Printable View
Seems like Opera has decided that unlike Mozilla's Firefox, it needs to actually get government involved to battle for market share against Microsoft.
So, here we go again, with the EU investigating the complaints which will undoubtedly lead to them sucking more money out of MS (and my stock worth), ... to pay for free birth control tests to members of the EU.
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/13/
Geez... I liked their Opera mobile, and was even considering purchasing it...
Opera is too much like Operah, so it is bad.
I used to use Opera until I read this thread. I will no longer support any MS haters. :mad:
Just kidding. :D
The voice in my head does a great Droopy impersonation whenever someone complains against MS. "boo hoo hoo, they're evil and won't use our browser."
Uhhh... okay. :ehh:
good on Opera, i don't think that you can compair them with SCO.
SCO tried to shaft every Open Source deveolper for using the code within part of the kernal in all linux distributions did they not?
Opera are trying to get a leg-up. if it wasn't ms i may not support them but as it is i think they are great
dav
Well, David, someday if you make some software that brings you millions in profits, and some small jerk of a company complains to some government agency that because you're software is so popular, you have to support a legally-non-binding consensus of other private competing companies, perhaps you'll understand the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by davadvice
Microsoft makes its own software. In a perfectly capitalist society, they would could enforce their legal right to disallow the Opera browser from even being installed on their OS, the fact that the Opera browser competes with their browser is enough reason - but they don't really need a solid reason to disallow any competitor from their OS.
But once you become successful, all the vultures (and yes SCO and now Opera are vultures), will fight outside the market by claiming how unfair it is.
If Netscape Communications had won the browser wars, Opera and all the haters would be ripping on them too. And you wouldn't be using CSS as you know it, but Netscape's ******* step-child version with LAYERS.
But Microsoft won the war, and by god, they didn't have to adhere to any web standard at all if they didn't want to.
The fact that Microsoft has been on the W3C committee from the dawn of the html internet should inform your decisions. While other browsers like Firefox were written anew and could dismiss old html documents, IE had to support legacy web designs written since 1996.
"Internet Explorer 3 was the first major browser with CSS support, although this support was only partial."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer
"Although the CSS1 specification was completed in 1996 and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 3 was released in that year featuring some limited support for CSS, it would be more than three years before any web browser achieved near-full implementation of the specification. Internet Explorer 5.0 for the Macintosh, shipped in March of 2000, was the first browser to have full (better than 99 percent) CSS1 support, surpassing Opera, which had been the leader since its introduction of CSS support fifteen months earlier. Other browsers followed soon afterwards, and many of them additionally implemented parts of CSS2. As of July 2006, no browser has fully implemented CSS2, with implementation levels varying (see Comparison of layout engines (CSS))."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets
Microsoft submits SOAP:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ic...130icsoap.html
Microsoft brutes forces the instant messaging standard:
"IETF officials lauded Microsoft's move"
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement...2073142,00.htm
Microsoft has grown with the internet being developed, which people forget. Newcomers can always claim IE is crap, etc, etc in comparison. If you ever had to support legacy software and add new features, you'd know how difficult it is.
My skinny Ethopian buddy just sent me an airmail letter (he can only afford to send one every 7 years) saying that his heart bleeds for you. (His heart does actually bleed, but in this case I think he was being sarcastic).Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Or metaphoric. :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Stalin was a Linux supporter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
I only read the article in #1 now.
Everyone has a problem with Microsoft integrating IE / Media Player with Windows. Don't they have the CHOICE to install something different? Was there a release of Windows that won't allow you to install different applications? I must have missed it.
I don't run Media Player, I run WinAmp. I only use IE when sites contain ActiveX controls that won't display in Firefox.
Why does CorelDraw not kick up a fuss about Microsoft installing MS Paint with Windows?
Or WinZip about the integrated "Compressed Folders"?
Or even RealVNC about Remote Desktop Connection???
It's like a child's game.
Child loses a game of Cluedo against his sibling, runs to his mother, and his mother tells the sibling to start losing in order for the child to shut up.
It's about being a SORE LOSER. I wish Opera would just "take it like a man" and admit defeat.
I have not seen Firefox sueing Microsoft as yet... (They didn't, did they?)
I don't think Firefox or the Mozilla Foundation has. When you've got a good product, you don't need to resort to underhanded measures to 'win', the product speaks for itself.
Exactly.
By the way: Why was MS in a lawsuit about integrating Media Player? :confused: Who filed it?
I cant understand what the complaint is about, what doesn't IE support? And they do have a mini browser, its installed on the palm treo 500v. Anyhow, ive tried the other too and i really don like them. That being said when i buy a laptop with MICROSOFT windows on it, i expect to get the MICROSOFT web browser on it that i am accustomed to. If i wanted a different software i would buy a different OS or download it.
well well nemaroller.
I think you missed the total point of my post.
I agree with Opera, don't care what the argument is at all but i agree with them because i don't like the strangle hold MS has over the rest.
my point was the SCO and Opera are in no way comparable by reference to this legal argument. read the second sentence/Question
david
MS dont have a strangle over anything. Its THEIR OS. If opera care that much why dont they make an operating system to go with their browser.
yawn....
Has this argument not been round and round and round and round?
you are not the last and not the first and wont be the next to be arguing the same point.
You must be blind to think that MS don't rule the PC software industry. thus having a stragle hold.
why is it that as soon as you are a critic of MS this place becomes alive ?
I don't particularly like MS. i do know they make some decent software tho.
I think that MS should shut up shop and give apple a chance.
in fact linux should get a go, no, no, unix should get a go. no, no, no, chalk and slate rule. computers suck.
on a side note. if i use IE i get crap all over my PC because it is the most targeted by script kiddies.
dav
Yeah, but that was kernel 1.3. We should learn to forgive.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
The legal argument isn't the same, but it is still underhanded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davadvice
Opera wants the EU Commission to force Microsoft to become more W3C compliant. It's a free world (at least where I live), and it is totally up to Microsoft to adopt those standards in any manner that it makes sense for them.
The EU commission isn't the sheriff of web development. If it was, we would never have XmlHTTP, SOAP, and all these AJAX applications. Further, W3C is a group of many members each with their own private interests (read investments) in what gets adopted or not.
Oh, well at least you admitted you are blindly supporting Opera's argument for no reason other than being a hater.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davadvice
The name of the forum might be a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davadvice
A popular misconception. Apple is just as close-sourced as Microsoft. If everything went Apple's way, we'd all buy expensive products which didn't really do anything, economies would collapse.Quote:
I think that MS should shut up shop and give apple a chance.
Closed source is like marzipan.
I have no further insight at this time.
I agree and disagree; If you buy software from someone you should be prepared to use what the application dictates you use. In theory MS could focre you to use only certain hardware and software with it's OS. If they did they might become unpopular very quickly.
What people are failing to recognise now is that ethics it playing a bigger part in capitalism now. With practices such as back handers and gift acceptance and monopolies being frowned upon more and more and the damage total monopolisation can do.
One could say that Windows being the worlds most popular OS has a certain hold on the OS market and can dicate its direction. This is a dangerous position to be in; if Microsoft has no one to compete with they have complete control over the market, meaning they will have no obligation to promote quality or standards and no obligation to sell at competative prices. We saw this with Internet Explorer; we can see it happening with music sites, we see it happening with companies who sell the hardware - if MS sees a market it likes it can barge in with all the resources it wants and monopolise it.
We are seeing a similar situation in the UK with Tesco. They are so big and so powerful that they are pushing councils into allowing them to build in their community. In one case a counciler had even been bribed into allowing Tesco the plot. The government is finding it hard to control Tesco's who are probably now in position where they control enough of the economy to influence the government (3 pence in every pound goes to them).
The slogan behind this is "give others a chance". If there is something better out there, allow people that choice and do not foce them into one choice. The web standards are expecially important because even now (it has imporved a great deal since 2002) there are serious compatibility probelems between browsers.
Complying with a standard isn't logistically hard for Microsoft (nemaroller, maybe I can make millions by telling microsoft they could use a particualy meta tage or comment to signify total standards compliance), it is financially hard - because it gives the market the opotunity to disitpate and MS less power over the browser market.
Controlling monopolies is important for the economy and allowing a single organisation complete control over their market will do our pockets no good in the long run nor the economy. I think the EU have an excellent attitude towards controlling these large organisations and they also have the power to hold them back.
Ouch, see, that's a socialist view, not a capitalist view. Why should government be allowed to control or dictate the earning power of private companies and individuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by visualad
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm
They dont rule the industry. The fact of the matter is they could very easily and quickly loose market share. Remember the majority of huge business like banks etc run unix. Now what if microsoft pissed off say intel enough that they decided to take matters into their own hands. They decide to pick a linux distro and sell intel pased linux PC's on the cheap, all of a sudden the "free software" advocats are getting paid and the quailty of software rises dramaticly.
The new "Expesive" looking and very functional software starts to appeal to smaller bussiness because they now unix is safe and linux is based on that now they have the backing of intel and an OS that is a vaible bussiness tool. And why is it viable.... Because microsoft released the .net framework and all your tailor made apps now work on it!
Doesnt sound like much of a grip to me. Also remember microsoft also release some of the best freeware around, look at the express editions for instance. So they dont release source code. They have given you the best IDE to make your own versions what more do you want.
Anyway im not going to continue this arguement, its just plain silly to hate a company for being succesfull and trying to stay on top.
I think this excerpt encompasses my view point:
"Regarding the Microsoft case, don't consumers have a right to Windows without Explorer? Does not Microsoft's bundling of their products (i.e. Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Windows) into one package disrupt a person's right to only have to pay for products he wishes to buy?
The terms of any trade must be agreeable to the buyer and the seller, or a sale does not take place. If you don't like Microsoft's terms, then you are free to go somewhere else (like I did when I bought an Apple Macintosh and a UNIX server).
There is no right to force Microsoft to create, or sell, a product called "Windows without Explorer" if Microsoft does not want to. The key right in this case is the right to property -- which is a legitimate right. The property rights to Windows and Explorer belongs solely to Microsoft and not to potential buyers, and certainly not to the U.S. Department of Justice. That Microsoft does not want to sell the product "Windows without Explorer" does not violate your rights one iota. There is no such thing as your right to Microsoft's property. There is only the right to buy products that others wish to sell to you. If they don't wish to sell you them in the first place, then you have no right to buy them."
-from the same site linked above.
The point I am making was the definition of what is considered ethical is changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
The definition of ethics is dictated by those in power, we have nothing to do with it. We simply follow. Therefore, there is nothing ethical about ethics... you know what I mean.
I don't think smoking is ethical ;)
I think it's time you subscribed to my school of ethics.
The choice remains in Windows. As CodedFire mentioned: It's MS'es software, thus they can include whatever the blazes they want. If people do not like it, then they are not forced into using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by VisualAd
(Perhaps by their Administrator, but not by MS. :))
Exactly. If I were to write a piece of software that's one of a kind, sell it to every single person on the planet, and then someone else starts their product which is similar to mine, why should I change my application? Because this is exactly the scenario that is being portrayed by the EU in forcing Microsoft to exlude components from their packages.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Why is there nothing done to Linux for including Netscape / Firefox / some other browser in their distro's? Or Apple for including Safari with Mac OS X Leopard?
The whole thing is about people not liking the success of Microsoft. *ducks under the desk*
I am currently busy writing a browser for Windows because of all these lawsuits.
Once I'm done, I'm going to sue:
- Mac for including Safari, dominating the Mac market, though I doubt anyone would want to go there... :rolleyes:
- Opera for dominating the hand-held market
- Firefox for including extensions in their software, thus dominating the extensions market.
:afrog:
You are forced into using windows. Companies that sell computers have exclusive deals with MS and other software providers whereby they get paid to bundle the software. This means they pass the discount onto the customer. I think Dell are the only ones selling a Linux range at the moment and their hardware is not as high grade as the identical Windows range and it is they are more expensive. Now that kind of practice to me is the rich guy giving the waiter a back hander so he gets the table at the restaurant instead of the less well off family who were there first.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
If I bought a vacuum cleaner or a hose I would use the attachments that are included with it. I wouldn't really want to go out and buy them separately. The problem with a computer, is that it's a very personal object and it is able to embed in the users mind. When they start using an application it becomes the only application that does that job - in fact the majority of casual users will not know what a web browser is and may even consider it part of the operating system. The fact is, in the majority of cases people are unaware the choice exists.Quote:
Exactly. If I were to write a piece of software that's one of a kind, sell it to every single person on the planet, and then someone else starts their product which is similar to mine, why should I change my application? Because this is exactly the scenario that is being portrayed by the EU in forcing Microsoft to exlude components from their packages.
I am not sure I am for or against bundling. Going back to the hose example; if I am buying a hose I don't want to then have to browse through a whole selection of attachments - I'd prefer if they were in the package I bought. I really don't care about alternate options I just want to water my bloody garden.
In argument though it clearly gives the company selling the product an unfair advantage; especially when what you are selling is like a staple diet for OS users. The browser market may be unfairly skewed. If IE were not included with Windows and users were instead gave the option of installing several browsers - what would the browser market be like?
Linux is only a kernel. The distro's are built on that - the one I am using at the moment has two web browsers included with the standard desktop installation. They tend not to be able to afford paying others to give them an advantage. If you do a select all at installation time you get about 5/6GB of additional software.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
I think I made my point above ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
The other thing we a neglecting here though is the standards compliance issue and their seeming reluctance to make a browser that does allow full compliance along with backward compatibility. Again I don't think the "to difficult" excuse works here - incompatibility is a way of making it difficult to promote inter portability. It is seen in many markets, music, hose appliances, vacuum cleaner bags, cars, could go on but, it's common place.
But let's look at electricity. It is now mainstream and everybody uses it. Imagine what would happen if several of the biggest energy companies decided to adopt new electrical standards (current, voltage, transport); it would make things more difficult for the makers of electrical appliances because the may have to make a choice or build the several different methods into the appliance. This will effect the customers because the appliances will become more expensive. Given time a choice will be made but it will be a war of money.
The Internet has always been based on standards as it is based on information exchange. It has also all but become main stream. The W3C consortium came from this and MS is a key player in these standards. So there really is no excuse for non compliance with standards in the software. Look at the OpenXML and the ODF saga, the one that actually is a standard is not supported by Office 2007. OpenXML is still yet to be approved by W3C and although I think it is the better of the two - ODF is a standard so why not offer compliance?
If you buy an Apple, you probably get Mac OSX on it, right? What's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
I do agree with this, but how do you get hold of a browser... without a browser? If you can install a browser from a disc you get in a magazine, surely you will be able to install it anyway, regardless of where you get it. (Included with OS, from a Magazine, downloaded...)Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
I'm not saying that I agree to the fact that Microsoft integrates with Windows, though I don't see what the big fuss is. You have a browser in order to connect you to the internet. If you want a different browser, download the thing. No-one is stopping you from doing so.
Your example of buying a hose: You buy a hose for $10. (I don't know how much you guys pay for these things :)) You get a free fitting with it, but it's useless. You know the fitting is going to break, or wear out, or whatever, so you go buy a different fitting. Is it not the same?
Imagine this: You install Windows, wire up your modem... now what? You can't surf, because you don't have any browser installed. How will you get Opera / Firefox on your machine?
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
If Windows didn't come with a browser at all (since adding any browser will be seen as bundling software) how will people be able to download any browser?
My point exactly. How would people be able to surf the net, without going to some effort to install a browser? Looking at usability, if you want to install a solution out-the-box and surf the net, what's the problem?
And besides, you can install a different browser, then remove IE should you want to.
yeah,
Just try removing the video editor from XP, you need to be a XPert to do that.
ohh, and when you use sage IE is a requirement.
But that's a problem on "Sage", is it not? :confused:
Since you can now buy PC's with OSX on, you now have a choice what you put it on. If you buy it from Apple it will probably have OSX on it no surprise there. But if you buy wit from PC world, it will most likely have Windows on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
There is a difference; it's called price.
I wasn't going to go into the detail of how it is done but; you don't need a browser to access the Internet. Again, my opinion on bundling software is mixed. Looking at it from my perspective being a techy, I don't want to be constrained into using what I am told. Looking at it from the first time computer user; they just want to use that Internet thing and the want to have it there when they press the power button for the first time. Looking at it from the pespective of the competition; they want to be able to have a share of the market too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
BTW, I don't know what hoses you buy but mine are clearly better quality.
See above ^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
How do you access the internet without a browser?