If it lacks some features it is hardly a line by line clone, is it? The source for my claim can easily be your acceptance of the fact that Tomboy has features that Gnote is lacking. The fact that someone is working on it doesn't mean anythin, the feature simply isn't there for me to use.
Judging an app by what it *might* do in the future is hardly a good procedure for including the app in a default install. If Gnote is the better app in the future, then, by all means, substitute the two.
I simply don't get you, can't a line by line copy be incomplete because not all the lines were ported? What about integration issues with addons written in C# ? Won't that explain the lack of all addons? Either you're trolling and/or arguing just for the sake of it after realizing that you lost the argument. I am going to have to stop replying to you at this rate.
- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a note-taking application has no place in it...
- If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal, cp.tomboy.gnote'.
- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works fine for my tomboy use...).
I guess Tomboy is a nice test-case. But all that junk to install just for a note-taking program?
Tomboy is not 50MB, the whole Mono framework is that much, Tomboy is relatively small. If you use F-Spot or Beagle, Mono runtime is installed anyway.
Debian had reason to include Tomboy instead of Gnote. Also Tomboy does not have Applet support, which is why Debian wants it in the Gnome install instead of Gnote. From http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html [archivum.info]:
- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a note-taking application has no place in it... - If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal, cp.tomboy.gnote'. - While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works fine for my tomboy use...).
Wrong: Appeal of C# over Objective-C: C# code is less repetitive than Objective-C code No need to declare every IB plug 4 times, only once. Runs in a safe VM No buffer-overflows No crashes due to uninitialized memory No dangling pointers Garbage collection for all types Lambda expressions (great for GUI programming) Iterators Generic programming for type safe coding. Type inferencing for reduced typing. Dynamic code generation IronPython talks to C# objects naturally (out of the box) Superior XML libraries LINQ to XML, LINQ to Objects, and maybe some day LINQ to Databases.
Of course, it's under GPL so Gnote is within it's rights, but there's a thing called professional courtesy and respecting a developer's wishes.
If it runs faster and takes up less space*, who cares what the Tomboy developers think? May the better app win, I say.
*disclaimer: I have no proof that either of these are true, but it seems likely. If not, then Tomboy ought to thrive and Gnote will probably not gain many users anyway.
You are being too simplistic. Forks are more complicated than 'if Y is better than X then people will use Y and the world will be better'.
Consider this, what's the sole motivation behind the development of Gnote? It is to remove the Mono dependency, that's all, there's nothing more to it. And the work is relatively easy because all the heavy lifting has already been done by the Tomboy developers.
Say Gnote takes off and Tomboy dies, the motivation to improve Gnote is gone because the single goal of Gnote(i.e to kill Tomboy) has been achieved, and anyway, there is no more Tomboy to ripoff new ideas, code and GUI design from. Tomboy's developers are not happy with gnote now, so there's little chance they will jump ship to gnote.
So there's more to this than survival of the fastest and slimmest.
Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience. Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform. Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data. When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?"
- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not
support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a
note-taking application has no place in it...
- If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have
some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal,
cp.tomboy.gnote'.
- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look
at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is
not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works
fine for my tomboy use...).
You can use gnote if it fits your desires, but claiming that it should be default for ALL users is misguided. The Debian packagers know better than you.
It is not a line by line clone. A small count: Tomboy has 13 addons that comes with the app, Gnote has 6. For one, Gnote does not have any synchronization addons.
Uh? How does the lack of synchronization addons mean that it's not a clone? Synchronization code is being worked upon, according to Gnote's site.
From http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/93/
Gnote is, for those living under a large pile of particularly non-porous rocks, a fork of Tomboy, doing a line-by-line translation of the source into C++.
Can you quote your source for claiming that it's not a line by line clone?
PS: From TFA (I confess not having read it in full before typing the above rant... I did read TFA.... just not in detail;-p)
The news got out via a blog post by Debian maintainer Robert Millan, who maintains the Gnote package for Debian - Gnote is a non-Mono replacement for Tomboy written in C++.
In other words, it's a non-story about two maintainers trying to get their packages accepted into the "default" installation (from TFA it sounds like it's an issue of what to include in the first CD). Yeah, raise patent concerns, size concerns, blah blah blah blah, but it all boils down to ego stroking and comparing dick sizes.
Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience.
Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform. Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data. When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?"
Of course, it's under GPL so Gnote is within it's rights, but there's a thing called professional courtesy and respecting a developer's wishes.
Gnote is a line by line clone of Tomboy from C# to C++. Even the GUI is exactly the same. Don't believe me? See the screenshots at http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/
So his complaints would all be still valid, unless he's biased against mono.
Gah! What the fuck is wrong with a ruling saying the OEMs should have the right to install browsers other than IE if they want to? I highly doubt Canonical would stop Dell from installing Epiphany or Konqueror as the default browser (although they may recommend against it as consumers are more likely to be familiar with Firefox).
OEMs already have this right to install alternative browsers since the stone ages of PCs. They can even set the default browser to whatever they want.
Well, the EU did sit by and watched while all this was happening. And now, it's too late and the cure is worse than the disease. I would prefer that they did nothing at this point. All they should do is educate users about web standards and security while making sure MS doesn't cross it's limits again. But this witch hunting an OS for including a browser at a time when the main reason to use a computer is to go online is full of crock.
Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days.
Almost all Widows-targetting malware, whether it works by directly compromising a Windows component or through compromising an app running on Windows, exploits fundamental holes in the Windows security model which make it so that compromising any bit of software is equivalent to compromising the user account that runs the software, which is almost always either a regular user account or the system account.
Of course, this is a fairly common feature of OS structure that's far from unique to Windows, but its not the only way to do things, either.
Wrong, most of the malware spread through email, IM, "codec.exe" on shady sites, things masquerading as antiviruses, etc. I.E more of social engineering than actual software exploits.
If my web browser can't -- because of restrictions enforced by the OS based on permissions it requested at installation -- write to anything but the local storage space it uses for web applications and its bookmarks and history files, and if it can't read arbitrary data on the hard disk, then there are pretty firm boundaries to what damage that can be done if it is compromised.
You seem to be pretty misinformed. IE7/IE8 on Vista/Windows 7 already do exactly what you described from like 3 years. That's why it's harder to exploit it than Safari on OS X or Firefox on Windows/Linux/OS X. The industry is behind Microsoft in this. I think Chrome does it too on Windows but am not sure.
The risk can be greatly mitigated by a system similar to that used by bitfrost, where installation of a program also involves the program requesting the needed permissions. A system in which programs usually run with the full privilege of a particular user account rather than with program-specific permissions exposes the user to much greater risk from the compromise of any program (this is, of course, more true when the user account at issue is an admin account, which Microsoft has made some strides in dealing with, but its still very much a problem even with "regular" user accounts.)
Your solution takes care of only holes in applications. What about installing a new App? As I said in my original post, the threat is more these days with malware passing through email, IM, USB drives, etc. The malware can just request all the possible permissions at install time. How can the OS verify that it was a legit app and not malware or vice versa?
So, do give me a link to the EC ruling that says what Microsoft is supposed to be doing as a consequence of their "bad behaviour."
Oh wait, the EC hasn't delivered it yet. Ergo, you're more than a little presumptuous.
Ask and you shall receive.
In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.
Opera is being a crybaby. I am saying that being a longtime user of Opera exclusively. In fact I am typing this on Opera 10 beta that I just installed and is pretty slick. But really, they gotta stop this nonsense.
"If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen, just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case," he said.
Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What will the order in which the browsers are presented? WTF is going on with the EU?
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.
"Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy," he added.
Uhh? The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine. From MS's blog:
In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.
To avoid the fine, MS removed IE, and still there's a lot of BS going on.
First, I agree with EU.
American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...
And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Cheers,
Oops, messed the previous reply up with the quote tags. Here we go again.
Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in?
First, I agree with EU.
American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...
And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in?
Cheers,
Just make your point, and leave that crap out next time.
I would be with you, but being on the receiving end of troll, overrated and flamebait moderations for pointing out uncomfortable truths on here, I have to side with them.
"I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc"
Defects in application or 'user error' shouldn't lead to the OS being compromised or the consumers having to pay the sellers more money to fix their defective product.
Name a OS where user error can't lead to the OS being compromised. Maybe only in a very locked down system like a kiosk , but a kiosk is not every useful and the user won't have any freedom. If you can install Firefox, you can install a virus. Unless there's a whitelist, but would you trust a whitelist maintained by MS? An alternative is total application virtualization, but given the fact that applications need to talk to each other and be able to access user files make it tough.
'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50."
I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc. MS is offering a service to clean them up and does provide free fixes for bugs in their software. Obligatory car analogy, car company sells insurance for breakins and accidents and charges extra. Why not pay for it if the deal is good?
Slashdot Mirror
If it lacks some features it is hardly a line by line clone, is it? The source for my claim can easily be your acceptance of the fact that Tomboy has features that Gnote is lacking. The fact that someone is working on it doesn't mean anythin, the feature simply isn't there for me to use.
Judging an app by what it *might* do in the future is hardly a good procedure for including the app in a default install. If Gnote is the better app in the future, then, by all means, substitute the two.
I simply don't get you, can't a line by line copy be incomplete because not all the lines were ported? What about integration issues with addons written in C# ? Won't that explain the lack of all addons? Either you're trolling and/or arguing just for the sake of it after realizing that you lost the argument. I am going to have to stop replying to you at this rate.
Cheers. I see no reason therefore to include Tomboy + Mono by default with Gnome on Debian - or do other parts of Gnome depend upon Mono now?
There ARE reasons, why not listen to the distro maintainers instead of armchair speculation from reading Slashdot posts? http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html [archivum.info] [archivum.info] :
- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a note-taking application has no place in it... - If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal, cp .tomboy .gnote'.
- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works fine for my tomboy use...).
IronPython runs on the .NET framework. Dunno about Mono though.
I guess Tomboy is a nice test-case. But all that junk to install just for a note-taking program?
Tomboy is not 50MB, the whole Mono framework is that much, Tomboy is relatively small. If you use F-Spot or Beagle, Mono runtime is installed anyway. Debian had reason to include Tomboy instead of Gnote. Also Tomboy does not have Applet support, which is why Debian wants it in the Gnome install instead of Gnote. From http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html [archivum.info] :
- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a note-taking application has no place in it... - If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal, cp .tomboy .gnote'. - While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works fine for my tomboy use...).
Wrong:
Appeal of C# over Objective-C:
C# code is less repetitive than Objective-C code
No need to declare every IB plug 4 times, only once.
Runs in a safe VM
No buffer-overflows
No crashes due to uninitialized memory
No dangling pointers
Garbage collection for all types
Lambda expressions (great for GUI programming)
Iterators
Generic programming for type safe coding.
Type inferencing for reduced typing.
Dynamic code generation
IronPython talks to C# objects naturally (out of the box)
Superior XML libraries
LINQ to XML, LINQ to Objects, and maybe some day LINQ to Databases.
If it runs faster and takes up less space*, who cares what the Tomboy developers think? May the better app win, I say.
*disclaimer: I have no proof that either of these are true, but it seems likely. If not, then Tomboy ought to thrive and Gnote will probably not gain many users anyway.
You are being too simplistic. Forks are more complicated than 'if Y is better than X then people will use Y and the world will be better'.
Consider this, what's the sole motivation behind the development of Gnote? It is to remove the Mono dependency, that's all, there's nothing more to it. And the work is relatively easy because all the heavy lifting has already been done by the Tomboy developers.
Say Gnote takes off and Tomboy dies, the motivation to improve Gnote is gone because the single goal of Gnote(i.e to kill Tomboy) has been achieved, and anyway, there is no more Tomboy to ripoff new ideas, code and GUI design from. Tomboy's developers are not happy with gnote now, so there's little chance they will jump ship to gnote.
So there's more to this than survival of the fastest and slimmest.
Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience. Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform. Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data. When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?"
Also Tomboy does not have Applet support, which is why Debian wants it in the Gnome install instead of Gnote. From http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html :
- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a note-taking application has no place in it... - If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal, cp .tomboy .gnote'.
- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look
at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is
not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works
fine for my tomboy use...).
You can use gnote if it fits your desires, but claiming that it should be default for ALL users is misguided. The Debian packagers know better than you.
It is not a line by line clone. A small count: Tomboy has 13 addons that comes with the app, Gnote has 6. For one, Gnote does not have any synchronization addons.
Uh? How does the lack of synchronization addons mean that it's not a clone? Synchronization code is being worked upon, according to Gnote's site. From http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/93/
Gnote is, for those living under a large pile of particularly non-porous rocks, a fork of Tomboy, doing a line-by-line translation of the source into C++.
Can you quote your source for claiming that it's not a line by line clone?
Edit: Tomboy is under LGPL.
PS: From TFA (I confess not having read it in full before typing the above rant ... I did read TFA.... just not in detail ;-p)
The news got out via a blog post by Debian maintainer Robert Millan, who maintains the Gnote package for Debian - Gnote is a non-Mono replacement for Tomboy written in C++.
In other words, it's a non-story about two maintainers trying to get their packages accepted into the "default" installation (from TFA it sounds like it's an issue of what to include in the first CD). Yeah, raise patent concerns, size concerns, blah blah blah blah, but it all boils down to ego stroking and comparing dick sizes.
Duh.
Gnote is not just a non-Mono replacement of Tomboy, it's a line by line ripoff of Tomboy's C# code to C++ and GUI design. See http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/ for screenshots. And the developers of Tomboy are not happy.
Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience. Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform. Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data. When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?"
Of course, it's under GPL so Gnote is within it's rights, but there's a thing called professional courtesy and respecting a developer's wishes.
Gnote is a line by line clone of Tomboy from C# to C++. Even the GUI is exactly the same. Don't believe me? See the screenshots at http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/ So his complaints would all be still valid, unless he's biased against mono.
Here ---> http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/
Gah! What the fuck is wrong with a ruling saying the OEMs should have the right to install browsers other than IE if they want to? I highly doubt Canonical would stop Dell from installing Epiphany or Konqueror as the default browser (although they may recommend against it as consumers are more likely to be familiar with Firefox).
OEMs already have this right to install alternative browsers since the stone ages of PCs. They can even set the default browser to whatever they want.
Next thing you know MS will be charged by the EU with rigging the Random Number Generator.
So what's the EU to do? Nothing?
Well, the EU did sit by and watched while all this was happening. And now, it's too late and the cure is worse than the disease. I would prefer that they did nothing at this point. All they should do is educate users about web standards and security while making sure MS doesn't cross it's limits again. But this witch hunting an OS for including a browser at a time when the main reason to use a computer is to go online is full of crock.
Almost all Widows-targetting malware, whether it works by directly compromising a Windows component or through compromising an app running on Windows, exploits fundamental holes in the Windows security model which make it so that compromising any bit of software is equivalent to compromising the user account that runs the software, which is almost always either a regular user account or the system account.
Of course, this is a fairly common feature of OS structure that's far from unique to Windows, but its not the only way to do things, either.
Wrong, most of the malware spread through email, IM, "codec.exe" on shady sites, things masquerading as antiviruses, etc. I.E more of social engineering than actual software exploits.
If my web browser can't -- because of restrictions enforced by the OS based on permissions it requested at installation -- write to anything but the local storage space it uses for web applications and its bookmarks and history files, and if it can't read arbitrary data on the hard disk, then there are pretty firm boundaries to what damage that can be done if it is compromised.
You seem to be pretty misinformed. IE7/IE8 on Vista/Windows 7 already do exactly what you described from like 3 years. That's why it's harder to exploit it than Safari on OS X or Firefox on Windows/Linux/OS X. The industry is behind Microsoft in this. I think Chrome does it too on Windows but am not sure.
The risk can be greatly mitigated by a system similar to that used by bitfrost, where installation of a program also involves the program requesting the needed permissions. A system in which programs usually run with the full privilege of a particular user account rather than with program-specific permissions exposes the user to much greater risk from the compromise of any program (this is, of course, more true when the user account at issue is an admin account, which Microsoft has made some strides in dealing with, but its still very much a problem even with "regular" user accounts.)
Your solution takes care of only holes in applications. What about installing a new App? As I said in my original post, the threat is more these days with malware passing through email, IM, USB drives, etc. The malware can just request all the possible permissions at install time. How can the OS verify that it was a legit app and not malware or vice versa?
So, do give me a link to the EC ruling that says what Microsoft is supposed to be doing as a consequence of their "bad behaviour." Oh wait, the EC hasn't delivered it yet. Ergo, you're more than a little presumptuous.
Ask and you shall receive.
In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.
http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx
"If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen, just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case," he said.
Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What will the order in which the browsers are presented? WTF is going on with the EU?
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.
"Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy," he added.
Uhh? The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine. From MS's blog:
In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.
To avoid the fine, MS removed IE, and still there's a lot of BS going on.
First, I agree with EU. American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada. This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers. How do I browse the above web page? With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page. I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do... And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years? Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE? Cheers,
Oops, messed the previous reply up with the quote tags. Here we go again. Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in?
First, I agree with EU. American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada. This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers. How do I browse the above web page? With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page. I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do... And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years? Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE? Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in? Cheers,
Just make your point, and leave that crap out next time.
I would be with you, but being on the receiving end of troll, overrated and flamebait moderations for pointing out uncomfortable truths on here, I have to side with them.
"I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc" Defects in application or 'user error' shouldn't lead to the OS being compromised or the consumers having to pay the sellers more money to fix their defective product.
Name a OS where user error can't lead to the OS being compromised. Maybe only in a very locked down system like a kiosk , but a kiosk is not every useful and the user won't have any freedom. If you can install Firefox, you can install a virus. Unless there's a whitelist, but would you trust a whitelist maintained by MS? An alternative is total application virtualization, but given the fact that applications need to talk to each other and be able to access user files make it tough.
'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50."
I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc. MS is offering a service to clean them up and does provide free fixes for bugs in their software. Obligatory car analogy, car company sells insurance for breakins and accidents and charges extra. Why not pay for it if the deal is good?
Leaving imprints such as this? http://www.swrtec.de/clinux/gnome-foot.gif