Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.
Thread beginning with comment 554336
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Typical EU
by Kochise on Wed 6th Mar 2013 14:33 UTC in reply to "Typical EU"
Member since:

The File Explorer is a total mess, I prefer using Total Commander, far better and with plug-in extensions. Microsoft should be fined for embedding such a poor file explorer and not giving the users a choice.

EU resident. I don't understand this sillyness as well, since Microsoft never prevented me to install some other file explorers.


Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Typical EU
by looncraz on Wed 6th Mar 2013 21:06 in reply to "RE: Typical EU"
looncraz Member since:

An operating system is understood, legally, to consist of the following, in part, or grouped together.

1. A layer of software to abstract the hardware (kernel / drivers / HAL / file system).

2. A layer of software to permit application software to interface with the aforementioned software layer (API, libraries).

3. User interfaces to interact with and control 1 & 2.

A file system browser is protected as part of the OS as the file system is part of HAL (#1 above).

An internet browser, on the other hand, does not serve to interface with the HAL or API, though it obviously uses both, it serves to interact with external resources created by third parties. This, by definition, as an application.

Laws apply differently between the two. Microsoft can change their OS all they want, they have no obligation to provide alternative kernels, libraries, or UI. They do, however, have an obligation to not use their OS dominance to gain or enforce and advantage for any of their other products which fit the definition of application.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Typical EU
by Kochise on Thu 7th Mar 2013 07:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Typical EU"
Kochise Member since:

OS architecture varies, from monolith to exo-kernel. It is understood that Windows, since "VMS" (NT4 then NT5 aka 2000) is mixed monolith-micro kernel. So it's hard to draw a line.

The Windows' file explorer could be seen as an application as well as Nautilus is under Gnome desktop. The "minimal" API for user interaction would stay the CLI (command line), the good ol' DOS way (cmd.exe) and the file explorer a win32 application that works as a GUI abstraction layer.

Then the file explorer could be diteched as well.

Otherwise you could tell that Internet Explorer is closely tied to the TCP/IP stack and also provide rendering falicity services as well (WebKit like) that could serve, say, Opera that just become a new UI above a web rendering engine.

Iiiiiifffff I was an operating system creator, I would wipe all that mess from the table (table flipper mode) and shout out loud : "Go fuck yourself, you anti-virus and internet browser scum, go scramble your own operating system !"

Mozilla started to take that way with its own OS, Chrome also. And if they want to let Opera and Microsoft, if not Norton and MacAfee, to enter their ecosystem, that's their own problem.

But I find rather strange that moaning third parties are imposing Microsoft to accept having his own OS defaced that way. The anti-trust towards OEM is something that must be prevented, like the UEFI mess, because the end user have no choice to get a computer OS free (OEM) or install something else on its hardware (UEFI).

But pluh-ease, this internet browser affair is so childish it leaves me puzzled. Users just have to seek for another web browser if the one provided with does not suit their tastes, many have done by themselves. Why EU should force Microsoft to do so ? If users are stupid, even to install a myriad of toolbars, while there is internet forums, wikis, dedicated press, that explain them not to and how to get rid of it, and they still not figure how ?

I'd sum it up in TWO words : natural - selection !

So kick Microsoft's ass on the OEM and UEFI ("security") stuffs, but sorry, you won't get my hand up on the internet browser case.


Reply Parent Score: 1