I took my time to create/copy/paste random pwd) and you notice "USA Only" as last thing or when you try to select your country.
The music guys have very good excuse, the evil RIAA/MPAA. What excuse does Adobe have? Adobe should make it "International first" since they have overseas distributors only interested in CS3 and will laugh at your face if you request info about consumer stuff like Elements.
They can give hell to a much more popular client's DHT packets and go fine with Bittorrent Inc. DHT packets which would lead to horrible experience to the "other client" users. Or filter a specific large (and legal) tracker?
A company who hand picked bittorrent packets and conspired their own customers IP traffic can do anything.
Bittorrent is a great protocol but Bittorrent Inc. isn't really loved. uTorrent users stay with OUTDATED clients just because they don't trust to Bittorrent.com Inc.
Anyway, I was downloading (and still seeding) Neooffice for OS X. That is pure GPL software which the vendor (developers) prefer Bittorrent distribution as ONLY option. As I use Azureus 3.5.x, I was bored and started watching seeders and leechers. Everyone downloading that perfectly legal, open source disk image was using ultra-paranoid methods like RC-160 encryption. Comcast can be proud.
Well, you know the actual airport control tower, planes run REAL operating systems but it really makes you afraid when you see BSOD on Airport screens especially before a long flight.
Sad thing for Microsoft, I asked my friend to give his camera (out of his bag) to take photo of a BSOD airport screen, guy who is not technical at all asked "All that hassle? There are thousands of those photos on web".
Well, look at the Photoshop CS3 requirements. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshopextended/systemreqs/ See, it also requires OS X 10.4+ which is equivalent to XP SP2. OS vendors can push developers, even Adobe sized ones coding only professional software. Some API etc. things force it. So, you can continue to use Win2k but only with the newer software at a certain level. If you say "I want Photoshop CS3", you upgrade to XP. Also, if you use Win2K, I suggest something like commercial security solution like Kaspersky which is very goodly configured, I wouldn't trust to any MS security (!) on a EOL OS.
If you think Bluray as "h264+aac documented standards preferred", "matter of months for all platforms gets player support", "Java included which is GPL", "PS3 Linux works perfectly good" and ignore the "Sony" brand... It could be easier to take side.
That is what I did for all that HDDVD/BluRay fight. As they "won" the fight, Sony will be only known as "the guys invented this" (or forgotten, like CD) and thousands of other options will appear.
If it wasn't Microsoft, they would even make/license a BluRay RECORDER for XBox 360, hire Adaptec/Roxio to code "recording framework" (not issue, PPC Toast does it for year) and make hell of money over BluRay sales and added DV-R functionality. If you choose a company which only cares to "dominate" and for one time again, they lost it, these things happen.
You know who made the industries best home VHS recorders? Sony... After they figured they lost the betamax for sure.
As far as I know, Nintendo Wii is SD, not HD device. BluRay or HDDVD has very little meaning for them.
If BluRay Disc prices goes down to DVD prices somehow (Hollywood needs HD), PS3 users may laugh to both platforms. Of course Wii got excuse, XBox 360 is just "Our standard failed, no bluray for you!" thing.
Hollywood needs some level of quality that can't be reached without 50 GB of data. BluRay really serves to that. Of course, thanks to Java, they may implement "chatrooms of people who watches same movie" etc. in future. That is one thing you can do right now with PS/3 since it is a connected device. They simply want a "bonus" over the content you can download from torrent sites.
Some of us, subscribers seeing the "story in future" alerted Slashdot about it (msdn link) before it made to front page. As you can see from some comments, people (who knows to develop) aren't so satisfied from MS explanation so it could be the right thing that story wasn't pulled.
That is why Hollywood/ Pro TV stayed away from HD DVD. They knew Microsoft would act like a spoiled rich kid and it was a really funny dream to expect a "platform neutral" HD-DVD from a company who abandoned their Windows Media Player for OS X just as a "punishment" to Apple users... For getting popular!
By rejecting BluRay for 360, they once more prove that the studios and entire pro video industry was right going with a Sony solution. If there is significant market in "geeks wanting to watch 1080p", Sony would ship a Linux BluRay player in matter of weeks. Would you expect such thing from Microsoft? Never. We did the ultimate sin, rejected to use their OS so we should be punished.
If you had a working full feature Media Player which even supports DRM on a platform which popularity explodes in mobile usage rates, would you abandon it? Even after that platform got rid of ultimate "endian" issue switching to Intel x86? That is MS for you. The content providers who trusted their availability for OS X should sue them since they can't serve a BYTE of paid content to people who would pay $600 for a phone and $1700 for a laptop. That is all they get for trusting Microsoft for their media. They are all busy with talking with Adobe to implement something flash based and securable (from Joe Sixpack).
It wasn't only $ millions transferred under the table at a Hollywood restaurant (which people think) that made BluRay the standard over HD-DVD. It is the "Microsoft" in standard. They all live "MOV based, AVI based" problem for years now, they didn't allow the spoiled kid to torture their customers for using a different platform.
What does a person expect a different thing when he/she buys a game console, one of few things which has meaningful competition going on, from Microsoft?
For example, as Apple only Desktop/Server user, I can't stand to iPhone limitations so I go and buy Symbian S60 based handset from Nokia. Is it used easy, clever as iPhone? No. I can say iPhone has a great user experience but I want to have a brand neutral, considerably open platform which allows me to do anything. E.g. I am free to say "S60 browser is junk" and buy/install Opera Mobile (which I did).
There are options like Nintendo, Sony Playstation and others even including a high end PC packaged in small form. (gaming machine)
They have enough monopoly on other things, please don't get prisoned to Microsoft at least on game consoles.
They won the race long time ago. It is impossible to have windows with mshtml.dll (or web frameworks) removed. That was all the big deal. They weren't really caring about their end user, they were caring about even the most basic blog owner can't have peace without looking "If IE shows his page fine". There are companies who offers "test with IE" service to users did you know? For money!
It is still impossible to have 100% (not 99%) perfect web experience for end user if he/she is not using Windows XP/Vista without IE. You will get stuck somewhere for sure. That is a win too.
So, they can even pass Über Quantum Acid 1000 test, it won't matter to them. So, they clicked some switch to stop conspiring w3c standard sites and voila, it passes.
You didn't actually believe MS of a small country size is really incompetent to code w3c standard browser yes? IE 5 for Macs (of its release date) supports more standards than any browser on market at that time.
They basically did something like./configure --enable-w3c
After Opera ASA from Norway, that little company has taken them to court to SUPPORT WEB STANDARDS. That happened while everyone joking with them. I am sure they are still being joked at.
Hard to prove? Of course, it is closed source, nobody knows what IE8.zip source code contains. I just say you can't simply code w3c standard compliant code from a non standards supporting/ conspiring code over 3-4 months. People give their years to make sure all standards supported. If you could code magical w3c compliant browser in matter of months, AOL/Early Mozilla would do it with Netscape source code and wouldn't live that hassle for years.
Hard to imagine someone who is advanced computer user since 1980s doesn't like that amateur coded Google sponsored/dictated junk and would choose professionally written software like Safari or Opera over it eh?
" Windows port of CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics." --> These are things which made billions dollars spent to Vista look like a joke on market compared to OS X Leopard which became pre-sales hit from the day having its Amazon.com page.
Apple will release their key technologies which they made possible with a significantly less money and workforce than Microsoft on Microsoft's own OS. Give me a break.
RMS is never happy, Apple proved the customers (users) CAN and WILL use Unix based system if it is coded with real life, real business in mind and caring for those clueless end users usage.
I never get why Apple even touches anything with "GPL" at all. RMS and some of community will never satisfy, that is the reality. Just like Real opening significant part its source which results ONLY with couple of people left in 5 years ago whining "spyware" serving to Microsoft Media Division.
Mozilla required MS Visual Studio to build in first days, nobody said a WORD. Qt guys (Trolltech) won't give a crap since they are already blamed for "Non Free" because they dare to ask for $$$ from companies like Skype, Opera which makes millions over their framework. That is going on for years now.
"Why not? Because launchd a solution targeted for OS X; it ignores the needs of UNIX and open source software"
Why it ignores Unix and how is it heart of a Unix '03 certified operating system doing every single launch related action possible? Is the need of open source software to make sure every single poor non technical user mess with various config files? It really works so far. (!)
Tell me a single Linux/*BSD which will launch X11 (which has built in opengl acceleration) by simply typing or even launching a X11 requiring binary.
". And Apple rigged it so that any X11 application loses in a race with Cocoa applications: X11 support on OS X is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of the desktop."
Is it? Konqueror on OS X works more smooth than Safari which I have said openly dozens of times. Or is it the badly written code which maintainers are busy bitching and whining about case insensitive fs which can be made case sensitive for at least 4 years with a touch of a freaking drop down menu?
Which X11 Apps lose the race? Code it good, you can even become top downloaded Application on OS X, just put a little respect to users (maccies!) feedback. Example? Limewire, Azureus (Java!) VLC, Mplayer (pure open source).
If MS coded a completely open source , GNU/BSD licensed "ooxml reader" and distributed it freely over web, they could have a chance.
Even their OS X paying customers (MS Office is big deal) are having problem with "New XML thing". They must have wondered if the overpaying OS X users get that treatment, what would happen to their millions of open source machines?
I will really laugh if Icaza somehow gets this "ooxml reader" idea and channel through Novell:)
MS will install IE 8 to every single XP/Vista machine out there by frightening people saying "no security updates" for IE 6. There won't be monopoly claims for sure. They are already pushing their flash wannabe to users via their official site even including support sections. Safari is a standards based browser, only supports published standards. iPod plays mp3, mpeg 4, H264 but NOT propetioary WMA. It is easily used by millions of eMusic etc. subscribers without any limits at all. At last resort, you can transform device to a ordinary flash disk (a thing which WMA players oftenly doesn't permit!) and drag your files from desktop. Please don't make people defend that overpriced fashion device.
As far as I know, KHTML and Webkit went out of sync for purely technical issues and after a while, Apple took extra-extra measures to make their webkit totally multiplatform so they are becoming in-sync in matter of months.
In not so distant future, Konqueror people will be running exactly same code which OS X users use. Of course, Safari.app is too dumbed down for them so only javascript/html/plugins will be the same.
I am speaking about khtml=webkit in very near future. That "back forward button" is a joke, you don't want a basic UI like "Safari" on KDE.
If Apple opened Safari.app source, it wouldn't matter since it is a Cocoa application itself and Cocoa isn't pure open source (thanks Redmond too). If Safari was a OpenStep application, it would work but OpenStep doesn't fit to Apple's needs.
So what a precious thing that "back" and "forward" buttons are eh? I heard entire opensource community is waiting for Apple to release sources of "back, forward buttons" and "address bar" to implement it.
If user is non technical and not privacy educated, Google toolbar has very serious privacy issues like "record my web history" etc. as far as I know. They come disabled by default but can be very easily enabled.
Does Sun really need couple of dollars from Google? Same question goes to Apple too, "Default search" is Google and you can't even change it if you don't hack your browser. I paid $140 for this OS and its default browser.
Qt (4.+) and Gnome gets Webkit html rendering which is
a) Standards based, forcing them even b) Surely supported by any site who cares about 11% of USA laptop market and 40% of PDA/Phone market. c) Portable to a level of Symbian S60/S80 (Nokia Web Browser)
I wonder what else Apple has to do to prove their commitment to open source.
I can understand some of the collective hate regarding Apple and Safari but it is not justified and professional in any term.
I have a easy "benchmark" for you. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd , that is a technology which is offered free, open source and allows things like Automatically running X11 if it is "needed" and can even stop things on demand. That is one of the things makes OS X an end user accessible Unix desktop. Therotically, if you have a greatly written software in GNU/X11 environment, you can "install" it with drag and drop and may even have a icon for it. You can actually race with Cocoa based applications.
It is that kind of technology and proven on millions of end user desktops.
Which distro uses that technology which is offered for free? Why not?
"Just to clear up a common misconception, iTunes does not use WebKit to render the music store. What you see when you visit the iTunes music store may look "web-like", but it isn't HTML, and it isn't rendered by WebKit."
Also Google should code truly standards based so the poor souls happens to like Opera or Safari aren't pushed to installing Firefox with Google Toolbar if they use Google services like Gmail. Paying $4 million for a open source project and pushing your anti phishing framework while dozens of other alternatives exist already makes some people concerned.
If Apple pushes Safari/Webkit (webkit is important) they may have plans to make iTMS a web browser thing (it is NOT webkit now) and want to rely their own standards supporting framework for rendering.
After I tried using systems default browser (Safari) as my only browser instead of 3rd party and ended up downloading Firefox 2 because some large site required it for extra needed function (Firefox'es sponsor too) I think Mozilla CEO should be the last to talk about "pushing browsers to people".
A Safari.exe in program files if it is not becoming a system default browser with UI tricks shouldn't matter to any browser vendor especially a one which is supposed to be pushing more standards based choices to Windows users. They should be the ones asking their friends like Google, Yahoo about "Why IE and Firefox only? Why not Safari, Opera?" since people started to get seriously irritated about that attitude. It is not serving them at all. A user swearing and downloading firefox.dmg from their established Safari browser won't have good feelings from first minute.
If Apple is still doing "HFS+ on NTFS/FAT" tricks like putting Resources/Dlls to single directory, Safari 3.1 is comparable to single directory contained Opera too.
Does someone doesn't like the fact that some Windows users not being Joe Sixpacks does not use their work because of other concerns? What if those non Joe Sixpacks love Safari?
Slashdot Mirror
Except making it "USA Only" without any single logical reason the day it launched. They are getting smarter, they just need to fire whoever came up with "Lets make it USA only so rest of World will swear at us".
If you make something "USA Only", block all Non USA IP blocks from reaching that "registration" page and show them a polite message, a lie or not.
You write all your details in that inconvenient Flash form (which I took my time to create/copy/paste random pwd) and you notice "USA Only" as last thing or when you try to select your country.
The music guys have very good excuse, the evil RIAA/MPAA. What excuse does Adobe have? Adobe should make it "International first" since they have overseas distributors only interested in CS3 and will laugh at your face if you request info about consumer stuff like Elements.
They can give hell to a much more popular client's DHT packets and go fine with Bittorrent Inc. DHT packets which would lead to horrible experience to the "other client" users. Or filter a specific large (and legal) tracker?
A company who hand picked bittorrent packets and conspired their own customers IP traffic can do anything.
Bittorrent is a great protocol but Bittorrent Inc. isn't really loved. uTorrent users stay with OUTDATED clients just because they don't trust to Bittorrent.com Inc.
Anyway, I was downloading (and still seeding) Neooffice for OS X. That is pure GPL software which the vendor (developers) prefer Bittorrent distribution as ONLY option. As I use Azureus 3.5.x, I was bored and started watching seeders and leechers. Everyone downloading that perfectly legal, open source disk image was using ultra-paranoid methods like RC-160 encryption. Comcast can be proud.
Well, you know the actual airport control tower, planes run REAL operating systems but it really makes you afraid when you see BSOD on Airport screens especially before a long flight.
Sad thing for Microsoft, I asked my friend to give his camera (out of his bag) to take photo of a BSOD airport screen, guy who is not technical at all asked "All that hassle? There are thousands of those photos on web".
That is their image.
Well, look at the Photoshop CS3 requirements.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshopextended/systemreqs/
See, it also requires OS X 10.4+ which is equivalent to XP SP2. OS vendors can push developers, even Adobe sized ones coding only professional software. Some API etc. things force it.
So, you can continue to use Win2k but only with the newer software at a certain level. If you say "I want Photoshop CS3", you upgrade to XP. Also, if you use Win2K, I suggest something like commercial security solution like Kaspersky which is very goodly configured, I wouldn't trust to any MS security (!) on a EOL OS.
If you think Bluray as "h264+aac documented standards preferred", "matter of months for all platforms gets player support", "Java included which is GPL", "PS3 Linux works perfectly good" and ignore the "Sony" brand... It could be easier to take side.
That is what I did for all that HDDVD/BluRay fight. As they "won" the fight, Sony will be only known as "the guys invented this" (or forgotten, like CD) and thousands of other options will appear.
If it wasn't Microsoft, they would even make/license a BluRay RECORDER for XBox 360, hire Adaptec/Roxio to code "recording framework" (not issue, PPC Toast does it for year) and make hell of money over BluRay sales and added DV-R functionality. If you choose a company which only cares to "dominate" and for one time again, they lost it, these things happen.
You know who made the industries best home VHS recorders? Sony... After they figured they lost the betamax for sure.
As far as I know, Nintendo Wii is SD, not HD device. BluRay or HDDVD has very little meaning for them.
If BluRay Disc prices goes down to DVD prices somehow (Hollywood needs HD), PS3 users may laugh to both platforms. Of course Wii got excuse, XBox 360 is just "Our standard failed, no bluray for you!" thing.
Hollywood needs some level of quality that can't be reached without 50 GB of data. BluRay really serves to that. Of course, thanks to Java, they may implement "chatrooms of people who watches same movie" etc. in future. That is one thing you can do right now with PS/3 since it is a connected device. They simply want a "bonus" over the content you can download from torrent sites.
Some of us, subscribers seeing the "story in future" alerted Slashdot about it (msdn link) before it made to front page. As you can see from some comments, people (who knows to develop) aren't so satisfied from MS explanation so it could be the right thing that story wasn't pulled.
That is why Hollywood/ Pro TV stayed away from HD DVD. They knew Microsoft would act like a spoiled rich kid and it was a really funny dream to expect a "platform neutral" HD-DVD from a company who abandoned their Windows Media Player for OS X just as a "punishment" to Apple users... For getting popular!
By rejecting BluRay for 360, they once more prove that the studios and entire pro video industry was right going with a Sony solution. If there is significant market in "geeks wanting to watch 1080p", Sony would ship a Linux BluRay player in matter of weeks. Would you expect such thing from Microsoft? Never. We did the ultimate sin, rejected to use their OS so we should be punished.
If you had a working full feature Media Player which even supports DRM on a platform which popularity explodes in mobile usage rates, would you abandon it? Even after that platform got rid of ultimate "endian" issue switching to Intel x86? That is MS for you. The content providers who trusted their availability for OS X should sue them since they can't serve a BYTE of paid content to people who would pay $600 for a phone and $1700 for a laptop. That is all they get for trusting Microsoft for their media. They are all busy with talking with Adobe to implement something flash based and securable (from Joe Sixpack).
It wasn't only $ millions transferred under the table at a Hollywood restaurant (which people think) that made BluRay the standard over HD-DVD. It is the "Microsoft" in standard. They all live "MOV based, AVI based" problem for years now, they didn't allow the spoiled kid to torture their customers for using a different platform.
What does a person expect a different thing when he/she buys a game console, one of few things which has meaningful competition going on, from Microsoft?
For example, as Apple only Desktop/Server user, I can't stand to iPhone limitations so I go and buy Symbian S60 based handset from Nokia. Is it used easy, clever as iPhone? No. I can say iPhone has a great user experience but I want to have a brand neutral, considerably open platform which allows me to do anything. E.g. I am free to say "S60 browser is junk" and buy/install Opera Mobile (which I did).
There are options like Nintendo, Sony Playstation and others even including a high end PC packaged in small form. (gaming machine)
They have enough monopoly on other things, please don't get prisoned to Microsoft at least on game consoles.
They won the race long time ago. It is impossible to have windows with mshtml.dll (or web frameworks) removed. That was all the big deal. They weren't really caring about their end user, they were caring about even the most basic blog owner can't have peace without looking "If IE shows his page fine". There are companies who offers "test with IE" service to users did you know? For money!
It is still impossible to have 100% (not 99%) perfect web experience for end user if he/she is not using Windows XP/Vista without IE. You will get stuck somewhere for sure. That is a win too.
So, they can even pass Über Quantum Acid 1000 test, it won't matter to them. So, they clicked some switch to stop conspiring w3c standard sites and voila, it passes.
You didn't actually believe MS of a small country size is really incompetent to code w3c standard browser yes? IE 5 for Macs (of its release date) supports more standards than any browser on market at that time.
They basically did something like ./configure --enable-w3c
After Opera ASA from Norway, that little company has taken them to court to SUPPORT WEB STANDARDS. That happened while everyone joking with them. I am sure they are still being joked at.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/13/1524233
Hard to prove? Of course, it is closed source, nobody knows what IE8.zip source code contains. I just say you can't simply code w3c standard compliant code from a non standards supporting/ conspiring code over 3-4 months. People give their years to make sure all standards supported. If you could code magical w3c compliant browser in matter of months, AOL/Early Mozilla would do it with Netscape source code and wouldn't live that hassle for years.
Hard to imagine someone who is advanced computer user since 1980s doesn't like that amateur coded Google sponsored/dictated junk and would choose professionally written software like Safari or Opera over it eh?
There, fixed my grammar.
" Windows port of CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics." --> These are things which made billions dollars spent to Vista look like a joke on market compared to OS X Leopard which became pre-sales hit from the day having its Amazon.com page.
Apple will release their key technologies which they made possible with a significantly less money and workforce than Microsoft on Microsoft's own OS. Give me a break.
RMS is never happy, Apple proved the customers (users) CAN and WILL use Unix based system if it is coded with real life, real business in mind and caring for those clueless end users usage.
I never get why Apple even touches anything with "GPL" at all. RMS and some of community will never satisfy, that is the reality. Just like Real opening significant part its source which results ONLY with couple of people left in 5 years ago whining "spyware" serving to Microsoft Media Division.
Mozilla required MS Visual Studio to build in first days, nobody said a WORD. Qt guys (Trolltech) won't give a crap since they are already blamed for "Non Free" because they dare to ask for $$$ from companies like Skype, Opera which makes millions over their framework. That is going on for years now.
"Why not? Because launchd a solution targeted for OS X; it ignores the needs of UNIX and open source software"
Why it ignores Unix and how is it heart of a Unix '03 certified operating system doing every single launch related action possible? Is the need of open source software to make sure every single poor non technical user mess with various config files? It really works so far. (!)
Tell me a single Linux/*BSD which will launch X11 (which has built in opengl acceleration) by simply typing or even launching a X11 requiring binary.
". And Apple rigged it so that any X11 application loses in a race with Cocoa applications: X11 support on OS X is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of the desktop."
Is it? Konqueror on OS X works more smooth than Safari which I have said openly dozens of times. Or is it the badly written code which maintainers are busy bitching and whining about case insensitive fs which can be made case sensitive for at least 4 years with a touch of a freaking drop down menu?
Which X11 Apps lose the race? Code it good, you can even become top downloaded Application on OS X, just put a little respect to users (maccies!) feedback. Example? Limewire, Azureus (Java!) VLC, Mplayer (pure open source).
If MS coded a completely open source , GNU/BSD licensed "ooxml reader" and distributed it freely over web, they could have a chance.
:)
Even their OS X paying customers (MS Office is big deal) are having problem with "New XML thing". They must have wondered if the overpaying OS X users get that treatment, what would happen to their millions of open source machines?
I will really laugh if Icaza somehow gets this "ooxml reader" idea and channel through Novell
MS will install IE 8 to every single XP/Vista machine out there by frightening people saying "no security updates" for IE 6. There won't be monopoly claims for sure.
They are already pushing their flash wannabe to users via their official site even including support sections.
Safari is a standards based browser, only supports published standards. iPod plays mp3, mpeg 4, H264 but NOT propetioary WMA. It is easily used by millions of eMusic etc. subscribers without any limits at all. At last resort, you can transform device to a ordinary flash disk (a thing which WMA players oftenly doesn't permit!) and drag your files from desktop.
Please don't make people defend that overpriced fashion device.
As far as I know, KHTML and Webkit went out of sync for purely technical issues and after a while, Apple took extra-extra measures to make their webkit totally multiplatform so they are becoming in-sync in matter of months.
In not so distant future, Konqueror people will be running exactly same code which OS X users use. Of course, Safari.app is too dumbed down for them so only javascript/html/plugins will be the same.
I am speaking about khtml=webkit in very near future. That "back forward button" is a joke, you don't want a basic UI like "Safari" on KDE.
If Apple opened Safari.app source, it wouldn't matter since it is a Cocoa application itself and Cocoa isn't pure open source (thanks Redmond too). If Safari was a OpenStep application, it would work but OpenStep doesn't fit to Apple's needs.
"though parts of it are open source (WebKit)"
So what a precious thing that "back" and "forward" buttons are eh? I heard entire opensource community is waiting for Apple to release sources of "back, forward buttons" and "address bar" to implement it.
Now I understand that experimental Qt4+Webkit core demo has no back/forward/addressbar
http://static.kdenews.org/jr/unity-kde.png
Apple is plain evil!
If user is non technical and not privacy educated, Google toolbar has very serious privacy issues like "record my web history" etc. as far as I know. They come disabled by default but can be very easily enabled.
Does Sun really need couple of dollars from Google? Same question goes to Apple too, "Default search" is Google and you can't even change it if you don't hack your browser. I paid $140 for this OS and its default browser.
Qt (4.+) and Gnome gets Webkit html rendering which is
a) Standards based, forcing them even
b) Surely supported by any site who cares about 11% of USA laptop market and 40% of PDA/Phone market.
c) Portable to a level of Symbian S60/S80 (Nokia Web Browser)
I wonder what else Apple has to do to prove their commitment to open source.
I can understand some of the collective hate regarding Apple and Safari but it is not justified and professional in any term.
I have a easy "benchmark" for you. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd , that is a technology which is offered free, open source and allows things like Automatically running X11 if it is "needed" and can even stop things on demand. That is one of the things makes OS X an end user accessible Unix desktop. Therotically, if you have a greatly written software in GNU/X11 environment, you can "install" it with drag and drop and may even have a icon for it. You can actually race with Cocoa based applications.
It is that kind of technology and proven on millions of end user desktops.
Which distro uses that technology which is offered for free? Why not?
No, iTunes is not Webkit. That is a misunderstanding which is there for years.
Mr. Hyatt got a blog entry related to it
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666
"Just to clear up a common misconception, iTunes does not use WebKit to render the music store. What you see when you visit the iTunes music store may look "web-like", but it isn't HTML, and it isn't rendered by WebKit."
For some sites who are known to sponsor/push browsers to users there are "more standards based" browsers than "standards based" browsers.
Also Google should code truly standards based so the poor souls happens to like Opera or Safari aren't pushed to installing Firefox with Google Toolbar if they use Google services like Gmail.
Paying $4 million for a open source project and pushing your anti phishing framework while dozens of other alternatives exist already makes some people concerned.
If Apple pushes Safari/Webkit (webkit is important) they may have plans to make iTMS a web browser thing (it is NOT webkit now) and want to rely their own standards supporting framework for rendering.
After I tried using systems default browser (Safari) as my only browser instead of 3rd party and ended up downloading Firefox 2 because some large site required it for extra needed function (Firefox'es sponsor too) I think Mozilla CEO should be the last to talk about "pushing browsers to people".
A Safari.exe in program files if it is not becoming a system default browser with UI tricks shouldn't matter to any browser vendor especially a one which is supposed to be pushing more standards based choices to Windows users. They should be the ones asking their friends like Google, Yahoo about "Why IE and Firefox only? Why not Safari, Opera?" since people started to get seriously irritated about that attitude. It is not serving them at all. A user swearing and downloading firefox.dmg from their established Safari browser won't have good feelings from first minute.
If Apple is still doing "HFS+ on NTFS/FAT" tricks like putting Resources/Dlls to single directory, Safari 3.1 is comparable to single directory contained Opera too.
Does someone doesn't like the fact that some Windows users not being Joe Sixpacks does not use their work because of other concerns? What if those non Joe Sixpacks love Safari?
And thousands/millions of Google Adwords having/paid "fans" will defend them. Perfectly legal pyramid scheme for you.