Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th Sep 2009 20:37 UTC
Internet & Networking As you all undoubtedly know, the European Union and Microsoft are trying to work out some sort of a settlement regarding the Internet Explorer case. Microsoft made a very detailed proposal for a browser ballot screen earlier this year, and the EU was relatively satisfied. Now, various browser makers have told Reuters that they are not satisfied with Microsoft's proposal.
Order by: Score:
of course I'm unhappy!
by mmu_man on Mon 28th Sep 2009 20:57 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

Where is NetSurf in this list ? ;-)
Hmm maybe we should finish the win32 port first ;)

http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

Reply Score: 3

RE: of course I'm unhappy!
by Lennie on Mon 28th Sep 2009 21:03 UTC in reply to "of course I'm unhappy!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

NetSurf ? HTML4 is old ! ;-)

Edited 2009-09-28 21:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: of course I'm unhappy!
by mmu_man on Mon 28th Sep 2009 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: of course I'm unhappy!"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

Old ?
Still better than <!--[if IE]>IEHTML<[endif]-->

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: of course I'm unhappy!
by Lennie on Mon 28th Sep 2009 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: of course I'm unhappy!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm just kidding, it's always good to have new browsers which adhere to standards. It's the old ones that don't and won't go away that are the real problem. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Damned if they do, damned if they don't
by darknexus on Mon 28th Sep 2009 21:24 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

That's essentially the situation Microsoft are in right now. They wanted a browser ballit screen, and they got it... and, naturally, they find something about it they don't like. Personally, I agree that the best possible thing to do is somehow get MIcrosoft to adopt web standards. I don't really believe, in the end, that they will ultimately have a choice in that if they want IE to remain competitive in the long term.
To Opera: shut the f**k up and make a good product instead of your constant bitching and moaning. Good grief, you'd think this company was run by four-year-olds the way they behave. Firefox and Chrome are proving that, if you make a product people want to use, people will come. Maybe, Opera, just maybe... you're not making a desktop browser that the majority of people actually like to use? Perhaps you should take all this energy you are putting into these complaints and start using it on fixing up your rendering engine instead, hmm? Or perhaps Opera should just stick to the mobile market and forget about the desktop altogether. Either way, it's their responsibility, not that of the EU or any other governmental agency. They put themselves in this situation, they need to get themselves out.

Reply Score: 6

EmperoR Member since:
2009-09-16

"shut the f**k up and make a good product instead of your constant bitching and moaning"

"Or perhaps Opera should just stick to the mobile market and forget about the desktop altogether."

I agree totally...

Opera should just call it quits and aim their efforts in the mobilebrowsing, in where they have actually managed to develope something quite decent (atleast based in my experience).The money is not bad in that market either ;) And the competition is not that bad yet.

Reply Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

agree totally...


Me three. These guys are getting their asses handed to them by pretty much every other browser out there, including Chrome, which hasn't even been around for that long. What a bunch of titty babies.

Reply Score: 3

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

These guys are getting their asses handed to them by pretty much every other browser out there, including Chrome, which hasn't even been around for that long. What a bunch of titty babies.

Chrome has been around for a year, and Google has pushed it like crazy through all their online advertising channels. And yet it has failed to even reach 5%!

Also, if Opera are getting their asses handed to them, how come their user base grew by 65% in the last year, and now have 40-50 million users? And how come Opera is the dominant mobile browser?

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

"shut the f**k up and make a good product instead of your constant bitching and moaning"

"Or perhaps Opera should just stick to the mobile market and forget about the desktop altogether."

I agree totally...

Why are you whining about Opera? Google and Mozilla are involved as well. Should they forget about the desktop too, just because Microsoft is breaking the law?

Opera should just call it quits and aim their efforts in the mobilebrowsing

Should Google and Mozilla do the same?

Or are you just being a hypocrite and singling out Opera?

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Russia has a higher percentage of Windows users than Europe and yet Opera has a majority share there.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-RU-monthly-200808-200909

But if you can't compete in other markets just call 1-800-MOMMYEU

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

But if you can't compete in other markets just call 1-800-MOMMYEU

So Mozilla and Google are calling 1-800-MOMMYEU for pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law, and their proposal is not sufficient to restore what Microsoft broke?

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Mozilla and Google are scummy for joining Opera in this government whine.

Firefox has a 60% majority share in Germany
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-DE-monthly-200809-20090

How did this happen if IE majority share is the result of law breaking? Did MS not break the law in Germany?

If IE share exists as it does because Microsoft bundles then how does Opera have a majority share in Russia? Was that the result of whining to the Russian government?

How are consumers being hurt when IE is not only free but has many alternatives that consumers can download?

Reply Score: 1

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Mozilla and Google are scummy for joining Opera in this government whine.

Reporting a crime is "whining"?

Firefox has a 60% majority share in Germany

But not in the EU. And definitely not in the world.

How did this happen if IE majority share is the result of law breaking? Did MS not break the law in Germany?

They broke EU law.

How are consumers being hurt when IE is not only free but has many alternatives that consumers can download?

Because those alternatives are being hampered by anti-competitive practices.

Reply Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"To Opera: shut the f**k up and make a good product instead of your constant bitching and moaning."

Am I missing something? Last I checked, Opera was a "good product," and has been since version 7 or 8, and it is only getting better. It has always been one of the most innovative, and still is (though IMO Google has been the lead innovator lately with Chrome's multi-process architecture). I have used Opera in the past, and recommended it to friends who want a new browser (or as an option for clueless people who I tried to get away from IE5 and IE6). With that said, I do think it's time for the company to shut the f*** up though; we get the point, and their bitching is not doing any good. It's starting to get annoying, and their complaints are getting pathetic.

Reply Score: 3

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

To Opera: shut the f**k up and make a good product instead of your constant bitching and moaning. Good grief, you'd think this company was run by four-year-olds the way they behave.

Why are you whining about Opera? Google and Mozilla are involved as well. Should they forget about the desktop too, just because Microsoft is breaking the law?

Firefox and Chrome are proving that, if you make a product people want to use, people will come.

You are kidding, right? Chrome and Safari are well below 5%(!), and that is despite the fact that Safari is actually bundled with a semi-popular OS, and Google basically owns the online advertising market, and has been pushing Chrome heavily through all their channels.

Mozilla disagrees about Firefox:

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."

Reply Score: 1

Obvious point
by kenji on Mon 28th Sep 2009 21:25 UTC
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

In addition, they are also worried about the fact that computer makers can turn the ballot screen off - in other words, they can install a default browser for the user. I'm guessing the other browser makers are afraid that OEMs will just stick to what they know - Internet Explorer - instead of going with something new.

I'm sure that OEMs would do that. That statement also applies to most end users; they will stick with what they know and choose IE. No ballot will change that.

Users that are aware of, and use, other browsers will install whatever they want to, ballot or not.

Isn't this ballot thing a bit silly?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Obvious point
by wumip on Tue 29th Sep 2009 06:24 UTC in reply to "Obvious point"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Isn't this ballot thing a bit silly?

Got a better idea?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Obvious point
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Obvious point"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Let the browser market stand as it is.

IE share has been on a downslope for years globally and is a minority in many European countries.

This whole campaign has been about going after Microsoft because they dominate, not because they are keeping consumers from having options.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Obvious point
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Obvious point"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

IE share has been on a downslope for years globally and is a minority in many European countries.

But not in the EU.

This whole campaign has been about going after Microsoft because they dominate, not because they are keeping consumers from having options.

There is no CAMPAIGN.

Someone reported Microsoft's crimes to the authorities, and the authorities followed up.

Microsoft dominate because they BROKE THE LAW. Why should Microsoft be above the law?

Reply Score: 1

Opera
by EmperoR on Mon 28th Sep 2009 21:45 UTC
EmperoR
Member since:
2009-09-16

The thing that first ran trough my mind is how the hell they are going to fit all of these browser choices on 1 screen? If they are going to include any information about the choices that is.

And how are they arranged? In a randomly generated order or alphabetically? I bet we can get a fight out of these sort of issues aswell.

Well anyways,
people should rather spend their time developing their browsers than wondering is it going to be presented in a webpage or a windows application. I'm sure you get more people to use your browser that way.

Though I'm quite sure that the developers are not the one's that are concerned about these issues...

Edited 2009-09-28 21:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

durr
by wooptoo on Mon 28th Sep 2009 22:08 UTC
wooptoo
Member since:
2006-02-09

In an ideal world all browsers would adhere to standards, so for the casual user it wouldn't matter which one you use as long as they all display information the same way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: durr
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 00:08 UTC in reply to "durr"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

IE8 follows 4.01 strict standards.

Maybe you didn't get the memo
http://www.webstandards.org/2008/03/03/microsoft-rethinks-ie8s-defa...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: durr
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: durr"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

IE8 follows 4.01 strict standards. Maybe you didn't get the memo http://www.webstandards.org/2008/03/03/microsoft-rethinks-ie8s-defa...


HTML 4.01 strict is just one of many web standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3C_standards#Standards

I count 29 there. To be fair, only about 10 of these 29 W3C standards are useful.

IE8 follows HTML 4.01 strict, but it doesn't follow most of the others.

Some of the ones IE8 doesn't follow very well that it should support far better are: SVG, CSS 3, DOM level 2, ECMAScript, SMIL, RDF and XForms.

Some of the emerging (not yet stable) ones that would also be useful are JSON and HTML5. IE doesn't even begin to support thoes.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: durr
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: durr"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

HTML 4.01 is the main standards set that defines the document layout, it is intellectually dishonest to describe as just one of many standards.

A lot of the standards you listed aren't even published yet. HTML5? CSS3? Is every browser supposed to support standards that are in draft? At least be honest and state that while IE8 supports W3C standards it doesn't support some in draft that you would find useful.

Maybe you should go to slashdot where intellectual dishonesty is not only expected but praised when it comes to Microsoft products.

Silly me I guess for keeping an open mind and judging software based upon merit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: durr
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: durr"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

HTML 4.01 is the main standards set that defines the document layout, it is intellectually dishonest to describe as just one of many standards.


Utter rubbish. HTML describes just page layout and hyperlinking. SVG, which describes scalable vector graphics, is just as useful. DOM, which describes how a website gets state information from the client browser, is vital for interactivity. Etc, etc, etc. HTML is only a part of the story.

A lot of the standards you listed aren't even published yet. HTML5? CSS3?


Two out of 29 is "a lot" to you?

Utter rubbish.

Is every browser supposed to support standards that are in draft?


No, although it wouldn't hurt. Every browser of note other than IE supports them without a problem. However, I did say that only about 10 of the 29 would be useful.

At least be honest and state that while IE8 supports W3C standards it doesn't support some in draft that you would find useful.


It also doesn't support 8 or so that have been stable (come out of draft) for over five years now. Support for those would be useful to every person who used IE, and also to a great many people who don't.

Maybe you should go to slashdot where intellectual dishonesty is not only expected but praised when it comes to Microsoft products. Silly me I guess for keeping an open mind and judging software based upon merit.


Ad hominem. Inaccurate.

As far as your claim of "dishonesty" goes - that is psychological projection on your part.

What is dishonest is to claim that a browser follows standards because it happens to follow one standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

"Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are ascribed to the outside world, like the weather, the government, a tool or another person or people."


Edited 2009-09-29 02:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: durr
by Hiev on Tue 29th Sep 2009 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: durr"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

After looking the page I can surely say IE8 supports more than a half of those.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: durr
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: durr"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

After looking the page I can surely say IE8 supports more than a half of those.


Which ones?

Be careful about the "level". Many W3C standards are introduced in stages. First there is an elementray "level", then later that is added to (enhanced, without taking away the elementary level).

DOM is a good example of this. IE8 supports DOM level 1, but the current recommendation is DOM level 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Object_Model#Standardization

After the release of ECMAScript, W3C began work on a standardized DOM. The initial DOM standard, known as "DOM Level 1," was recommended by W3C in late 1998. About the same time, Internet Explorer 5.0 shipped with limited support for DOM Level 1. DOM Level 1 provided a complete model for an entire HTML or XML document, including means to change any portion of the document. Non-conformant browsers such as Internet Explorer 4.x and Netscape 4.x were still widely used as late as 2000.

DOM Level 2 was published in late 2000. It introduced the "getElementById" function as well as an event model and support for XML namespaces and CSS. DOM Level 3, the current release of the DOM specification, published in April 2004, added support for XPath and keyboard event handling, as well as an interface for serializing documents as XML.


Even if IE8 managed DOM level 2 (a recommendation since 2000) it would be a vast improvement.

Edited 2009-09-29 03:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: durr
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: durr"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Utter rubbish. HTML describes just page layout and hyperlinking. SVG, which describes scalable vector graphics, is just as useful.


Just describes page layout? That's all? By definition it is providing far more guidelines than an svg standard. It is at the top of every page after all.

Scalable vectors are just as useful? Are you kidding me? I doubt even 1% of websites have a use for scalable vectors. Most webmasters have no use for drawing images with math functions. It's a joke to think that they would find that to be as useful as page layout guidelines that define tables, text, style sheets, frames, forms, scripts and more.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

SVG support in any form (local or web) is more connected to specific industries like CAD and print publishing. It really isn't useful or more importantly needed for typical websites.

Anyways IE can view vector graphics with a plug-in
which hardly defines a browser that doesn't follow standards.
http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/

If you want to complain about IE8 needing a plugin to view svg files then state that plainly. Saying IE8 doesn't support standards is an insult to those of us who have had to deal with IE6.

Your rhetoric shows your agenda and desire to bash IE without any regard for objectivity or accuracy.

As I said before you may do well to go to slashdot where such behavior is rewarded. Was that a personal criticism? Well yes and it has nothing to do with ad hominem arguments. I'm not arguing that IE8 follows standards because you would fit in at slashdot.

I'm just stating directly that you would fit in at slashdot. Deceptive and simplistic statements like "IE doesn't follow standards" fits their anti-MS agenda and would get you plenty of mod points. If you go don't forget to use "Microsoft" for extra points.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: durr
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: durr"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Utter rubbish. HTML describes just page layout and hyperlinking. SVG, which describes scalable vector graphics, is just as useful.
Just describes page layout? That's all? By definition it is providing far more guidelines than an svg standard. It is at the top of every page after all. "

What I meant was that IE's implementation of HTML wasn't that broken. It wasn't really a problem, compared to its utter lack of support for SVG. In terms of standards compliance, it would have been far more beneficial for the IE development team to focus on things like SVG, which IE utterly lacks, than fixing the odd thing like strict HTML compliance, which wasn't nearly as broken.

Scalable vectors are just as useful? Are you kidding me? I doubt even 1% of websites have a use for scalable vectors. Most webmasters have no use for drawing images with math functions. It's a joke to think that they would find that to be as useful as page layout guidelines that define tables, text, style sheets, frames, forms, scripts and more. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ SVG support in any form (local or web) is more connected to specific industries like CAD and print publishing. It really isn't useful or more importantly needed for typical websites. Anyways IE can view vector graphics with a plug-in which hardly defines a browser that doesn't follow standards. http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/ If you want to complain about IE8 needing a plugin to view svg files then state that plainly. Saying IE8 doesn't support standards is an insult to those of us who have had to deal with IE6.


Pfft. If SVG is so unimportant, why did Microsoft re-write the functionality in a non-compatible way and include it in Silverlight? What exactly is wrong with implementing the standard for such functionality, as people have been begging them to do for over five years now?

A similar question applies to DOM and SMIL and to making absolutely no start on HTML5, and a lack of a correct JIT compiler for ECMAScript.

The IE team could have done all these things, without breaking a single website. Instead, they wasted all that effort trying to lock up rich web content in a non-standard in Silverlight. Despicable conduct.

Your rhetoric shows your agenda and desire to bash IE without any regard for objectivity or accuracy. As I said before you may do well to go to slashdot where such behavior is rewarded. Was that a personal criticism? Well yes and it has nothing to do with ad hominem arguments. I'm not arguing that IE8 follows standards because you would fit in at slashdot. I'm just stating directly that you would fit in at slashdot. Deceptive and simplistic statements like "IE doesn't follow standards" fits their anti-MS agenda and would get you plenty of mod points. If you go don't forget to use "Microsoft" for extra points.


Waffle. Piffle. Rubbish. Utter bilgewater.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bilgewater

I have NOT said that Microsoft should not ship IE, or that Microsoft should offer some other browser or anything like it.

What is required is that Microsoft stop abusing their monopoly, and cease and desist from trying to make it a necessity to have a Windows platform in order to view the public web.

IE8 does not comply with web standards that it reasonably should, these being stable and agreed standards which all other web browsers of note do comply with.

Competition law and anti-trust law, if they were actually adhered to in the US, would require this of Microsoft.

Period. End of story. No question about it.

Edited 2009-09-29 05:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: durr
by google_ninja on Fri 2nd Oct 2009 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: durr"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

SVG is pretty unimportant. It is about as verbose a format as is humanly possible to produce, which makes it completely unacceptable for web sites. The only use case for it that makes any sense is a higher quality version of animated gifs, and there are much better alternatives to it available through plugins.

I have never heard of SMIL till you mentioned it, and after reading about it, it basically looks like HyperCard that used to ship on macs 20 years ago. Out of curiosity, does any browser support it? and if so, does anyone actually use it? it seems rather pointless to me in this day and age.

The latest Opera is the only browser with even rudimentary XForms 1.0 support.

HTML 5.0 is still in major flux, and people are still arguing about some very fundamental parts of it (last month a whole bunch of the core elements completely changed, and there is a whole camp who thinks about half the spec goes against the vision of xhtml, and shouldn't be published), and considering how much work MS still has to do to support existing standards, I don't think you can fault them for working on stuff that is actually in use over stuff that is far from finished.

JIT compilation is also not a standard of any sort.

Also, the silverlight guys and IE guys are not only seperate teams, but seperate divisions. Effort put into one does not detract from effort put into another. Work on office has more effect on IE then work on silverlight. Pretty much the web developer community is waiting to see what they will do when it comes to HTML features that are in direct comptition with silverlight, but that is a different issue then the IE team wasting their time on silverlight.

IE still has a very long way to go, but they have made more progress in the last two revisions then they have for decades. Most of the worst bugs have been fixed, the horrible security issues have been addressed, CSS2 is actually working like it should, and their javascript engine is massively improved.

Here is the funny thing lemur, I spend almost every day cursing the name of IE. I really do think its a terrible browser compared to the competition. The thing is, I am actually a web developer, and have an understanding of what the things on the wikipedia pages you link to actually mean, what is useful, and where they should be used. I know where IE falls short, what about it is irritating for people who want to build compatible sites. Its not SVG, SMIL, or XForms. Just because it is put out by the W3C does not make it good, in fact, most things put out by the W3C are utter trash. So please, please, please stop confusing a brief scan of a wikipedia article for enough understanding to have an informed opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: durr
by Hiev on Tue 29th Sep 2009 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: durr"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

SVG, CSS 3 are not standars yet, I don't know bout the others.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: durr
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: durr"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

SVG, CSS 3 are not standars yet, I don't know bout the others.


CSS3 isn't but SVG has been a recommended standard for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svg
SVG 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation on September 4, 2001.
SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.


Windows is woefully lacking when it comes to SVG. Abysmal.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: durr
by Hiev on Tue 29th Sep 2009 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: durr"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Yeah that sucks, SVG support + javascript would be a good combination for web games.

Something to worry about btw is to see how optimazed browser jor javascrip like chrome still use to much cpu for this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: durr
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: durr"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah that sucks, SVG support + javascript would be a good combination for web games. Something to worry about btw is to see how optimazed browser jor javascrip like chrome still use to much cpu for this.


Well, the recently announced Google Chrome Frame plugin for IE6, IE7 and IE8 browsers has been measured on ECMAscript benchmarks as being roughly 10 times as fast as IE itself.

That should help a lot, wouldn't you think?

Reply Score: 2

This is sickening
by WereCatf on Mon 28th Sep 2009 23:38 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Microsoft did what they was asked to do, and to my ear their proposal is perfectly fine and sound. And STILL Opera complains.

Even worse is...this does NOT make it any better for the end-user. This is only an attempt for Opera to get more users, nothing else. All the people who know about alternatives are more than likely already using them, and people who don't know about them will just either choose the one with familiar picture or just click on something and end up confused! How does that benefit them?

It's already a hassle to set up the computer the first time you get it and this ballot thing is just yet another thing you have to click through. And does it automatically install the alternatives, without giving you installation screens asking questions or whining for you to click "Next"? If so, then that too just adds to the frustration of setting up your new computer. Average Joe usually just wants to have it up and working as fast as possible, and these things are only a hindrance.

I would really love to hear a thorough explanation how exactly this situation makes things any better for anyone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: This is sickening
by wumip on Tue 29th Sep 2009 06:19 UTC in reply to "This is sickening"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Microsoft did what they was asked to do, and to my ear their proposal is perfectly fine and sound. And STILL Opera complains.

No, SEVERAL BROWSER MAKERS are pointing out the problems with the proposal, not just Opera.

Even worse is...this does NOT make it any better for the end-user. This is only an attempt for Opera to get more users, nothing else.

Um, in case you didn't notice, SEVERAL BROWSER VENDORS are involved. Why are you this amazingly ignorant? Just because the article only quotes Opera? Geez.

Why are you only whining about Opera?

I would really love to hear a thorough explanation how exactly this situation makes things any better for anyone.

It gives the user actual choice, and restores competition in the browser market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is sickening
by WereCatf on Tue 29th Sep 2009 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE: This is sickening"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Why are you only whining about Opera?

Not only, but atleast to my eyes it seems that Opera is the one whining the most and loudest.

It gives the user actual choice, and restores competition in the browser market.

Choice has been there for a good long time, and gee, so has competition. FireFox atleast has been steadily growing in numbers long, long time before these browser ballots. This is nothing about freedom of choice. It's about _forcing_ the user to choose even when they have no clue whatsoever. That is definitely not end-user friendly.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: This is sickening
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is sickening"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Not only, but atleast to my eyes it seems that Opera is the one whining the most and loudest.

How is pointing out flaws "whining"?

Just because OSnews constantly whines about Opera and "forgets" to tell you that Mozilla, Google and others are heavily involved as well doesn't mean that only Opera is saying stuff.

Choice has been there for a good long time, and gee, so has competition. FireFox atleast has been steadily growing in numbers long, long time before these browser ballots.

Firefox is irrelevant, or actually shows how Microsoft broke the law:

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."

This is nothing about freedom of choice. It's about _forcing_ the user to choose even when they have no clue whatsoever. That is definitely not end-user friendly.

EXACTLY! Microsoft FORCED the user and gave them no choice. Now the user gets ACTUAL choice.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by holloway
by holloway on Tue 29th Sep 2009 00:27 UTC
holloway
Member since:
2007-10-10

"I'm guessing the other browser makers are afraid that OEMs will just stick to what they know - Internet Explorer - instead of going with something new."

Also OEMs may have contractual requirements about default browsers, so allowing OEMs to do otherwise would go against the spirit of the idea.

"I think it's all getting a little silly. I've argued before that the very success of Firefox, as well as the adoption rates for Chrome and Safari are indications that the browser market is actually much more competitive than most people think. I see much more merit in somehow (I don't know how) forcing Microsoft to adopt web standards. "

So you don't believe in antitrust law at all, or perhaps you don't believe that Microsoft illegally slowed competition?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by holloway
by lemur2 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 00:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by holloway"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I'm guessing the other browser makers are afraid that OEMs will just stick to what they know - Internet Explorer - instead of going with something new." Also OEMs may have contractual requirements about default browsers, so allowing OEMs to do otherwise would go against the spirit of the idea. "I think it's all getting a little silly. I've argued before that the very success of Firefox, as well as the adoption rates for Chrome and Safari are indications that the browser market is actually much more competitive than most people think. I see much more merit in somehow (I don't know how) forcing Microsoft to adopt web standards. " So you don't believe in antitrust law at all, or perhaps you don't believe that Microsoft illegally slowed competition?


I agree about the idea of forcing Microsoft to follow the web standards.

Once a person has purchased a Microsoft OS on a mchine, they have already purchased it so there is not much point in bitching that they SHOULD be using this or that other software instead.

However, there IS still a point when it comes to delivering information and digital content to the platform that that person has bought. It should still be an open competition to provide information and digital content services to that client.

One should NOT, for example, be constrained to having to present such rich digital information and content to that person's machine using Silverlight. That is an abuse of the market.

The way that rich digital information and content is delivered should be via a set of standards that can be implemented on ANY platform. It most decidely should NOT be dictated by just one software vendor.

Edited 2009-09-29 00:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by holloway
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 01:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by holloway"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

or perhaps you don't believe that Microsoft illegally slowed competition?


Why would anyone believe that? You could just as easily argue that Opera slowed competition by insisting on charging.

It's actually a myth that IE became popular because of Windows. Netscape at one time was the most popular browser even though Windows had a dominant market position. Ironically IE was able to surpass Netscape who became complacent with its position.

Check out this old review of IE5:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/9813/internet_explorer_5_search_and_...

The browser market has in fact always been competitive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#1998_and_e...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by holloway
by wumip on Tue 29th Sep 2009 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by holloway"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Why would anyone believe that? You could just as easily argue that Opera slowed competition by insisting on charging.

Fail. Opera never was dominant.

It's actually a myth that IE became popular because of Windows. Netscape at one time was the most popular browser even though Windows had a dominant market position. Ironically IE was able to surpass Netscape who became complacent with its position.

Fail. IE didn't surpass NS until it was bundled.

The browser market has in fact always been competitive

Fail. IE6 remained dominant for several years, and Microsoft even disbanded their IE team. Does that show a competitive market?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by holloway
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by holloway"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Can you respond without sounding like a 12 year old?

This graph shows IE doubling their share from October 1997-1998. Was that from bundling?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#1998_and_e...

Would Opera have gained more marketshare if it didn't insist on charging $40 for a copy?

If you are not upgrading from previous versions of Opera be aware that the $39 dollar price tag is steep considering IE and Netscape are now free.

http://www.winplanet.com/article/1526-1646.htm

Opera has a majority share in russia even though Windows is more dominant there than in the US. How do you explain this?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by holloway
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by holloway"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

This graph shows IE doubling their share from October 1997-1998. Was that from bundling?

Wikipedia: "Internet Explorer 3.0 was released free of charge in August 1996 by bundling it with Windows 95, another OEM release."

Oops.

Would Opera have gained more marketshare if it didn't insist on charging $40 for a copy?

Unlike other browser vendors, Opera is an independent company, and needs to make money in order to survive. Opera charged because there was no other working business model. When they saw that search revenue from Google could replace the old revenue model, they switched.

IE, Mozilla, etc. never needed a revenue model. They had lots of free money and rich sugar-daddies.

Reply Score: 1

@Thom Holwerda
by wumip on Tue 29th Sep 2009 06:11 UTC
wumip
Member since:
2009-08-20

I've argued before that the very success of Firefox, as well as the adoption rates for Chrome and Safari are indications that the browser market is actually much more competitive than most people think.

You are kidding, right? Chrome and Safari are well below 5%(!), and that is despite the fact that Safari is actually bundled with a semi-popular OS, and Google basically owns the online advertising market, and has been pushing Chrome heavily through all their channels.

Mozilla disagrees about Firefox:

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."

Reply Score: 3

RE: @Thom Holwerda
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Sep 2009 07:52 UTC in reply to "@Thom Holwerda"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So if a product has a fractional share compared to others the market isn't competitive? Do you really believe that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: @Thom Holwerda
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE: @Thom Holwerda"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

What on earth are you talking about?

Reply Score: 1

it's about the os market
by puenktchen on Tue 29th Sep 2009 07:07 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

I've argued before that the very success of Firefox, as well as the adoption rates for Chrome and Safari are indications that the browser market is actually much more competitive than most people think.


microsoft is using its monopoly in the desktop-os market to bolster its position in the browser market. if the market would be competitive, microsofts product would't be as succesfull, as it's much worse than the competition. the clean solution would be to destroy microsofts monopoly or at least restrict microsoft to this market, but that won't happen anymore after the bush government decided to leave ms in power. restrictions to the behaviour of ms in other markets which seem to be ridicoulous if looked at in isolation are the only way left to go.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Redeeman
by Redeeman on Tue 29th Sep 2009 07:11 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

i really dont get wtf is wrong with EU..

nobody sane should give a rats ass what browsers other people use, as long as its f--king compliant, instead of this nonsense with browser selection screens and shit, they should just FORCE microsoft to be OH SO compliant, and force them to remove legacy support for crappy IE6 rendering, FORCE everyone to update their shit to work with COMPLIANT browsers, so that shit works EVERYWHERE.. if this was done, who the hell would care what browser someone else uses?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Redeeman
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 05:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Redeeman"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

i really dont get wtf is wrong with EU..

They are enforcing the law. You know, the law everyone else is required to follow? So why should Microsoft be above the law?

nobody sane should give a rats ass what browsers other people use, as long as its f--king compliant

IE never was compliant, and Microsoft kept using illegal methods to undermine competition.

Reply Score: 1

Save the childrens
by Karitku on Tue 29th Sep 2009 10:08 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

Perhaps they should use more EU style campaign:
IE kills baby seals! Save baby seals with better browser ballot.
Wrong browser ballot causes speeding and road rage!
Stop molesting childrens, use Opera!

I'm sure the pussies and nannies in EU regulations will immidieatly enforce Operas new browser ballot system.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Save the childrens
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 06:01 UTC in reply to "Save the childrens"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Perhaps they should use more EU style campaign:
IE kills baby seals! Save baby seals with better browser ballot.
Wrong browser ballot causes speeding and road rage!
Stop molesting childrens, use Opera!

Why are you whining like a crybaby about Opera? Just because OSnews "forgets" about telling you that Google, Mozilla and others are saying the exact same things doesn't mean that ignorant people should get away with only whining about Opera all the time.

I'm sure the pussies and nannies in EU regulations will immidieatly enforce Operas new browser ballot system.

It isn't OPERA'S ballot system. It was a proposal by MICROSOFT. Furthermore, Opera has no authority here. It's the EU that is pursuing the case, with Google, Mozilla and others being involved as "interested third parties".

Reply Score: 0

Other solutions?
by anda_skoa on Tue 29th Sep 2009 10:25 UTC
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

While I also find the browser ballot kind of stupid, it is hard to come up with better solutions that are actually doable.

Microsoft could be required to offer free support for IE-only or IE-centric web services for updating their offerings and, at some predetermined point, deactivate/force-upgrade non-standard IE version.

But that would also incur a huge impact on parties not involved in the struggle.

Or maybe Micrsoft could be required to make IE randomly identify as a different browser, so broken/non-standard websites would be broken even if browsed by IE users.

But, again, inflicting harm on third parties.

Or the EU could run a test lab that makes sure web sites are equally functional with competing browsers and make Microsoft pay for those which don't, but then somebody could create such a site for intentionally for harming Microsoft.

It's one of the unfortunate situations where harm cannot be undone and avoiding further damage is hard because of the nature of the damage already done.

IMHO it would be better to forget about the browser ballot and just make sure that any new OS-bundled web related technologies (e.g. Silverlight, codecs, etc) are equally well supported/supportable by all browsers on all plattforms.

Reply Score: 2

Heh
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 29th Sep 2009 14:17 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

Oh man, they don't give up do they?

Yes, Opera, a huge banner on the screen and a 5 minute "educational" video promoting your erm ALTERNATIVE browser will SURELY help you increase your market share... oops i mean provide a choice for the user.

This whole thing is retarded, and their constant bitching and moaning over the matter is only going to get them less and less users. If this thing comes through, each time i'll see the damn window after installing next-whatever windows version i'll be reminded who I have to THANK for wasting my time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh
by spiderman on Tue 29th Sep 2009 14:47 UTC in reply to "Heh"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


This whole thing is retarded, and their constant bitching and moaning over the matter is only going to get them less and less users. If this thing comes through, each time i'll see the damn window after installing next-whatever windows version i'll be reminded who I have to THANK for wasting my time.

Unless you use IE, you won't actually loose any time. You will win time instead.
if you use IE, you should be educated about alternatives. And if you use AND are educated about alternatives, then you deserve loosing 5 minutes for all the developer's time you are wasting worldwide.

I really don't see what is the problem. It sure beats wasting my time with useless adverts.

Edited 2009-09-29 14:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 06:00 UTC in reply to "Heh"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Oh man, they don't give up do they?

Who? The EU, Mozilla and Google?

This whole thing is retarded, and their constant bitching and moaning over the matter is only going to get them less and less users.

Actually, both Firefox, Google and Opera have gained MORE users since this thing started. So your whining is pretty pointless.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Heh
by wumip on Wed 30th Sep 2009 06:03 UTC in reply to "Heh"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Oh man, they don't give up do they?

Who? The EU, Mozilla and Google? Why would the EU give up on enforcing its own laws?

This whole thing is retarded, and their constant bitching and moaning over the matter is only going to get them less and less users.

Actually, both Firefox, Google and Opera have gained MORE users since this thing started. So your whining is pretty pointless.

Reply Score: 1

I think the EU should just order Opera to
by MollyC on Wed 30th Sep 2009 07:37 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

code up the ballot as they see fit, and order Microsoft to use that ballot "app", and be done with this. I don't even favor any ballot, but the ballot was done at Opera's insistence (mainly), and they keep complaining about its implementation, so let/make them code it up. At least they won't whine about their own work and Microsoft won't have to spend any more resources on this thing. And finally, this extremely lame issue will be settled.

Edited 2009-09-30 07:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

the ballot was done at Opera's insistence (mainly)


The ballot was Microsoft's proposal.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

IIRC, Microsoft's proposal was to ship Windows without any browser at all, and let OEMs put whatever browser they wanted on there. The EC didn't like that (read, "Do that, and face a billion dollar fine"), and preferred the ballot scheme, a scheme they had already been pushing for a long time. I don't remember if Opera themselves pushed it, I think they did, but the EC was, and was doing that to address Opera's complaints.

Anyway, Opera has whined multiple times now wrt the implementation of the ballot, with their complaints getting increasingly petty. So let them implement the ballot and make Microsoft use whatever they implement, and get this thing over with.

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

IIRC, Microsoft's proposal was to ship Windows without any browser at all, and let OEMs put whatever browser they wanted on there.

Yes, that was their first proposal. Or rather, they simply announced that they were going to do it. Bad idea. Not only would it not restore competition, and would have been deemed insufficient anyway, but they risked pissing off the authorities.

I don't remember if Opera themselves pushed it, I think they did, but the EC was, and was doing that to address Opera's complaints.

Stop whining about Opera alread. All they did was to report Microsoft's crimes. After that, all they have done is to offer their perspective, just like Google and Mozilla. They have no authority what so ever.

Anyway, Opera has whined multiple times now wrt the implementation of the ballot, with their complaints getting increasingly petty.

Nice trolling. The fact is that Google, Mozilla AND Opera have pointed out severe flaws with Microsoft's proposal. That is not WHINING, that's paying attention to what Microsoft is doing because you know MS is going to try to pull a fast one as usual.

Correcting mistakes and pointing out problems is only "whining" in the world of trolls.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

which is letting Opera code up the ballot as they see fit, and you, who are on Opera's side, get mad and accuse me of trolling? What better solution, from Opera's perspective, would there be than letting Opera handle the ballot? You know what? I don't think you want a solution, you want the "issue". No matter what solution is presented, you (and Opera) will reject it simply in order to keep the "issue" "alive".

BTW, if "restoring competition" is the issue, then that'll never happen as far as Opera is concerned. They can get the EU to handcuff Microsoft all they want, but they still can't even compete with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari. What's next, they sick the EU on Mozilla, Google, and Apple?

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

which is letting Opera code up the ballot as they see fit

What on earth are you talking about? I SPECIFICALLY pointed out that Opera has no authority to do anything.

What better solution, from Opera's perspective, would there be than letting Opera handle the ballot?

No one ever said that Opera should handle the ballot. Why on earth are you making up this crap?

No matter what solution is presented, you (and Opera) will reject it simply in order to keep the "issue" "alive".

Why are you whining about Opera all the time? It's EXTREMELY dishonest of you to only talk about Opera when the fact is that the other browser vendors are equally dissatisfied with Microsoft's suggestion, and have written a lot about it.

BTW, if "restoring competition" is the issue, then that'll never happen as far as Opera is concerned. They can get the EU to handcuff Microsoft all they want, but they still can't even compete with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

I have no idea what you are going on about. This is not about Opera. Why do you keep trolling about Opera?

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

IIRC, Microsoft's proposal was to ship Windows without any browser at all, and let OEMs put whatever browser they wanted on there.


What would be best for users?

Getting no browser, or letting OEMs decide, doesn't seem to me to be a great outcome for users.

Users are best served by having a viable competition in the marketplace, so that users may choose. On Linux that would not be a problem, because Linux has a facility called "package management" that lets users choose which software they want to install without requiring a browser to do it.

Here is an example (with a screenshot) in case you are unfamiliar with this:

http://fosswire.com/post/2007/4/introducing-ubuntus-addremove-packa...

Because Windows is as incomplete as it is, with essentially no package management, this process is far more difficult. It is this lack in Windows that the "browser ballot" is attempting to overcome ... but even then this ballot is limited to just a choice of the browser. Users can still find themselves locked in to a bad choice that they won't be able to "undo" later.

I'd actually prefer to see IE follow web standards (say to the level of passing acid3 tests). That way if users chose IE on a ballot (perhaps because they were not well informed) it wouldn't be a bad choice (even if it were still irrevocable).

I wouldn't mind even if IE were bundled with Windows as it currently is, with no ballot, provided that IE followed web standards (say to the acid3 level at this time). That way at least the people who were creating rich content for the web, and people who were hosting rich web content created by others, would have a choice of software, even if Windows users were still stuck with IE to view the content.

Edited 2009-10-01 03:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 30th Sep 2009 21:06 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Opera just have to do this:

http://xkcd.com/641/

Reply Score: 1