Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th May 2012 18:06 UTC
Windows Both Mozilla and Google have expressed concern over Windows 8. Microsoft's next big operating system release restricts access to certain APIs and technologies browsers need - only making them available to Internet Explorer. Looking at the facts, it would seem Mozilla and Google have a solid case - coincidentally, the responses on the web are proof of the slippery slope we're on regarding ownership over our own machines.
Order by: Score:
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 18:28 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by shmerl
by nej_simon on Thu 10th May 2012 18:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Thu 10th May 2012 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.


Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on ARM-based operating systems. Go back and read the court rulings. It only covers x86/AMD processors.

Edited 2012-05-10 20:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 10th May 2012 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.


Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on ARM-based operating systems. Go back and read the court rulings. It only covers x86/AMD processors.
"

Reading Daring Fireball, are we ;) .

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by fossil on Fri 11th May 2012 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
fossil Member since:
2009-05-29

1) I am not a laywer

2) Whether or not MS has a monopoly on ARM may not be relevant. Actually being a monopoly is not illegal in the U.S. What is illegal is being an abusive monopoly. That's what brought on the MS anti-trust action, in which MS was found guilty. Abuse of monopoly includes (but ain't limited to) forcing competitors out of business by predatory pricing (like $0.00 for IE, which put Netscape out of business), tying products (WIN 95 and IE) --seems like this may apply to "walled gardens" but like I said, IANAL; vertical restraints ... the US DOJ has a 215p. pdf online, for those who wish to know details.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Fri 11th May 2012 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

In the MS/DOJ case, the plaintiffs and the judge explicitly declared the market in question to be "desktop operating systems on X86 processors". They did that because Microsoft was going to argue that the existence of the Mac showed that Windows was not a monopoly operating system (indeed, that was one of the reasons that Microsoft bailed out Apple in the first place; keep Apple alive so that MS wouldn't have a monopoly). But the DOJ cleverly/cynically narrowed the market to cover only "x86" processors, which ruled out Macs since Macs ran on PPC processors at the time.

So, Windows has only been ruled to have a monopoly on X86. Period. Windows has no monopoly on ARM.

Ironocally, a few years later, Apple switched Macs from PPC to x86, which if had been the case earlier, there would've been no ruling that "WIndows has monopoly status for desktop OSes on x86 processors". If there would've been a monopoly rulling at all, it would've been something like: "Windows enjoys a monopoly status in the market of Windows operating systems." or, "Windows enjoys monopoly status in the market of Windows-compatible operating systems." Which would've been a sounder ruling than the "x86 processors" ruling, IMO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by cyrilleberger on Fri 11th May 2012 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

In the MS/DOJ case, the plaintiffs and the judge explicitly declared the market in question to be "desktop operating systems on X86 processors".


Since you need a ruling in only one market to open the API everywhere, and the EU has stricter rules on competition and interoperability, nowadays, competitors are usually bringing their case to the European Commission. The only problem is that it takes a long time to get to a ruling, at least two years. By that time, Microsoft could have re-established IE as the only web browser, they would have to pay an hefty fine, but they probably consider it is worth it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Sat 12th May 2012 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I don't think anyone could argue that WinRT is a "monopoly" operating system. It can't run any of the x86 Win32 apps in existence, so the idea that it is a monopoly OS just because x86 Windows was deemed as such is absurd. How can it be a monopoly OS when it can't run any of the apps currently in existence?

Since it can't run any Windows x86 apps, then it is a different OS than Windows x86. Period.

Now, let's look at the Mozilla/Google complaint. They complain that they can't make a competitive browser in WinRT - mainly because of the inability to make a good JIT compiler without access to certain Win32 api, apis that MS has alowed WinRT IE to access. OK, it seems unfair advantage for IE, but ... and here's the big but ... WinRT tablets have zero marketshare in mobile devices right now, and have no monopolistic power in that market. If someone wants to run Firefox or Chrome on a mobile/tablet device, there is nothing preventing that person from buying an Android tablet rather than a WinRT tablet. That' just like the current situation, where iPads don't allow Firefox or Chrome, so if one wants to run either of those browsers on a tablet, that person is free to get an Android tablet rather than an iPad.

WinRT tablets aren't a monopoly device such that folks would be overwhelminly compelled to get a WinRT tablet over an Android tablet. Who knows, maybe the inability to run Firefox/Chrome will result in a marketing disadvantage for WinRT tablets relative to Android tablets. Let the market decide. There's no reaosn to scream about monopolies for an OS that hasn't been released, and has zero marketshare, and will likely never be in a monopoly position in its market (and as I said, its market is not Windows x86 devices, since it can't run any Windows x86 apps.)

Oh, I have to chuckle at Mozilla complaining that MS is violating its DOJ settlement, when that settlement expired last year. That settlement is no longer in effect.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Sat 12th May 2012 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MollyC,

I've noticed you have a couple inaccuracies in your posts. In one, you mentioned that microsoft wouldn't have been deemed a monopoly if macs had been using x86.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?517726

I know different places define "monopoly" differently, but in the US a monopoly doesn't have to be absolute in order to be subject to anti-trust, having 50% market share is the line we use. Apple's processor selection would not have made a difference.


"I don't think anyone could argue that WinRT is a 'monopoly' operating system. It can't run any of the x86 Win32 apps in existence, so the idea that it is a monopoly OS just because x86 Windows was deemed as such is absurd. How can it be a monopoly OS when it can't run any of the apps currently in existence?"


Well, the thing is if microsoft is found to be abusing it's *existing* monopoly power to break into new markets, then antitrust law can still be applied for predatory practices. In the browser case, it wasn't IE's market share which got microsoft in trouble, it was the exploitation of their windows monopoly to crush netscape in a different market, which is an antitrust no-no.

Again this is just in the US, I don't know about elsewhere.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by dsmogor on Mon 14th May 2012 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Apparently everybody is expecting MS to crush Apple market-share wise in the tables space within few years by repeating old and tried tactics that brought them success on the PCs in the first place. Given what they have up in sleeves with Win8 that's not unexpected.

They might not have monopoly now but as Netscape case has shown care must be taken before damage is done, as even proving them of wrongdoing with all assorted fines years later isn't effective in reversing the bad effects to the market and innovation.

Having seen WEB development being pushed back by almost a decade should have taught us something.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by earksiinni on Thu 10th May 2012 18:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Is it maybe because it does and if you read OSNews at all beyond the second paragraph of this article you know that both Thom and everyone who comments here except for the Apple fanbois hate the walled garden approach that Apple perfected and that Microsoft and every other consumer IT company is now copying, hence the use of the phrase "slippery slope" in the article, indicating that Microsoft's behavior is simply part of an established trend?

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I don't mean OSnews. I mean why do Mozilla and Google now voice concerns about Windows anticompetitive policy, but they didn't voice it much about Apple before? I understand that Windows has more market penetration, but on mobile iOS is pretty big as well. If there is a potential antitrust defense, it should be applied to Apple too.

The most irritating example is lack of support for open codecs in mobile Safari. Here Google and Mozilla did criticize Apple more vocally though. But if alternative browsers could be used on iOS that problem would be insignificant. So in essence it's all tied together, and if Mozilla and Google are targeting browser censorship, they need to target MS and Apple both.

Edited 2012-05-10 18:58 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by earksiinni on Thu 10th May 2012 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Oh, my mistake; apologies. Yes, that's actually a good question.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Lennie on Thu 10th May 2012 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Because Microsoft is already a convicted monopoly around this issue specifically. Which is bundling of IE.

And on iOS you can make a browser, you just have to use the rendering engine which was included with iOS.

You can't do that with Metro.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 10th May 2012 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Lennie,

"And on iOS you can make a browser, you just have to use the rendering engine which was included with iOS."

You can also take a Honda and stick Ferrari decals on it, but what would be the point?

Edited 2012-05-10 22:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by viton on Thu 10th May 2012 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

You can also take a Honda and stick Ferrari decals on it, but what would be the point?

There is a difference. Safari is Webkit-based.
So in case of Chrome you can live with a set of "decals" just fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Those Webkits are different and incompatible.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Fri 11th May 2012 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

viton,

"There is a difference. Safari is Webkit-based.
So in case of Chrome you can live with a set of 'decals' just fine."

I understand what you're saying, but I'm afraid you missed the point (perhaps deliberately so). Taking safari's rendering engine from IOS and embedding it in a chrome frame does NOT make that a chrome web browser. The same goes for firefox or any other browser. To seriously suggest otherwise is ignorant.

Google has put a lot of work in improve it's own javascript engine...banned by apple. Another example already mentioned is the open source WebM video codec...banned by apple. Google's alternate html scripting language...banned by apple. Java...banned by apple. Languages & tools not supported by apple...banned by apple. I'm absolutely sick of apple's piss-ant excuses for denying customers a choice in the matter, since it's blatantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells that this app censorship is purely to prevent competitors from being able to provide viable alternatives to apple's software. They've set the entire industry down a shitty path to closed computing and nanny devices that tell us what we can do instead of the other way around. Of course fanboys will be the fools they always were, but this time the negative repercussions go far beyond harmless slashdot flamewars: As large corporations continue to deploy technology that usurps control from owners, the risk of the technology being abused by governments becomes increasingly large. The FBI is already asking for their own hooks in online social networks and email providers, they might ask for hooks in our closed devices under the same justifications and there won't be anything we can do to block them since the vendors will have absolute control.


So no, don't tell me it's fine for apple, microsoft, nokia, google, sony, or any damn corporation to whitelist and blacklist what we can do on our devices, if we want to install another browser, it should be every owner's right.

Perhaps this is an overreaction to your post. Consider it more a response to the aggregation of messages that would have us all just turn around and take it when corporations want to shaft us. I'll go cool off before I start shouting out the obscenities I feel like using right now.

Edited 2012-05-11 04:13 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by calden on Fri 11th May 2012 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
calden Member since:
2012-02-02

Thank you for that, you expressed all of my current frustrations very well. I owned a iPad for all of 4 days before I returned it for an Asus Slider. The second I found out that there wasn't a file manager it was game over for me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Lennie on Thu 10th May 2012 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm not saying it is useful.

I'm saying this seems to be a difference between what Apple allows a developer to do and what Microsoft allows a developer to do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by BluenoseJake on Fri 11th May 2012 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

sure you can, you just embed IE in your Metro app. IE is an embeddable component in all versions of .net

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Lennie on Fri 11th May 2012 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I would expect that as well, but they won't accept a browser-app in the appstore. I thought Apple would.

Atleast that is what I understood from some of the information available.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Finalzone on Fri 11th May 2012 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't mean OSnews. I mean why do Mozilla and Google now voice concerns about Windows anticompetitive policy, but they didn't voice it much about Apple before? I understand that Windows has more market penetration, but on mobile iOS is pretty big as well. If there is a potential antitrust defense, it should be applied to Apple too.


Apple made their own products from iPod to iMac thus tighter control of specification while Microsoft(primarily a software company) relied on third party manufacturers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by BeeWarloc on Fri 11th May 2012 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
BeeWarloc Member since:
2012-05-11

It might be because they think they have a better chance of influencing Microsoft. Apple has a long history of being completely indifferent to concerns about open standards and fair competition.

Microsoft doesn't exactly got a good track record when it comes to this either, but after a number of antitrust lawsuits things appear to have gotten better. And at least they always did let people control their own hardware..

Apple don't care, because it doesn't have to. Apple is good looking, arrogant and filthy rich. Mozilla would be wasting their time talking to them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Fri 11th May 2012 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

As I recall, opera and firefox were both interested in making iphone versions of their browser, and a native version of opera for the iphone was already in the works, but apple's application policy killed it.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/why-you-will-not-see-opera...

Eventually opera released a version designed to render pages on a separate server. It's a creative, albeit inefficient work around and without local DOM manipulation any interactive javascript like dhtml and ajax updates are helplessly broken. It's just pathetic that software engineers have to compromise software designs just to get around application banning policies.


Consequently users like the one in the following opera review (current the first one in the apple store) accuse opera of producing a bad product while praising apple. This review is so ironic because apple is the reason opera is so bad on the iphone.

"Super disappointed

by Little Yellow Chicken

I am a desktop Opera user for more than 10 years. The Opera run on the new iPad is a huge disappoint. Tiny title bar, tons of render error, half page display, zoom setting does not work, slow speed ... I delete the app after five minutes using, the Safari is way better. Hope next version Opera can get it right."

Edited 2012-05-11 06:14 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by zima on Thu 17th May 2012 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

opera released a version designed to render pages on a separate server. It's a creative, albeit inefficient work around [...] so bad on the iphone

I don't think that's entirely fair - Opera Mini is good at what it does, what it is, what it was meant to do (mostly to have something decent on limited devices, also to lower bandwidth and such ...I think it tends to somewhat prolong battery life, too)

It just so happens that the design choices fulfilling those goals (not really applicable to the platform in question), also make it acceptable to apple's application policy.


Overall, Opera might have it not too bad when it comes to user satisfaction - from the latest "State of the Mobile Web" http://www.opera.com/smw/2012/03/
"Opera Mini and Opera Mobile users are generally more satisfied with their mobile-internet experiences than those who use their handset’s native browsers."
(it's still #1 mobile browser after all http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200812-201205 ...despite it being mostly Mini, more frugal with data traffic & used mostly in places which are probably underrepresented on statcounter)

Edited 2012-05-18 00:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by RichterKuato on Fri 11th May 2012 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

I don't mean OSnews. I mean why do Mozilla and Google now voice concerns about Windows anticompetitive policy, but they didn't voice it much about Apple before? I understand that Windows has more market penetration, but on mobile iOS is pretty big as well. If there is a potential antitrust defense, it should be applied to Apple too.


I'm surprised no one has mentioned this already but Microsoft has a monopoly on Desktops while iOS doesn't have a monopoly anywhere. Also Internet Explorer uses MSHTML witch is proprietary and only available in Windows while Mobile Safari uses Webkit witch is open sourced and crossplatform. So there is concern that Microsoft would attempt to expand there already dominant OS and browser market share to mobile devices and ARM-based computers.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by aaronb on Thu 10th May 2012 19:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

You have obviously missed all of the concerns that people have about Apple in the past:

1. The restrictions placed what applications are available on the app store.
2. Why are there is sometimes no clear reason for applications being rejected.
3. How applications cannot access the file system.
4. Not having the choice of many [insert type of application here]s because of "duplication".

There have been many articles, rants and maybe a few open letters. In fact it is so well known now that even many "non techie" people understand this point, but still get a phone from Apple because they are use to the interface.

It is just us, minority of "techies" that are attempting to keep things open and majority of "non techies" that don't really care, they just want something that works.

One day we may live in a world where open software will just work and uncensored communication will be freely available. The just working part is nearly there, my parents can use Ubuntu without issue with all hardware just working and even upgrades between versions going well. The uncensored part is hard and requires the majority to vote with their wallets and vote at elections for non crappy governments*.

*which is probably a discussion that is not sensible to go into here because politics is political and not logical.

Edited 2012-05-10 19:04 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by shmerl
by bloodline on Thu 10th May 2012 19:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
bloodline Member since:
2008-07-28

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?


Apple bans all other browers on iOS? So why have I got three other browsers (Murcury, Atomic Lite and Opera Mini) on my iPhone as well as Safari?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by ssokolow on Thu 10th May 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

"Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?


Apple bans all other browers on iOS? So why have I got three other browsers (Murcury, Atomic Lite and Opera Mini) on my iPhone as well as Safari?
"

Last I'd heard, Apple bans rendering engines other than the Safari-provided WebKit on iOS, so you can make a browser, but unless it relies on external servers to do its rendering, it's little more than a new frontend on Safari Mobile.

I don't know about the other two, but Opera Mini renders pages on the Opera server farm and pushes the rendered results to the phone. (They pioneered the approach the Kindle Fire is now also using)

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Last I'd heard, Apple bans rendering engines other than the Safari-provided WebKit on iOS, so you can make a browser, but unless it relies on external servers to do its rendering, it's little more than a new frontend on Safari Mobile.


Exactly my point. So in essence - alternative browsers are banned. Opera's approach is just a workaround (not such a good solution), but it's not what we are talking about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

From the iOS SDK license:

“3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.”


Which translates to - no Google's or Mozilla's JavaScript VM can be used, which translates to - alternative browsers are banned. Note - we are talking about the SDK. So they are banned legally even from compilation, less alone from distribution through the Apple's store. So even if Google or Mozilla decided to use Cydia for their browsers, they still can't do it, since they can't even legally compile them.

Edited 2012-05-10 19:32 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 10th May 2012 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shmerl,

"Which translates to - no Google's or Mozilla's JavaScript VM can be used, which translates to - alternative browsers are banned."

The situation already resembles what's happened with apple devices. Third party apps, such as browsers, will undoubtedly lack integration functionality that MS gives itself.

Not to justify microsoft's policy at all, but it's technically not as severe as apple's because microsoft hasn't explicitly banned all forms of emulators. This means that Java/Javascript/VMs aren't completely prohibited, they just have to be parsed or emulated instead of running natively using JIT-compilation. While this is a definite disadvantage, at least emulation isn't prohibited.

I've been criticized for saying this in the past, but I'm with Thom in pressuring government to step in and set boundaries on how far companies are allowed to go in restricting owners & developers. Government intervention is a far call from perfect or ideal, but the harm caused the absolute lack of intervention is much worse than imperfect legislation aiming to protect consumers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

They all rely on Safari components. Apple bans all real alternative browsers.

Edited 2012-05-10 19:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by xylifyx on Fri 11th May 2012 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
xylifyx Member since:
2008-05-03

They all rely on Safari components. Apple bans all real alternative browsers.


Both Apple and Microsoft knows that they cannot compete so they enforce these restrictions. However this has one real advantage. Webkit browsers were about to gain a IE6 like monopoly in the mobile space.

All webdevelopers must know now that they shouldn't use -webkit-* CSS any longer.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by zima on Thu 17th May 2012 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Webkit browsers were about to gain a IE6 like monopoly in the mobile space.

Not quite "about to" ...IIRC, IE topped at 90+% for a year or two in the heyday of IE6, while Webkit mobile browsers have a bit over half http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200812-201205 (and in fact, Opera is the #1 individual mobile browser ...despite it being mostly Mini, its users more likely to be frugal about data & amount of browsing, and used in places which are underrepresented on statcounter - on which 1/3 of visits/data comes from the US)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by nej_simon on Thu 10th May 2012 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Apple bans all other browers on iOS? So why have I got three other browsers (Murcury, Atomic Lite and Opera Mini) on my iPhone as well as Safari?


Because they're based on apple's webkit engine (except Opera but it renders the pages on opera's serves and then send them to the phone). Apple don't allow non-webkit browsers on iOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 10th May 2012 19:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shmerl,

"Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?"

It raised tremendous concerns, however I think apple had the benefit of many more fanboys. Also the argument was "if you don't like it, go somewhere else", which is a shortsighted defense considering what's happening as the business model becomes more and more prevalent.

Reply Score: 6

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Thu 10th May 2012 20:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by bouhko on Thu 10th May 2012 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

Just for the record, Apple didn't decide to open source Webkit, they HAD to because Webkit is based on KHTML which is licensed under the LGPL.

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Thu 10th May 2012 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Just for the record, Apple didn't decide to open source Webkit, they HAD to because Webkit is based on KHTML which is licensed under the LGPL.



Exactly. What Apple didn't do was to develop a closed browser engine in house. Which is what Microsoft did. Apple deliberately chose a different strategy and one that mandated an open browser engine. They chose to do that, they didn't have to do that.

Hence Firefox and Google (who uses webkit) are much less worried about the implications of Apple's limitations in iOS compared to a similar move by Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Codecs war is a major issue.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Apple browser strategy by contrast was to embrace web standards and to open source their underlying browser engine,


I already brought an example above. Apple uses their browser to undermine adoption of open codecs on the Web (namely Vorbis and WebM now), by not providing open codecs support, thus forcing Web developers to encode content in proprietary codecs, if they wish to target iOS users. Apple's ban on other browsers serves this purpose as well, since alternative browsers could render this whole trick toothless.

Edited 2012-05-10 20:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Thu 10th May 2012 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
RE: Comment by shmerl
by Risthel on Thu 10th May 2012 20:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Risthel Member since:
2010-12-22

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?


There is actually a huge difference between an OS that was created with such limitations, and their clients "don't give a sh**" to this, and one OS that is trying to make this move after years of monopoly, to break the "rivals" at the user application level...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by pgeorgi on Fri 11th May 2012 07:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?

Because no-one assumed that Apple could produce a hit (outside their sub culture)

Microsoft is known to be market leader (or part of the leading group) by Version 3.

So yes, giving Apple a pass was a mistake. The right response is to cut down their SDK licensing terms, too.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by dvhh on Fri 11th May 2012 08:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Because Thom would be taxed a Anti-Apple again if he raised the issue.

Reply Score: 3

You make it possible, Thom
by kramer on Thu 10th May 2012 18:53 UTC
kramer
Member since:
2011-09-26

Thom said, "yes, I prefer Windows over Linux and Mac OS X - sue me". You, Thom, are voting for this outcome (assuming you bought your copy of Windohs.) It is fundamentally because the Sheeple keep shoveling money at Microsoft that they can and will get away with this and whatever else they may have up their sleeves. Microsoft has been dead to me since '99 when I made a conscious deliberate decision that I would not spend any more of my brain on/in their walled garden. You choose to keep playing in there--that's your business. Personally, I wouldn't care where you want to play except that you are also funding Microsoft's inevitable future attempts to "annex" public (intellectual) property into their non-public garden. Stallman saw this danger years before any of us.

Edited 2012-05-10 19:00 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: You make it possible, Thom
by Lennie on Thu 10th May 2012 21:47 UTC in reply to "You make it possible, Thom"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Even Thom admitted that Stallman "was right all along".

I have a feeling Thom will have to repeat those words in a couple of years. :-(

Reply Score: 8

Correct me if I'm wrong
by franksands on Thu 10th May 2012 19:55 UTC
franksands
Member since:
2009-08-18

Hadn't MS said it would create a "browser class" application that would allow 3rd. party apps to work with browser priviledge? I remember the catch was that you could only have one browser in the metro ui, so no ie *and* chrome or ff, but still, you would be able to use a full-featured browser on metro ui. Has this changed?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Correct me if I'm wrong
by ssokolow on Thu 10th May 2012 21:13 UTC in reply to "Correct me if I'm wrong"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Hadn't MS said it would create a "browser class" application that would allow 3rd. party apps to work with browser priviledge? I remember the catch was that you could only have one browser in the metro ui, so no ie *and* chrome or ff, but still, you would be able to use a full-featured browser on metro ui. Has this changed?


There are three classes of applications:

1. Classic (What we already know. Full system access but no new features.)
2. Metro (What they want to migrate to. Locked-down system access.)
3. Browser (What you're talking about. Full system access AND new features.)

On Windows for ARM, you can only install applications via the Microsoft App Store and they'll only approve Metro applications.

The only "Classic" application for ARM will be Microsoft office and the only "Browser" application for ARM will be MS-IE.

Here's some elaboration:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/05/why-windows-cla...

Edited 2012-05-10 21:14 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Correct me if I'm wrong
by franksands on Thu 10th May 2012 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Correct me if I'm wrong"
franksands Member since:
2009-08-18

That's actually a great explanation, thanks. But this begs another question already mentioned here: Why is it ok for Apple to have its walled garden and it isn't for MS? Why Mozilla or Google never complained about not being able to have Firefox or Chrome in iOS?
If what MS is doing is wrong, and IMHO I think it is, than Apple should be wrong too. Where is the open letter to Apple demanding access to iOS APIs?

Reply Score: 1

Thom, I am going to sue you!!
by Shkaba on Thu 10th May 2012 21:08 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

Joking aside, someone made a comment along the lines MS has no monopoly on ARM ... well monopoly is not based on hardware, rather it is based on the marketshare. While rotten fruit is fairly popular with certain segments of population, it is far from establishing a monopoly in terms of market share. For this reason alone, there is no possibility of legal action, even when their (rotten fruits) actions and policies are really rotten. MS, even with somewhat less agressive actions and/or policies, gets more scrutinized because it is a repeat offender AND indeed has a monopoly when it comes to desktop OS.

Someone else tried to, again falsely portray rotten fruit as a champion of colaboration and open standards when the opposite is true. rotten fruit and open standards are 3XPi removed.

Thom I am willing to settle out of court, cause I can't afford a lawyer. It seems that rotten fruit is driving prices for legal represantation wayyy to high ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE: Thom, I am going to sue you!!
by MollyC on Fri 11th May 2012 02:31 UTC in reply to "Thom, I am going to sue you!!"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

The MS/DOJ case specified "deskop OSes for X86 processors" as the market in question, in order to rule out Macs as competition to Windows (since Macs ran on PPC at the time).

When it comes to antitrust law suits, the plaintiff can declare the market to be whatever they want, and can narrow it enough so that the product in question has a monopoly in that narowly defined market, as long as the judge goes along with it. The DOJ could've gone all the way and declared "Windows-compatible OSes" to be the market if they so chose, and the judge agreed.

Speaking of the "Fruit" company, I think it could easily be argued that they do indeed have a monopoly in "tablet computing devices". They CERTAINLY have a larger share in that market than Windows ARM tablets have. So if MS abusing its position by not allowing 3rd party non-Metro or hybrid-Metro apps on Windows ARM devices, then Apple is being way more abusive by not allowing non-webkit browsers on iPad, since iPad has orders of magnitude larger marketshare than Windows ARM (at least, I predict that will be the case once Windows ARM tablets are rleased, and will be the case for the foreseeable future afterward).

Reply Score: 2

Firefox on a Chromebook?
by Jaktar on Thu 10th May 2012 23:59 UTC
Jaktar
Member since:
2011-06-03

Can I install Firefox on a Chromebook with ChromeOS?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Firefox on a Chromebook?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 11th May 2012 07:52 UTC in reply to "Firefox on a Chromebook?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Can I install Firefox on a Chromebook with ChromeOS?


Considering ChromeOS is open source... I don't see why not.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Firefox on a Chromebook?
by dragossh on Fri 11th May 2012 18:53 UTC in reply to "Firefox on a Chromebook?"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

The right question to ask is "why can't I install Firefox on Chrome OS?" We've gotten so used to walled gardens when just 4 mere years ago they were our devices. Not Google's, not Apple's, not Microsoft's.

Besides, Windows is a general-purpose OS. Porting it to another architecture and giving it a new UI does not suddenly turn it into an embedded one that can be locked down. Remember Microsoft just got out of DoJ's watch, and they're back to where they were a bit more than a decade ago: trying to force competition out of the market.

Edited 2012-05-11 18:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Fri 11th May 2012 02:15 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

windows rt is pathetic and nearly irrelevant. can we inject some reality into microsoft's competitiveness in this space?

windows mobile is going nowhere fast even though microsoft has been working on mobile phone software about as long as anyone. netbooks are dead. no tablet is successful except ipad. no single phone is as successful as iphone. android is on over 50% of all phones.

windows rt devices are a year away, and it would take years of fast growth for them to BECOME relevant. there is no indication that they will grow that quickly.

so: we are 5+ years away from this becoming more than a curious niche for electronics reviewers and unlucky, uninformed consumers.

the meat of this story sucks, but it is also irrelevant outside tech philosophy discussion like this.

PS: ARM is 100% relevant as 100% of handheld mobiles use it right now. but it can only LOSE relevance as intel continues showing lower power x86 chips. eventually one will be good enough.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by WorknMan on Fri 11th May 2012 05:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

windows rt is pathetic and nearly irrelevant. can we inject some reality into microsoft's competitiveness in this space?

windows mobile is going nowhere fast even though microsoft has been working on mobile phone software about as long as anyone. netbooks are dead. no tablet is successful except ipad. no single phone is as successful as iphone. android is on over 50% of all phones.

windows rt devices are a year away, and it would take years of fast growth for them to BECOME relevant. there is no indication that they will grow that quickly.

so: we are 5+ years away from this becoming more than a curious niche for electronics reviewers and unlucky, uninformed consumers.


I was going to post something similar to this, but you beat me to it. Sure, MS has a monopoly on the desktop, but Metro is not a desktop OS - it is a toy environment for tech tards, and is unlikely to be taken seriously by any professionals or power users. It'll probably work ok on tablets though, but it will also be competing with iPads and Android in that space.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by l3v1 on Fri 11th May 2012 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

You forget that it seems that - and it does seem so for a long time now - MS and Apple are going towards the iOS concept on all devices and PCs. Them becoming more relevant is not a matter of "if", but "when", since these directions are not devised - never were - to suit the low number of professionals and devs, but the vast numbers of users who couldn't care less about accesibility of all APIs, capability of writing native apps for devices (not webapp toy crap), freedom in installing and distribution of apps, etc., Also "unlikely to be taken seriously by any professionals or power users" doesn't mean it won't turn out to be the winner. Need to remember, companies are there to turn profit, not to make your life easier (especially if you're in the minority of buyer numbers), and they are just really special occasions when the two happen to serve the same goal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by WorknMan on Sat 12th May 2012 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Also "unlikely to be taken seriously by any professionals or power users" doesn't mean it won't turn out to be the winner.


Who cares? If there's 500 million tech tards out there using a locked down, idiot-proof OS on a desktop, it is of little consequence to me. Hell, they'll probably be better off anyway... less shit for them to break, and saves on phone calls to people who provide them tech support.

There's still a market (even if it's smaller than the other) for those of us who need to get real work done. If MS or Apple won't cater to this market, somebody else will. You ain't gonna be running Adobe CS or Visual Studio on Windows RT ;)

So I don't care how locked down or dumb it is, because I'll never use it on a desktop anyway. I might use it on a tablet (assuming it ends up with better apps than Android or iOS), because to me, tablets are more like appliances, and I'm not as picky in that space.

Reply Score: 3

The public has spoken.
by MollyC on Fri 11th May 2012 02:22 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

The public desires a "closed garden", "walled garden", whatever you want to call it, with simplistic UI, and only a few user-adjustable settings, as evidenced by iPad sales. That's just the way it is. The days of "open"* desktop/laptop computing are coming to an end. Thank (or blame) Steve Jobs.

* Above "open" doesn't refer to "open source", it just refers to the ability to load anything you want on a computing platform, tinker with the innards, adjust dozens and dozens of settings, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The public has spoken.
by kwan_e on Fri 11th May 2012 02:46 UTC in reply to "The public has spoken."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

The public desires a "closed garden", "walled garden", whatever you want to call it, with simplistic UI, and only a few user-adjustable settings, as evidenced by iPad sales.


In evolutionary biology, there is the phenomenon that some traits are incidentally selected because they tend to occur alongside other specific, desirable traits with greater-than-random frequency. These incidental traits sometimes end up hijacking the selection process and becomes the trait that is selected for, whether or not it retains its statistical relation to the original desired trait. In many cases, the selection ends up being undesirable, but evolution is blind.

For example, peacock tails are horribly inefficient for flying. But at one point in its evolutionary history, their tail feathers superficially represented things like health - free from parasites and other diseases. Over time, the tail became the thing selected for, rather than survivability, resulting in what appears to be the selection for looks over function.

Same thing happens with Apple products (and other stylish products). So in no way does iPad sales suggest that the public desires the "secret garden"* approach. It is an incidentally selected trait, which occurs in high statistical frequency with the shiny-rectangular-look-at-me-I'm-a-hipster trait** that Apple products are actually selected for.

* Adding another term to the mix.
** A trait which originally also started as an incidental trait to the mythical easy-to-use trait of Apple products. Like the peacock tail, it has hijacked the easy-to-use trait and now no longer really represents the easy-to-use trait by dragging along the incidental secret garden* trait.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: The public has spoken.
by Priest on Fri 11th May 2012 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE: The public has spoken."
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

I think an important aspect is that huge committees can produce a high total amount of work but a design produced by a committee isn't necessarily better than what a single talented person or a small group of very talented people can produce.

That isn't to say people prefer their systems to be closed but it does mostly mean people prefer products designed by closed teams.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The public has spoken.
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 12th May 2012 05:28 UTC in reply to "The public has spoken."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The public desires a "closed garden", "walled garden", whatever you want to call it, with simplistic UI, and only a few user-adjustable settings, as evidenced by iPad sales. That's just the way it is. The days of "open"* desktop/laptop computing are coming to an end. Thank (or blame) Steve Jobs.


I'd rather curse the son of a bitch. To hell.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The public has spoken.
by Soulbender on Sat 12th May 2012 09:11 UTC in reply to "The public has spoken."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The public desires a "closed garden", "walled garden", whatever you want to call it, with simplistic UI, and only a few user-adjustable settings, as evidenced by iPad sales.


I think it might be more about effective marketing and brand penetration than what people actually wants.

The days of "open"* desktop/laptop computing are coming to an end.


I'm not so sure of that. "Coming to an end" is somewhat of an overstatement. There will always be those who need the power features (how else will the software be made to begin with?) but laptop and desktop sales will probably go down in favor of simpler devices.

Reply Score: 3

industry?
by l3v1 on Fri 11th May 2012 06:39 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

As a geek, this line of reasoning saddens me greatly - it confirms just how out of touch the industry has become with its roots.


Industry? What industry? Most of self-procralimed blogger professionals and article writers out there preaching crap out of their behinds have bothing to do with what you mean by "industry" (the industry knows all too well what they are doing). These people are the target audience, and they welcome these devices and OSes. And they won't care, because devs will always find ways to deliver apps for them (they have to live, you know) that they can use and say, see mate, there was no problem after all.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by foregam
by foregam on Fri 11th May 2012 09:58 UTC
foregam
Member since:
2010-11-17

Don't these people ever learn from experience? I can clearly picture the guys from the EC rubbing their hands, eyes glowing with excitement.

Reply Score: 1

Where's the problem ?
by TBPrince on Fri 11th May 2012 14:40 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

I really can't see why that should be a problem. If Apple is allowed to set its rules for iSomething app store, Microsoft can do the same for its phones and tablets.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Where's the problem ?
by Neolander on Fri 11th May 2012 14:44 UTC in reply to "Where's the problem ?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I really can't see why that should be a problem. If Apple is allowed to set its rules for iSomething app store, Microsoft can do the same for its phones and tablets.

While the "OK for Apple => OK for Microsoft" implication is arguably true, the "OK for Apple" precondition is not necessarily fullfilled ;)

Edited 2012-05-11 14:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Where's the problem ?
by TBPrince on Sat 12th May 2012 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's the problem ?"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

That's true. But since it's been years Apple is doing like that and authorities didn't complain, Microsoft is right to assume it can do the same thing.

Moreover, Microsoft has no Windows monopoly in ARM field the same way it has in desktop computing and Windows-RT will not be compatible with its x86 version. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where's the problem ?
by Neolander on Sat 12th May 2012 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's the problem ?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Maybe Microsoft will face EU commission/DoJ scrutinity if their ARM market share grows, because they are kept under watch due to their earlier monopoly abuse practices, but Apple have become masters of sneaking stuff in their product without the powers that be noticing...

Edited 2012-05-12 13:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Where's the problem ?
by shotsman on Sat 12th May 2012 07:49 UTC in reply to "Where's the problem ?"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

There is a difference between Apple and Microsoft.

Apple make the hardware that their OS runs on.
Microsoft dictates to the hardware manufacturers.'If you want to run Windows then they say,'THIS IS THE HARDWARE YOU MUST USE'.

The whole issue over EFI Secure boot is due to Microsoft wanting to stop any other O/S from running on the hardware that they have dictated to the likes of Asus, HP, Dell etc.

You could root the iPad and run your own software on it.
Microsoft is trying to make this impossible/illegal.

There is a difference.

Reply Score: 2

rock and a hard place
by fran on Fri 11th May 2012 14:50 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Help me if i am wrong but isn't that API which all third parties use on x86 Windows intimately connected with Intel's and AMD's technology.

The same companies that vehemently opposes any virtualisation of this on ARM.

So even if windows allow access to other browsers are they not somehow between a rock and a hard place.

One the one hand.
Sorry we can't allow that API virtualisation on ARM fellows you have to recode everything.

On the other hand
Please regulators understand we are not uncompetitive but we just can't allow them to run that software.

So it might not be that Microsoft doesn’t want Firefox on it. Maybe it just can't at the moment of time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: rock and a hard place
by kwan_e on Fri 11th May 2012 15:12 UTC in reply to "rock and a hard place"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Things can be recompiled to a different architecture relatively easily.

Reply Score: 3

RE: rock and a hard place
by Alfman on Fri 11th May 2012 18:35 UTC in reply to "rock and a hard place"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

fran,

"Help me if i am wrong but isn't that API which all third parties use on x86 Windows intimately connected with Intel's and AMD's technology."

kwan_e is right, the windows API is not dependent upon the CPU's instruction set. Consider x86 32 and 64bit, which are similar yet incompatible. Windows API works on both even with different calling conventions. Windows has been ported to the Alpha and Itanium architectures, and though it won't be made public, apparently it runs on ARM as well.


"So it might not be that Microsoft doesn’t want Firefox on it. Maybe it just can't at the moment of time."

I'd like to clarify what people are upset about. It isn't that the microsoft is killing win32s per say. Mozilla doesn't care that microsoft replaced win32 with something shiny and new, they just want similar access with the same level of integration as microsoft's own browser. Many OS utility developers are going to be snuffed out on this new platform because microsoft reserves the capabilities for itself. This helps to ensure microsoft's product are more innovative than competitors.

To be honest I'm surprised microsoft is trying to go through with this (with IE again, no less) because I think it's likely the EC and DOJ will eventually bring the antitrust lawsuits (again). But maybe microsoft number crunchers have determined that anticompetitive behavior has a better payout despite the lawsuits.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 11th May 2012 17:59 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Somebody should remind Mozilla and Google that they have no rights when it comes to Microsoft products. Microsoft has absolutely no obligation to provide Mozilla and Google with what they think they should have.

The cry-fest never ends ...................

Reply Score: 0

JUST USE LINUX!
by Ninjawidget on Fri 11th May 2012 18:22 UTC
Ninjawidget
Member since:
2011-08-18

Here's a crazy idea, why don't you just use Linux?
I mean okay that might sound crazy to Windows Lovers, but hey, if you don't like what a firm is doing then vote with your wallets, or in this case your right to download and use a different operating system. I'm sure Microsoft will get the idea.

Linux is the only real way to progress, why regress with Windows or Mac?

Reply Score: 4

RE: JUST USE LINUX!
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 12th May 2012 05:32 UTC in reply to "JUST USE LINUX!"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Well, see, the problem is that us Linux users that would like to try something different than the typical x64 (like for laptops, maybe), are locked out of using all those new ARM-based computers when the come out preloaded with Windows 8. Why? Because Microsoft wants to monopolize ARM next, after which they'll probably try to kick x64 to the curb.

Reply Score: 3

Don't you know...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 11th May 2012 19:06 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Let me be very harsh and make it very clear: I'm not talking about people who write a bunch of iOS applications and call it a day. I'm talking about the nitty gritty stuff. Driver development. Assembly programming. Kernel development. Firmware stuff.


Don't you know - you're suppose to get all that stuff from Apple, Microsoft, and their approved vendors.

All joking aside, yes - it's a big issue.

I'd love to get an ARM desktop/laptop sometime, but again I'll be sticking with Linux when I do.

And yes, I just bought a new laptop with Linux installed ($100 off the price, thank you HP).

Reply Score: 3

Next generation of engineers
by Lozrus on Sat 12th May 2012 13:41 UTC
Lozrus
Member since:
2010-06-14

"Let me be very harsh and make it very clear: I'm not talking about people who write a bunch of iOS applications and call it a day. I'm talking about the nitty gritty stuff. Driver development. Assembly programming. Kernel development. Firmware stuff. "

Completely right Thom, trying to hire engineers with these skills now is already getting tough. They just aren't taught at university any more (at least in the UK/US where I'm hiring). At least the true engineers can teach themselves, but the new generations of OS will cut these guys off too.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Next generation of engineers
by Alfman on Sat 12th May 2012 16:49 UTC in reply to "Next generation of engineers"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Lozrus,

"at least in the UK/US where I'm hiring"

I'm looking for low level SE work in Suffolk, NY. I've all but given up, where are you hiring? Doing web dev projects now.

Edited 2012-05-12 16:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Sun 13th May 2012 08:38 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Maybe it's time we invested more effort into projects like Raspberry Pi, which could have the effect of making practically unlimited choice available to any one of any preference...

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft favoring IE over others...
by cmost on Mon 14th May 2012 22:12 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Gee, what a shock! Obviously MS is going to favor its own browser and technologies over competing products. I wish the Justice Department has split MS as it intended back in the late 90s after the first anti-trust brouhaha. But alas, when one has politicians in ones pocket... and gives said politicians a back door... I won't go there. My advice is to simply not use Windows.

Reply Score: 2

ie vs chrome/friefox
by elfsun on Tue 15th May 2012 07:42 UTC
elfsun
Member since:
2012-05-15

Don't like IE, so I support chrome and firefox.Compared with apple system, most of the users are using windows,I think that's why so many people care about this.
If a system can only use IE, I will not use it.What IE gives me are the ubiquitous script errors and slow loading speed while the other browsers I used (chrome ,firefox or chrome,firefox engines in Avant) can open the same page quickly and fluently.So difference.

Reply Score: 1