Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Aug 2009 16:23 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Mozilla & Gecko clones Remember the very detailed proposal Microsoft submitted to the European Commission not too long ago about the browser ballot? This was quite the detailed proposal, covering just about every possible aspect of such a ballot screen. Responses were positive from within the EC, but now it seems that according to the Mozilla Foundation, the proposal is not good enough.
Thread beginning with comment 379497
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Legitimate
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 19:30 UTC in reply to "Legitimate"
Member since:

Though a little nit-picky, these seem like legitimate complaints.

Indeed, very legitimate. I commented in a previous thread, when the proposal came out, that I wondered how Microsoft was going to rig things to ensure that their candidate always won the ballot. I didn't realize that they would be quite so blatant. If the user selects a non-IE browser, IE should not be cluttering up the desktop.

I do find the idea of retaining Trident to be reasonable. Removing it completely would probably not be good for users. But that, right there, already gives IE an unfair advantage. IE should definitely not be all over the default desktop, as well, after the user has already said that they want to use another browser.

And frankly, that much seems so obvious that I have to seriously wonder about the motives of those people trying to cast Mozilla's criticism of it in a bad light. Can you imagine the uproar if Opera, Inc. were to suggest that no matter what browser the user selected, Opera should end up on the desktop in no fewer than 3 places? Well... that is *exactly* what Microsoft is trying to do with IE. I'm pretty sure I perceive a double-standard deluxe here. And the fact that it seems to originate with OSNews staff makes it all that much more disturbing.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Not Legitimate
by MollyC on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:03 in reply to "RE: Legitimate"
MollyC Member since:

First, the idea that installing one browser removes another is silly.
Second, even if a checkbox were added to the ballot to say "Remove IE", nobody (that doesn't have a political axe to grind) is going to click it. Why would they? To save a few KB of disk space?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not Legitimate
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Aug 2009 20:13 in reply to "Not Legitimate"
sbergman27 Member since:

First, the idea that installing one browser removes another is silly.

That ballot concept is, in itself flawed. It's like saying that Candidate A is going to be your country's president. That's a done deal. It's been decided behind closed doors. But we, the people, get to elect another person who is also going to be president. Even someone with your extreme and obvious bias on the topic should be able to see that.

The ballot should be to decide what browser the user wants to use. Due to MS's previous politics, I almost have to agree that the inclusion of Trident, in any case, is necessary. It is unfortunate. And it is wrong. But it is necessary compromise. But it is also as much compromise as is warranted. I absolutely do not agree with the distorted view of the matter which you are selling. And, honestly, I am seriously beginning to wonder who pulls your puppet strings, Molly. And I don't say that lightly.

Reply Parent Score: 2