Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Jan 2009 20:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 344505
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: bundling vs standards
by rajan r on Tue 20th Jan 2009 10:53
in reply to "RE[4]: bundling vs standards"
RE[6]: bundling vs standards
by phoenix on Tue 20th Jan 2009 20:32
in reply to "RE[5]: bundling vs standards"
Indeed. You have shown us that all those things (GUI, browsers, all that crap) are superfluous and ought to be unbundled from Windows. I'm sure it is easy enough for the average Windows user to install what they want, no?
Well, we did it back in the days of Windows 3.x, and back in the days of Windows 9x, and back in the days of Windows NT, don't see why it would suddenly be so different now. It's not like you lose all network connectivity when you remove the browser. Nor do you lose the CD/DVD drive, nor do you lose the USB ports.
And just because these apps wouldn't come on the Windows CD, doesn't mean the OEM can't install something or include a CD with options that the user can install.
What is with the attitude that "everything must be pre-installed, otherwise the user won't know it exists"? People may be dumb, but they're not retarded. And it's precisely this attitude that is making them dumber!
RE[5]: bundling vs standards
by daedliusswartz on Tue 20th Jan 2009 20:19
in reply to "RE[4]: bundling vs standards"






Member since:
2005-10-10
How would I download Firefox without a browser of some sort by default, be it a web or ftp?
You're kidding right?
My chosen OS comes with nothing but a terminal, no browser, no ftp client, not even a mouse driver let alone a GUI. Yet here I sit typing this reply in a full blown Firefox and every other imaginable tool you could ask for on a computer. How is this possible? Must be magic?