Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Aug 2009 16:23 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Mozilla & Gecko clones Remember the very detailed proposal Microsoft submitted to the European Commission not too long ago about the browser ballot? This was quite the detailed proposal, covering just about every possible aspect of such a ballot screen. Responses were positive from within the EC, but now it seems that according to the Mozilla Foundation, the proposal is not good enough.
Order by: Score:
agreed
by po134 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 16:52 UTC
po134
Member since:
2009-05-15

indeed it is a sad day for mozilla... their points are valid, but the fact they even try to push them and the way they do it ain't.

eg, the "remove my previous browser shortcut" and "remove my last browser ha default" could be checkbox from without the ballot screen, but it's pushing everything a bit too far.

Reply Score: 1

RE: agreed
by Deviate_X on Thu 20th Aug 2009 05:34 UTC in reply to "agreed"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Some of us use multiple browsers. I propose:

* A checkbox by each browser so that i can install multiple browsers at once.

* Advanced screen so that i can choose opetions like:
- remove browsers installed which have not been checked
- select which browser which will be the default
- automatically update browser through windows update
- notification of each browser update

* if the user has not used the advcanced options, we can just let race conditions determine which broswer becomes the default

* there should also be a screen where i can install essential plugins like flash and ad blockers across all selected installed browsers

* windows should do the downloading and installing of the selected browsers (for the 'just works' ease factor)

* and finally, if the user has de-selected, and removed IE, Windows should block scan internet traffic and hiding all pages which have links to the IE download page

Regards

Reply Score: 2

Icons and Links
by Tuishimi on Wed 19th Aug 2009 16:55 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually agree with Mozilla I think. If MS is going to do this, then they should remove the icons which I am guessing will say "Do you want to install IE" whenever a user accidentally clicks one... they can move the ability to install IE to the Software panel, add components.

As far as the links go, that could become very annoying as well. There are certain applications on OS X that will always try to open Apple Mail instead of whatever else I might use, and every once in awhile Safari over Firefox or Camino. Also I think synchronization is broken, I swear that even when I have it turned off for Mail, it still fires it up. But I digress.

I don't know this, but I would assume that there will be many more links like that with Windows. But I could very well be wrong.

Ah well.

Reply Score: 7

Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Wed 19th Aug 2009 16:58 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

I guess the time has come to give Chrome a try, as this kind of foolishness is really starting to annoy me.

I certainly agree with Thom, no app I install should be removing ANYTHING from my computer with out my express permission, and then more than likely, I would still deny it and do it myself.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by BluenoseJake
by morris on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by BluenoseJake"
morris Member since:
2009-03-26

I guess the time has come to give Chrome a try, as this kind of foolishness is really starting to annoy me.

I certainly agree with Thom, no app I install should be removing ANYTHING from my computer with out my express permission, and then more than likely, I would still deny it and do it myself.


No, you are wrong! This is anti-monopoly, which means, no IE by default. If you installed IE by yourself, you are not using Windows anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by BluenoseJake"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

What? It's not about Monopoly, It's about control of my machine, and I won't have Mozilla or the EU (I live in Canada) controlling what I have installed on my computer, regardless who wrote the OS.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by DrillSgt on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

What? It's not about Monopoly, It's about control of my machine, and I won't have Mozilla or the EU (I live in Canada) controlling what I have installed on my computer, regardless who wrote the OS.


My understanding is the ballot screen will only ship with the versions for the EU. So Canada or any other non-EU country won't see it. I could be wrong about that, however is my understanding from reading the proposal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I dunno, you may be right, but this statement leads me to believe otherwise:

It will be delivered to all current and future users of Windows XP/Vista/7 through Windows Update
.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by DrillSgt on Wed 19th Aug 2009 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

I dunno, you may be right, but this statement leads me to believe otherwise:

"It will be delivered to all current and future users of Windows XP/Vista/7 through Windows Update
. "

Ouch yeah, looks like I am wrong with that statement. I must have glossed over that when I read it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by BluenoseJake
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 19:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by BluenoseJake"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

I guess the time has come to give Chrome a try, as this kind of foolishness is really starting to annoy me.

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you are going to boycott Firefox over antitrust stuff you'll have to boycott Chrome as well:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/06/google-launches-ant...

And you'll have to ditch Windows too:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/microsofts-arguments-again...

Will you practice what you preach? I wonder.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by BluenoseJake on Thu 20th Aug 2009 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by BluenoseJake"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I guess the time has come to give Chrome a try, as this kind of foolishness is really starting to annoy me.

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you are going to boycott Firefox over antitrust stuff you'll have to boycott Chrome as well:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/06/google-launches-ant...

And you'll have to ditch Windows too:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/microsofts-arguments-again...

Will you practice what you preach? I wonder.
"

I'm not annoyed with Mozilla because of Anti-trust, but because even though they just announced a billion downloads, and have been gaining marketshare steadily for years, they think they can still whine and moan like they are the underdogs.

Even Opera has more of a case than Mozilla for anti-trust violations.

I couldn't give a crap about desktop search, so your first argument is bogus. Googles desktop search is not their browser, nor their search engine. Oh, and that article is 2 years old, and they lost.

As far as Windows is concerned, I tend to use the best tool for the job, if that means Windows, then it's Windows, if that means Debian, then it's Debian, if it's FreeBSD, then it's FreeBSD. I need to have Windows around because of work, but I tend to use a lot of Debian at home. It's because I get to choose what I use, not Mozilla, not the EU and not anybody else.

That argument is also against 2 years old, and when it comes to online search and ads, Google is the monopoly and MS a distant 3rd.

A browser is just that a browser, there are 4 or 5 choices to decide between, and I'll pick the one that annoys me the least. Trying to compare the choice between a browser and an OS is just a weak argument. Sometimes the choice is clear, especially when deploying desktops at work, or building one for a family member. Sometimes you have many criteria and then you get to decide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by BluenoseJake
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by BluenoseJake"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

I'm not annoyed with Mozilla because of Anti-trust, but because even though they just announced a billion downloads, and have been gaining marketshare steadily for years, they think they can still whine and moan like they are the underdogs.

They aren't "whining and moaning". They are posting some perfectly valid concerns. Are you really saying that they shouldn't look carefully at Microsoft's proposal to spot any problems with it?

Even Opera has more of a case than Mozilla for anti-trust violations.

Sigh. The antitrust case is not because of actions against any specific companies. Google, Opera and Mozilla are IRRELEVANT. The only thing that's relevant is what Microsoft did to the MARKET.

I couldn't give a crap about desktop search, so your first argument is bogus. Googles desktop search is not their browser, nor their search engine. Oh, and that article is 2 years old, and they lost.

Desktop Search?

Yes, the complaint was rejected. That's the point. At least the current complaint against Microsoft has actual merit. Google and Microsoft, on the other hand, keep filing antitrust complaints without merit!

A browser is just that a browser

No, the browser is not JUST a browser. It's becoming the most important development platform! It's vitally important that no single company is able to control the web!

Reply Score: 1

I've got an idea...
by philipsw on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:31 UTC
philipsw
Member since:
2009-07-27

Perhap Microsoft, in an attempt to appease each competetive browser manufacturer, should distribute separate Windows variants for each different browser. For example, there would be a "Windows 7 Mozilla" variant (well, actually several of them) which comes preloaded with, well, Mozilla Firefox as the only web browser. Likewise, there would be Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc... editions each with that particular browser pre-installed and set to update auto-magically.

Frankly, this is getting a bit ridiculous. The first remedy proposed by Microsoft was to ship Windows without a web browser. The EC didn't agree with that. Now Microsoft has proposed to ship a version which allows users to select which browser they prefer. Mozilla doesn't agree with that. Where exactly does this end?

The EC's disagreement with MS' first remedy suggestion seems to imply that an OS without a web browser is not complete. Mozilla's disagreement with the second proposed remedy seems to imply that they expect the 2 remedies to be combined (no browser by default, selected browser becomes the only one installed on the system).

For pity's sake, they're (MS) trying! Obviously they want *their* OS to ship with *their* browser and for *it* to be the default. Why shouldn't they? I think it's universally accepted now that an OS without a web broswer, except in very niche environments, is borderline useless for most users. Why wouldn't MS bundle a browser with Windows? The EC doesn't like this, and have ruled against MS. MS has proposed 2 remedies now, both of which seemed reasonable. The first was rejected because it was too extreme in the EC's eyes. The second has now come under fire because it doesn't promote the level of fairness other browser developer's want. "Fairness". What a useless word. It's generally bandied about by those who feel they didn't receive something which they feel they deserved.

The solution to this "problem" is as simple as it's ever been: If you don't want to develop your site in such a way that it renders well in an IE environment, don't. Just tell your users that they'll have to use a browser which is more standards compliant. Then your users can make a (informed) decision as to which browser they should use.

Reply Score: 3

Legitimate
by cheeseballoon on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:38 UTC
cheeseballoon
Member since:
2005-08-30

Though a little nit-picky, these seem like legitimate complaints. I'm glad somebody is keeping an eye out for these tricky details.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Legitimate
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:30 UTC in reply to "Legitimate"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Though a little nit-picky, these seem like legitimate complaints.

Indeed, very legitimate. I commented in a previous thread, when the proposal came out, that I wondered how Microsoft was going to rig things to ensure that their candidate always won the ballot. I didn't realize that they would be quite so blatant. If the user selects a non-IE browser, IE should not be cluttering up the desktop.

I do find the idea of retaining Trident to be reasonable. Removing it completely would probably not be good for users. But that, right there, already gives IE an unfair advantage. IE should definitely not be all over the default desktop, as well, after the user has already said that they want to use another browser.

And frankly, that much seems so obvious that I have to seriously wonder about the motives of those people trying to cast Mozilla's criticism of it in a bad light. Can you imagine the uproar if Opera, Inc. were to suggest that no matter what browser the user selected, Opera should end up on the desktop in no fewer than 3 places? Well... that is *exactly* what Microsoft is trying to do with IE. I'm pretty sure I perceive a double-standard deluxe here. And the fact that it seems to originate with OSNews staff makes it all that much more disturbing.

Reply Score: 5

Not Legitimate
by MollyC on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Legitimate"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

First, the idea that installing one browser removes another is silly.
Second, even if a checkbox were added to the ballot to say "Remove IE", nobody (that doesn't have a political axe to grind) is going to click it. Why would they? To save a few KB of disk space?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not Legitimate
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:13 UTC in reply to "Not Legitimate"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

First, the idea that installing one browser removes another is silly.

That ballot concept is, in itself flawed. It's like saying that Candidate A is going to be your country's president. That's a done deal. It's been decided behind closed doors. But we, the people, get to elect another person who is also going to be president. Even someone with your extreme and obvious bias on the topic should be able to see that.

The ballot should be to decide what browser the user wants to use. Due to MS's previous politics, I almost have to agree that the inclusion of Trident, in any case, is necessary. It is unfortunate. And it is wrong. But it is necessary compromise. But it is also as much compromise as is warranted. I absolutely do not agree with the distorted view of the matter which you are selling. And, honestly, I am seriously beginning to wonder who pulls your puppet strings, Molly. And I don't say that lightly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not Legitimate
by ringham on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Not Legitimate"
ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

That ballot concept is, in itself flawed. It's like saying that Candidate A is going to be your country's president. That's a done deal. It's been decided behind closed doors.


How exactly is ballot concept flawed? Your logic is flawed there - the ballot is there to choose, but you somehow are twisting it around into a situation where the choice has been made for the consumer. I don't quite understand what point you're trying to make. The consumer will be allowed to choose. That's not a done deal decided behind closed doors. Where are you getting that idea from?

I almost have to agree that the inclusion of Trident, in any case, is necessary. It is unfortunate. And it is wrong.


Uhh, why is it wrong for Microsoft to include a component of the OS, something that IE is built on, and something that no other browser is forced to use in any way shape or form? How exactly is that wrong?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not Legitimate
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not Legitimate"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Uhhh... RTFA much? No matter which browser you choose to use, IE is on the desktop, on the panel, and in the menus. OK, "In the menus" might be defensible. But certainly not the part where the user has said "I want to use Chrome" and IE is then put all over the desktop. You (and Molly) are clearly the one's "twisting" the issue.

Edited 2009-08-19 20:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not Legitimate
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not Legitimate"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uhhh... RTFA much? No matter which browser you choose to use, IE is on the desktop, on the panel, and in the menus. OK, "In the menus" might be defensible. But certainly not the part where the user has said "I want to use Chrome" and IE is then put all over the desktop. You (and Molly) are clearly the one's "twisting" the issue.


The problem here is this: are we talking about *existing* installations, or *new* installations? On a new installation, I can somewhat see the point in actually selecting a *single* browser during installation, and then have IE ditched automatically.

On an existing installation, however, that is completely preposterous. On an existing installation, a browser selected through the ballot should not cause another piece of software to magically vanish. And if you were to put in a warning stating IE was going to be removed, I'm sure a lot of people would refrain from selecting a non-IE browser ("but I can't go back!").

Edited 2009-08-19 20:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not Legitimate
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not Legitimate"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

On a new installation, I can somewhat see the point in actually selecting a *single* browser during installation, and then have IE ditched automatically. On an existing installation, however, that is completely preposterous.

I would agree with that. I am referring to new installations and not to upgrades.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Not Legitimate
by ringham on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not Legitimate"
ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Do... you even understand how to conduct an argument? You take a point someone makes, analyze it, explain why you think they are wrong, and make a counterargument explaining why you are right.

Instead, you replied with... this completely unitelligable garbage.

Uhhh... RTFA much? No matter which browser you choose to use, IE is on the desktop, on the panel, and in the menus. OK, "In the menus" might be defensible. But certainly not the part where the user has said "I want to use Chrome" and IE is then put all over the desktop. You (and Molly) are clearly the one's "twisting" the issue.


First, are you talking about on a browser ballot Win7 system? If that is the case, you're hilariously wrong, as Microsoft has pointed out, IE will appear NOWHERE but on the ballot screen. Read Microsoft's proposal if you think I'm "twisting" the issue. It's in there, clear as day.

I'm not twisting the issue. You're unwilling to approach it logically.

Edited 2009-08-19 20:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Awww, you hurt my feelings.
by MollyC on Thu 20th Aug 2009 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Not Legitimate"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Let me get this straight: I have extreme and obvious bias, but you're totally objective, right? LOL



And, honestly, I am seriously beginning to wonder who pulls your puppet strings, Molly. And I don't say that lightly.


OK, let me deal with your personal attack against me, which takes the form of the above insulting innuendo (someone's "pulling my puppet strings"? Are you serious?):
I don't have any "puppet strings", let alone a puppet master that's pulling them. And if you think about it, why would someone "pull my puppet strings" to post anything whatsoever to this site?

sbergman, we've usually been on opposing sides, but I recall when we could do that in a friendly manner. But you've recently developed a personal grudge against me (as evidenced by your dumping me from your friends list, which I just noticed today) which is clouding your judgement and causing you make baseless personal attacks. Maybe you need to "take a stress pill and think things over" (to quote HAL, from 2001). And realize that just because I disagree with you, and consider Opera's and now (sadly) Mozilla's complaints to be whining, and I question the EC's procedures when arriving at their dictates, does not mean that someone is "pulling my puppet strings", paying me to post here (if that's what your insulting comment was meant to imply) or anything else. I come to this site on my own accord, nobody else's. I visit this site when I want to, not at someone's behest. I post what I want, not what anyone tells me to.

I'm disappointed that you've thrown your lot in with the "You're an astroturfer!!" crowd. Such was once beneath you. Maybe you're just having a bad day.

As for the substance of your post, I was going to address it, but since you've decided (at least for the nonce) that questioning my integrity is a valid debate tactic, I won't waste my time. (Not that it matters at all. Winning or losing debates on this site doesn't matter at all in the real world (which is why the notion of "puppet masters" and "puppet strings" is so ridiculous). Know that.)

Well, I can't resist. ;) You say including Trident is "wrong". Why? That's part of the Windows API. Both COM and .NET apis. 3rd party apps rely on that. Just like third party apps rely on DirectX, GDI, the Clipboard API, etc. Just like Mac apps rely on WebKit or QuickTime API. So now including API libraries is "wrong"? When does it stop? Where does it end?

I'll close with this:
Despite your insult, I still like you and respect your posts (except the above one). Cheers!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Awww, you hurt my feelings.
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 19:39 UTC in reply to "Awww, you hurt my feelings."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

sbergman, we've usually been on opposing sides, but I recall when we could do that in a friendly manner. But you've recently developed a personal grudge against me

Having read your comments, I can understand why. Do you work for Microsoft or something? You seem to be shilling on their behalf.

And realize that just because I disagree with you, and consider Opera's and now (sadly) Mozilla's complaints to be whining


What about Microsoft's antitrust complaints? Are they fine just because it's Microsoft?

Reply Score: 0

Indicitave of a large problem
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:41 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I think Mozilla wants it to work like some Linux or *BSD distro's install processes do. Where you select what cron, MTX, and what not you use. There really isn't any corollary in the windows world, which might explain why the ballot is the way it is.

Windows isn't set up to nativity integrate 3rd party apps into its core. That may be why the EU is doing this in the first place. I think MS is being a bit short sided by not doing it the way Mozilla was expecting.

Having an application repo, and configurable, interchangeable parts would add value to the OS and allow it to leap from OS X. It need to realize that its focus for the operating system should be convincing users that its worth the upgrade price, rather than using it to maintain/ or enhance the market share of its other products. Maybe by the time windows 8 is out they'll figure it out. I have hope for them, I really do.

Reply Score: 3

I agree with Mozilla, sort of
by Hark3n on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:48 UTC
Hark3n
Member since:
2007-01-15

I think Mozilla's suggestions are good, but I would actually like it to be taken further.

Why not have the ballot, but only allow one browser to be installed initially.

Have a short description of the browsers offered and let the user decide from there. If they want to install more browsers they can.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I agree with Mozilla, sort of
by phoenix on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:48 UTC in reply to "I agree with Mozilla, sort of"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I think Mozilla's suggestions are good, but I would actually like it to be taken further.

Why not have the ballot, but only allow one browser to be installed initially.

Have a short description of the browsers offered and let the user decide from there. If they want to install more browsers they can.


It should be taken to the logical conclusion of the ballot process:

Ship Windows with IE *not* installed by default (obviously Trident is installed, just not the iexplore.exe).
Show the Ballot Screen and let the user select the browser they want to use as their default.
Download/install that browser, *and* set it as the system default.

Done. Once one browser has been selected and installed as the default, it's up to the user to manage from that point on. If they want to install other browsers, they can do so as they please. If they want to change the default, they can do that using the normal Windows tools. If they want to remove them, they can use the normal Windows tools.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I agree with Mozilla, sort of
by mrhasbean on Wed 19th Aug 2009 21:28 UTC in reply to "I agree with Mozilla, sort of"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

I think Mozilla's suggestions are good, but I would actually like it to be taken further.

Why not have the ballot, but only allow one browser to be installed initially.

Have a short description of the browsers offered and let the user decide from there. If they want to install more browsers they can.


Yes I think this is how a ballot should be held if there's going to be one at all. Let the user select which browser(s) they want to use and which they want to be their default browser and install only that / those browser(s). Would make all the rest moot...

Reply Score: 2

Kill 'em all
by bonedance on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:56 UTC
bonedance
Member since:
2009-07-30

They should just remove Internet accessibility all together from Windows 7. People need to spend more time outside.

Edited 2009-08-19 17:57 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Kill 'em all
by bert64 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:03 UTC in reply to "Kill 'em all"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Remove the browser by default, and let system builders install whatever browser they choose...
Make it more like Linux, where you get the bare minimum, and then third parties fill in everything else...
Also, provide a package manager where applications can be searched and chosen (for various tasks, not just the browser) and then automatically downloaded/installed...
Linux makes for a much better system than windows, more choice and easier to make the choices.
System builders can act like linux distros, and make a default set of choices while still allowing the user to easily remove the defaults and replace them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kill 'em all
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:36 UTC in reply to "Kill 'em all"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

They should just remove Internet accessibility all together from Windows 7. People need to spend more time outside.

... instead of reading about the ever-worsening U.S. obesity epidemic on the Internet, and wondering what can be done.

Edited 2009-08-19 19:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kill 'em all
by fretinator on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:40 UTC in reply to "Kill 'em all"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Kill 'em all

You forgot "and let God sort them out"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kill 'em all
by Eddyspeeder on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:45 UTC in reply to "Kill 'em all"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

Strip the internet to bring operating systems back to their core activities, and let the connectivity happen through smartphones and cloud-like operating systems. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kill 'em all
by ecruz on Wed 19th Aug 2009 23:08 UTC in reply to "Kill 'em all"
ecruz Member since:
2007-06-16

I second that one.

Too much time on their hands!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kill 'em all
by OSNevvs on Thu 20th Aug 2009 12:03 UTC in reply to "Kill 'em all"
OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

True! And that would put an end to botnets!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by merkoth
by merkoth on Wed 19th Aug 2009 17:57 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Mozilla should keep doing what it does best: Browsers. This kind of petty politics games won't make Firefox any better and doesn't even seem all that necessary. Firefox was able to gain a lot of marketshare in a very short time.

Up to a certain point, I can understand this kind of crap from Opera: they seem to be kind of rear-end-hurt because after coming up with pretty much every feature present in today's browsers, they still failed to grab a relevant piece of the desktop market.

I suppose that the next Ubuntu version will also come with a ballot screen right? Make sure you include Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Arora, Epiphany, Dillo, lynx, Galeon, reconq, Midori...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by merkoth
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 19:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by merkoth"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Mozilla should keep doing what it does best: Browsers. This kind of petty politics games won't make Firefox any better and doesn't even seem all that necessary.

What are you saying here? That Mozilla shouldn't care about what goes on in the browser market? That it shouldn't give a damn about the future of the web?

Firefox was able to gain a lot of marketshare in a very short time.

5 years isn't that short. And as Mozilla points out:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/competition_is....

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

Up to a certain point, I can understand this kind of crap from Opera: they seem to be kind of rear-end-hurt because after coming up with pretty much every feature present in today's browsers, they still failed to grab a relevant piece of the desktop market.

Opera has about 3% globally, and closing in on 10% in Europe. They are also the dominant mobile browser, with a 30% market share or so.

I suppose that the next Ubuntu version will also come with a ballot screen right?

Ubuntu didn't break European Competition Law. Microsoft did.

Reply Score: 1

Too Limited.
by Skavengrr on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:05 UTC
Skavengrr
Member since:
2009-08-19

This is getting ridiculous. It makes me want to ditch all other browsers and just use the default one with each OS. (IE on Windows and Safari on Mac).

In one way I completely agree with the other comments posted in that it shouldn't UNINSTALL software without my express permission. After all if you installed "word" would you want it to uninstall all other text editors? or if you installed Quicktime would you expect it to uninstall Windows Media player?

But I don't think the EU have gone far enough. Fine make MS give a ballot screen but to be completely fair with everyone then Apple and OSX should also be made to do the exact same thing!

Edit: And I forgot to add if you Remove IE then you remove the facility to use IE Tab in firefox. Wouldn't this make cross-browser development a nightmare? having to install/uninstall browsers just to do a quick test?

Edited 2009-08-19 18:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Too Limited.
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 19:42 UTC in reply to "Too Limited."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

This is getting ridiculous.

What is getting ridiculous, specifically?

But I don't think the EU have gone far enough. Fine make MS give a ballot screen but to be completely fair with everyone then Apple and OSX should also be made to do the exact same thing!

Apple is not a convicted monopolist. Fail.

Reply Score: 1

Disagree.
by hollovoid on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:20 UTC
hollovoid
Member since:
2005-09-21

I still use IE when needed from time to time and I dont think installing firefox, opera etc, should remove any other icons for any reason. I can do this. And as far as going to a website to get the alt browser... Make it seamless, keep the most updated browser in the same place all the time, the damn thing needs to be downloaded anyways (unless they prefer outdated browsers to be included).

Definitly agree with thom on default, all browsers ask this anyways, and as far as placement of icons, just randomize it and be done with it..

Reply Score: 4

RE: Disagree.
by JPisini on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:47 UTC in reply to "Disagree."
JPisini Member since:
2006-01-24

I really like the idea of randomizing the buttons then no one can claim favoritism.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Ship Windows to Europe with no browser. Let the OEMs deal with providing a browser. I've seen nothing in EU law that would make that illegal, beyond the fact that antitrust law in the EU is the EC's whim. But saying that it's unacceptable for Windows to ship without a browser may go too far for even the EU appeals court. It normally rubberstamps the arbitrary dictates of the EC, but where's the legal foundation to say that it's unacceptable for Windows to ship without a browser? I don't think there's any legal foundation at all. But if Microsoft went with the original scheme, the EC would fine them for about 1.5 billion dollars, then Microsoft would have to roll the dice with the EU appeals court, which normally rubberstamps the EC's rulings, no matter how absurd they are. So chances are that Microsoft would ultimately have to provide a ballot anyway, but having to also pay 1.5 billion dollars in fines.

So instead of having the simple, clean, and legal (IMO) solution of shipping Windows with no browser, we have a convoluted ballot mechanism, with multiple browser makers now trying to game the system to make the ballot more in their favor. This is beyond stupid.

Edited 2009-08-19 18:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

I've seen nothing in EU law that would make that illegal, beyond the fact that antitrust law in the EU is the EC's whim.

The law is not the EC's whim. The EC ENFORCES the law. Please educate yourself.

where's the legal foundation to say that it's unacceptable for Windows to ship without a browser?

That is not the question here. The question is if removing IE would be sufficient to restore competitionin the market. It wouldn't.

This is beyond stupid.

Only to those who lack an even basic understanding of the issue.

Reply Score: 1

This isn't taking it far enough.
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:26 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Microsoft's new proposal:

If you choose IE, a dialog box appears that says: Warning: Use of Internet Explorer has been linked to Cancer. Press OK to continue, or Cancel to live.

Mozilla and Opera, of course, complained, saying the dialog didn't go far enough, that IE also causes Divorce and your children to abandon you to the worst nursing home they can afford.

I'm almost tempted to switch to IE just to spite Mozilla. Too bad Firefox is just so... useful.

Reply Score: 2

ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

You fail at comedy.

Reply Score: 2

odd
by broken_symlink on Wed 19th Aug 2009 18:35 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is odd that all the ballot does is download the browser for you. If people couldn't do that themselves before, how can you expect them to install it by themselves after its been downloaded for them?

Reply Score: 4

sigh
by ringham on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:23 UTC
ringham
Member since:
2006-03-23

I'm amazed that people in general, Opera and Mozilla are STILL complaining so much about what is essentially a free product. I've always felt that Microsoft should be free to include a browser with Windows in the exact same way that Apple includes Safari and many Linux distros include Firefox. Really, what's the big deal?

Competition? Why do people really care if it's about competition? YOU ARE ALL RELEASING THE BROWSERS FOR FREE. In my mind, anti-monopoly laws should only really be enforced for products that cost people money.

Maybe this was really an issue back when you could buy a browser off the shelf at a computer store, but those days are long past.

Should we force the biggest computer manufacturer to have a ballot box to determine which OS to install? Of course not (although I'm sure some FOSSers would eat that up).

Companies shouldn't be forced to promote a competitors product. End of story. Even if the company is a de facto monopoly, and even if the product costs money.

Reply Score: 2

RE: sigh
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 19:46 UTC in reply to "sigh"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

I'm amazed that people in general, Opera and Mozilla are STILL complaining so much about what is essentially a free product.

Just because browsers are generally free doesn't mean that there is no money in browsers. Mozilla, Opera, etc. share revenue with the search engines they pass on traffic to. There's a lot of money there.

Also, he who controls the browser controls the web. The web is too important to be "owned" by one single company. From that perspective, Opera and Mozilla's involvement makes perfect sense: Both of them have been spending HUGE amounts of resources to promote an open web.

I've always felt that Microsoft should be free to include a browser with Windows in the exact same way that Apple includes Safari and many Linux distros include Firefox. Really, what's the big deal?

Apple and Linux distros are not monopolies. Microsoft is. The big deal is that Microsoft has tried to lock people to their own products.

Should we force the biggest computer manufacturer to have a ballot box to determine which OS to install?

If said computer manufacturer had a monopoly, and illegaly abused said monopoly.

Companies shouldn't be forced to promote a competitors product.

Yes they should, if they break the law, and this is the only way to restore the free market.

Reply Score: 1

another_sam
Member since:
2009-08-19

I agree with Mozilla on the Order of browsers on the ballot. I think they should be ordered alphabetically, or, much more interestingly... randomly!

The rest is sad to pursue.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Redeeman
by Redeeman on Wed 19th Aug 2009 21:18 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

browser ballot my ass, nobody sane gives a shit what crap browser other people use, they should instead focus on forcing microsoft to do damage control, remove compatibility with IE6 mode etc, and perhaps work to remove some more "superb standards" such as ooxml crap

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Wed 19th Aug 2009 21:22 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

They can put Firefox as the only option if they want.

I still won't use it.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Sabon
by Sabon on Wed 19th Aug 2009 21:37 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Furthermore, Mozilla is worried about other Microsoft products containing hardcoded links to Internet Explorer. The proposal does state that no other Microsoft products will contain links to download Internet Explorer; I guess only time will tell how that pans out. The proposal does indeed state that the Trident rendering engine will remain to be part of Windows, even after uninstalling Internet Explorer, to accommodate applications that are hardcoded to Trident."

This to me is what everything should all be about. If you wanted to, and you did totally remote IE, would anything break? If yes, the UE should go about Microsoft for it.

All calls to any browser should be sent to whatever is the default browser which is not necessarily IE.

I don't use Windows so this doesn't affect me (I use several others, soon to be using Haiku too). But Microsoft's tying things to IE and Active-X is part of what has always driven me away from Microsoft.

Clarification. IE is only a symptom of the problem called Microsoft. IE is just one of the fishes in barrel. It is far from the only fish in the barrel.

Reply Score: 3

Support a key issue
by Yamin on Wed 19th Aug 2009 22:10 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

One of the most under appreciated aspects is: support.
And no, I don't just mean home user support.. It's about corporate support... the entire verification aspect.

This is true of any company. You try and keep the variants you need to test down.

So right now, if you're Microsoft or even some random company, you can reduce your testing by knowing that IE is installed. If a customer calls in, the first thing you check is... does it work in IE?

It's very costly to support variant after variant. I recently called my ISP and they've recently started a policy where they won't even talk to you unless you are hooked up directly to the cable modem. I was pretty pissed, but at the same time... given the lack of general computer knowledge by home users and the vast array of home routers, it's probably a smart policy.

Think of all the things that can go wrong if this became more than a link to simply download browsers.
- What if the install breaks...
- Security issues of automatically installing something
- what options to choose on install
...

As to the icons... let them stay. So that in the end, you can always tell a customer... click the IE link and run and see if it works.

Reply Score: 3

Enough is enough
by rrife on Thu 20th Aug 2009 01:55 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

First I had to uninstall Opera, which I liked a lot, because they were whining like a bunch of 5yr olds....now I'm going to have to remove Firefox....I can't sit by and support a company that uses their complaint of one company forcing an option on the consumers in order to do the same thing they're accusing MS of. At the rate this going I'm going to be stuck using Lynx or wget.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Enough is enough
by wumip on Thu 20th Aug 2009 19:47 UTC in reply to "Enough is enough"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

First I had to uninstall Opera, which I liked a lot, because they were whining like a bunch of 5yr olds....now I'm going to have to remove Firefox....I can't sit by and support a company that uses their complaint of one company forcing an option on the consumers in order to do the same thing they're accusing MS of. At the rate this going I'm going to be stuck using Lynx or wget.

You will have to boycott Microsoft and Google too, since they have been filing antitrust complaints as well.

Also, no companies are forcing an opinion on consumers. Consumers are finally being given an actual CHOICE, rather than havning IE forced on them.

Reply Score: 0

Ohh these whiners
by Glynser on Thu 20th Aug 2009 06:07 UTC
Glynser
Member since:
2007-11-29

To all those Firefox-lovers-Opera-haters out there...

...well I guess you know what I want to say ;)

Reply Score: 2

Ballot Screen Switch
by Da1ek on Fri 21st Aug 2009 08:37 UTC
Da1ek
Member since:
2009-08-20

Well since all this 'force them to let you choose' began largely as sour grapes from Opera, I want the option to not have the ballot screen pop up ;)

' Do you want to choose to have the choice ' ballot screen first, and perhaps a switch in the setup program for that.

Then lets have it delete any sign of the other browsers, their installers , programs they met on the way to the market that day, the ballot screen, its mum, her friends etc.

OH , and i want every other OS in the world that has the ablity to have more than one choice of browser to be forced under law to do the same. Its only fair ;)

Edited 2009-08-21 08:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ballot Screen Switch
by wumip on Fri 21st Aug 2009 20:19 UTC in reply to "Ballot Screen Switch"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Well since all this 'force them to let you choose' began largely as sour grapes from Opera

On the contrary, it began because Microsoft was breaking the law. The only sour grapes are from Microsoft cheerleaders who can't handle the fact that Microsoft has to face the consequences of its illegal actions.

OH , and i want every other OS in the world that has the ablity to have more than one choice of browser to be forced under law to do the same. Its only fair ;)

The ignorance of this one is amazing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ballot Screen Switch
by Da1ek on Fri 21st Aug 2009 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Ballot Screen Switch"
Da1ek Member since:
2009-08-20

OH , and i want every other OS in the world that has the ablity to have more than one choice of browser to be forced under law to do the same. Its only fair ;)

The ignorance of this one is amazing. [/q]

Satire. Wasted on some people..

Reply Score: 1