To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, I don't agree with it, because it's shoving yet one more decision in front of the user's face.
And why are we just talking about browsers? What about text editors, calculator apps, paint programs, etc? Why not shove a dialog in the user's face about all of these apps too?
Hell, let's ask the user about file systems, memory managers, window managers, and force the user to make a choice on these things as well?
Let's force the user to choose between multiple audio drivers, graphics drivers, etc?
Why is a browser, a free piece of software, more important than any of these? When Netscape was around, they had *some* validity to their argument since they *claimed* that Microsoft was costing them money from selling Netscape browsers. (The reality was that almost all users used Netscape for free (under the "evaluation" clause of the EULA), and Netscape's real revenue stream was Netscape servers, a revenue stream that Apache destroyed.) But all current browsers are free of charge, so what's the big deal that government should get involved in forcing users to choose among different free browsing software?




Member since:
2009-03-12
"it also creates unfair competition by providing leverage to those browsers included in the dialog"
No system is perfect, but I think you'll agree that what is being suggested is better than the current situation.