Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Jan 2009 11:56 UTC
Internet & Networking Earlier this month, news got out that the European Commission is charging Microsoft with unlawful competition regarding its bundling of the Internet Explorer web bowser with Windows. At the time, information was scarce, but thanks to Microsoft's quarterly filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission. we now have a little more insight into what the EU might force Microsoft to do.
Permalink for comment 345657
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

> To be fair, Konq is simply a wrapper for KHTML. Removing it doesn't remove KHTML from KDE, and KHTML is a kpart that is required by many applications beyond Konq.

Getting rid of Konq on KDE is similar to removing IE from Windows... it removes the web browsing component, but it retains the core technology.

Are you sure? Qt4 now contains a version of webkit. Wouldn't that be used for internal purposes and not KHTML? Qt4 is the basis, after all, of rendering the desktop in KDE.

Regardless, the point is that whatever renderer is used internal to the OS, one cannot feed it external-web-data without konqueror. This is not the case for Trident.

Trident is fed with external data from the web even if IE is s unset as the default browser, and even if the IE icon is remved from the desktop. Feeding Trident (and ActiveX) with data from the wider web still exposes the Windows system to attack. The fact that Trident (and ActiveX) cannot be removed or separated from web-originated-data is a major part of the issue.

The problem we have is that everyone, whether MS, Apple, KDE, Gnome or whoever else, has their own html component that they depend on.

Yes ... except that AFAIK, Trident (and ActiveX) for rendering and IE for web browsing is the only case where these functions are inseparably handled by the same piece of code.

In the case of Apple, KDE, Gnome or whoever else the internal uses of html rendering can be separated from the web browser.

Rather, the EU could instead insist that all EU websites and any similar web-based interaction be based upon existing web-standards, whether than conforming to Microsoft's version of the web.

I'd go with the alternative. Rather than forcing Microsoft to re-write their OS and browser, I'd just require (in the EU) that there be two separate instances of it, one instance for internal uses, and the other instance web-facing. The web-facing one would be required to be compliant with W3C standards, with no special-to-Microsoft extensions. This approach would fix the problem also.

Edited 2009-01-27 05:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2