Comments on: Mozilla to weigh in on EU's Microsoft case

European regulators grant Mozilla's request to weigh in on the Microsoft antitrust case, which centers on the legality of bundling Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system.

[karpenterskids]

If Microsoft has to bundle more than just Internet Explorer with their operating system...wouldn't Apple have to include more than just Safari as well?

[seven7dust]

Apple is closed and has no monopoly over the n e industry
So They are out of reaches of the EU and others

[hafenbrack]

Apple doesn't have enough market share. It's not because they are closed...Now just imagine this outcome, no browser included at all...with the death of the internet to follow. We'll just see about what happens, but who here has ever tried to explain the difference, to an older friend, between IE and any other browser. now imagine doing that every time they get a new computer with Windows...They'll still pick IE because to them that MEANS the internet.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Yes, that they would have to do. It is highly unlikely that they would be expected to do so until the company is rich enough to make a worthy target in which to fill the EU's coffers with from fines.

[Seaspray0]

And, just where does a browser end and the operating system begin? If they both use the same API, does it belong to the OS or the browser? Mozilla will attempt to convince the EU that it all belongs to the browser, knowing full well the OS uses it too. The purpose? So they can fatten their wallets with fines, blackmailing microsoft into either paying up or crippling the OS. This is all about the money because mozilla is a POS that can't compete on its own merrit.

[CTO_Dude]

@seaspray0

Amen brother!

[Penguinisto]

@halfenbrack: Err, the Internet certainly did not die in the days before Windows 95, so what makes you think it would happen now (haven't you people ever heard of FTP or even P2P FFS?)

"but who here has ever tried to explain the difference, to an older friend, between IE and any other browser."

(other browser name) is generally regarded as more secure since it does not have ActiveX.

Next question?

"And, just where does a browser end and the operating system begin?"

HTML rendering. Everything else was artificially implanted by Microsoft back in the 1990's in an attempt to justify IE's existence as a pre-load.

The rest is just a bunch of whining. If Microsoft doesn't like the EU's ruling (however it may turn out), then Microsoft can stop selling its wares in Europe. Same goes for Apple, Novell, RedHat, or any other non-EU company. Their sandbox, their rules.

[tm_anon]

@CrashPad63

When pointing out a flaw in others, do so without proving to have that flaw. Penguinistos comment in this thread was well thought out and well implemented. Yours however was simply an attack and was poorly implemented at that.

Also, you didn't even come close to spelling either his name or the shortened form of his name properly.

I don't always agree with Penguinisto, but at least he thinks through his comments before posting. Try to do the same.

[Seaspray0]

"HTML rendering. Everything else was artificially implanted by Microsoft ..." What is everything else?

If the Browser stops at HTML rendering, then "everything else" can be considered part of the operating system, can't it? Since microsoft writes the operating system, they have the right to include "everything else" since it is part of the operating system, and not part of the browser. Now if microsoft writes a browser that uses "everything else" and mozilla doesn't, then that's mozilla's problem.

[goodspeed8701]

This is not fair at all. Apple has safari bundled in os x they should be on the case too.
Firefox comes with unbuntu and they should be in the case too.

But now see firefox pointin fingers on microsoft when they are into thesame practice. I hate the european union. people cant just wak up one morning and bully M$. Apple should be involved even unbuntu.

[tm_anon]

Firefox is in Ubuntu, it's true. Firefox isn't created by Ubuntu nor is it maintained by Ubuntu. There are also at least 6 other browser choices in Add/Remove programs for Ubuntu without ever having to access the internet through a browser in the first place so it could quite easily be left out and you would still have no trouble getting access to the internet through a browser. I'm currently using Flock, not a browser provided through the repositories as of yet. Firefox is there as a matter of convenience and to make the LiveCD concept work properly.

Would you prefer Ubuntu create its own browser, try and say everyone should standardize around it, tie it in so tightly to the OS that removing it is impossible without causing system damage and then say you're free to use whatever you want as long as you don't remove anything we provided?

Oh wait, MS probably has a patent on that.

By the way, learn how to spell the distro before trying to knock it, it's Ubuntu, not unbuntu.

[eudefender]

Apple has no Operating System monopoly, next please.

[CrashPad63]

And the point is neither does MS. in case you havent noticed marketshare is at 67% for IE. Not once has Windows not been interoperable with Mozilla, or open source.

[folsco]

@tm_anon: "Firefox is in Ubuntu, it's true. Firefox isn't created by Ubuntu nor is it maintained by Ubuntu. There are also at least 6 other browser choices in Add/Remove programs for Ubuntu without ever having to access the internet through a browser in the first place so it could quite easily be left out and you would still have no trouble getting access to the internet through a browser."

Internet explorer is in Windows, TRUE. Firefox or other browsers can as well be downloaded from the internet (since the INTERNET is accessible to everyone and is STINKINGLY cheap!) So no need of hanging around with some set of installation CDs containing rpms/debian packages/... for a new web browser, as you have everything on the internet (even with up-to-date version of "whatever" browser).

+ It would be insane for Canonical<Ubuntu> (a profess Open Source Company) to venture into building another web browser, when there's already a Stream of such to choose from. Microsoft has the developer strength to do this, and they never procrastinate on doing that. Any fault with that? They now go ahead to make that available without stopping users from MAKING THE CHOICE OF DOWNLOADING THEIR PREFERRED INTERNET "SURFER" (BROWSER? anyone) from the internet!

Don't think there's an offence in that.

[Seaspray0]

@eudefender. wikipedia definition: a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[

Apple controls 100% of the content on the itunes service which accounts for the significant majority of music sales. Apple sets the terms on which individuals have access by encoding the content with DRM that only plays on ipods (where they also have the significant majority).

Apple controls 100% of the sale of OSX and sets the terms on which individuals have access by requiring that you can only run it legally on hardware also controlled by apple (see pystar lawsuit for details).

Are you blind?

[Penguinisto]

@folsco - you missed the point: Ubuntu gives you the choice before you even go online. Hell, most Linux distros give you a large choice of browsers to pick from before installation is even done if you desire it. Most browsers are small enough to fit many of them onto a DVD easily, along with the OS install (even that ugly beast Vista isn't that damned bloated).

Here's another trick: OEMs can, if this thing goes through, choose what browser they want to install, or better yet give you a choice when you order the computer.

@ Seaspray: Nobody is forcing you to install iTunes, and you can remove it entirely without breaking the computer. Same with Safari. Now try to do that with Internet Explorer.... oh, that's right, you can't. There's also the niggling fact that OSX' very kernel, Darwin, is open source and runs perfectly fine on any x86 or PPC machine - free for the taking at any time. Have yet to see published source code for XP or Vista... go figure.

But then, even Microsoft isn't stupid enough to go to the EU and whine about Apple like it were some sort of example of why it should get off the hook, ne?

[tm_anon]

@folsco

Read the entire thread before posting. My comment was in response to the OP. The fact that MS has IE was never at question. If it weren't so heavily tied in to Windows there would still be an issue here. Setting up a repository with several other quality choices and including that repository into every Windows installation would at least make a step in the right direction.

By the way, have you even tried Ubuntu? I have one install CD, that's for the OS. Once it's installed I could break the CD if I felt like it, there's no reason to keep it around except for my friends who want to try Ubuntu on their own machines.

I don't have to search through the CD to find alternate browsers. I don't have to bring up Firefox to be connected to the internet any more than you have to bring up IE, the repositories just make it easier to find the programs you need without having to resort to FTP. That was my point.

Next time, please try to respond to my post and know a little something about what I'm talking about.

[Seaspray0]

@penquin. Pay attention, I said the itunes SERVICE a.k.a. www.itunes.com. I was not refering to the program, but the service. Quote "itunes service which accounts for the significant majority of music sales." Nor do I give a 5#1T that osx is based on darwin, didn't even mention it, and it has nothing to do with what I said. Changing the subject to something not even related to what I said doesn't impress me, and with your track record of outrageous lies such as "any 13 year old can write a script to pop a windows box", you don't impress me either.

[macoverdose_dot_com]

@ karpenterskids : no and heres why. Apple is not a monopoly and does not leverage its position in the market to stifle innovation or competition. Safari like firefox is a standard compliant browser meaning it takes advantage of open protocols and development techniques. Unlike IE which is riddled with proprietary technology of microsofts in an attempt to own the internet (just ask any web developer how they feel about IE and your sure to catch a tirade). The other interesting fact is that Safari is available for windows... not just OS X. To take it a step further webkit (the open source technology that runs safari is open to anyone.. so you can find develop browsers for linux unix or whatever you choose. IE is only available to windows users.

Microsofts shameless attempt to try and own the web has done nothing but cast a huge storm cloud over the internet for the past decade +. You dont see sites that "only work with firefox" or "only work with safari". But you can still find sites that "only work with IE".

No website should only work on one browser.. and in microsofts case that would mean only work on one platform...windows. The web is an open ecosystem and anyone on any platform or browser should be able to take advantage of it.

This is the problem with IE.. its basically DRM's websites to one platform.

[CrashPad63]

Would you care to really go into stifling innovation and monopolostic tendicies? Apple has a shameful and long history of this.

[dream_fly]

I am a developer and I for one like to have just ONE standard, and in this case the IE. It's a pain to make sure all browsers worked. There are many custom apps written using the reliable (read available, not necessary stable) IE APIs to access the web and I would hate to have multiple interfaces to deal with. i.e. monopoly ideology aside, having just ONE standard to deal with is much easier on the developers. Imagine how hard it is to write an app that will work equally well in the Mac, Windows, Linux and any OS out there. Yea Java was in theory the solution but I haven?t seen major apps written in it.

So I don?t agree with this monopoly argument. I would rather have one good Dictator than dumb democracy like what we have for the last 8 years.

[rapier1]

So I do web development - coding for the various flavors of IE is a pain in the butt but I have an will continue to praise MS for developing the non-standard compliant XMLHttpRequest schema. Its really the underlying technology of AJAX and Web 2.0 applications. Sometimes working outside of the standards is the right way to go. Sometimes its not. Its really context dependent.

[bananaphonerules]

"Apple...does not leverage its position in the market to stifle innovation or competition"

What type of crack are you smoking? Since when have Apple played fair with iPOD or iTunes. Their updates have specifically closed holes that allow third-parties to interact with their libraries or devices.

Just look at the rules for iPhone apps that prevent developers publishing apps that replicate existing or future functionality...or whatever rule they decide to make up.

MS isn't perfect but this is money grab in troubled times. Having Mozilla on the table means the outcome will always rule in favour of the EU....guess who gets the money. They do.

[Penguinisto]

"Apple has a shameful and long history of this."

...and yet we see no evidence of this. Maybe you can cough some up?

"It's a pain to make sure all browsers worked."

It's a pain to adhere to basic W3C standards? Damn... are you sure you're an actual developer, or just someone who scrapes by on one set of parameters and hopes to found a whole career on it? Hope IE doesn't lose any more marketshare, else you're liable to be unemployed, and in this economy, that ain't good...

"Since when have Apple played fair with iPOD or iTunes."

Err, I can play mp3's on an iPod all day long, the AAC files from iTMS can be ripped very easily with just the iTunes app, and gtkpod lets me access the thing very easily from within Linux (meanwhile iTunes is available for Windows and OSX... shall we compare all of this to the Zune, perhaps?).

/P

[Nataku4ca]

@ dream_fly

I lol'ed

I too am (sort of) a developer and honest to god as much as I would to make things work on all browsers I keep getting one that will break it, one version of opera even fakes itself as ie =.=

btw i use opera lol

competition is good, but there r somethings that I wish the competition would just agree on one standard, just like how wireless has standards set out instead of having every one developing their own crap

[rapier1]

@Nataku4ca,

Wireless standards?? Are you kidding me? Don't you remember all of the 'Pre-N' routers out there? Or all the routers that have their own special proprietary 'enhancements' that only work if you use the same equipment? Its not that here aren't standards but everyone seems to add their own very special twist on top of them.

[Nataku4ca]

@rapier

yes I know that, what I mean is the most basic compilation of the the standard code exluding those extras ie. activex

I had a instance where my code compiled differently on firefox and opera, then another instance between opera and safari, ie plenty ill give u that. and I'm not using anything special yet

the wireless thing, honestly most of the stuff I've worked with up till now I only had issues with D-link once or twice nothing else most people don't use special equipment at least I haven't gotten into a situation like that. and as for wireles-N draft, dude, it took too long for wireless-n to get finished and companies jumped on it, can't complain at least most of them worked, "sort-of"

[macoverdose_dot_com]

sure... tell me how apple stifles innovation in comparison to microsoft.

[goodspeed8701]

How is microsoft a monopoly? I have opera and chrome on my windows machine M$ did not stop me from doing this. and please how is M$ a monopoly. please xplain

[hafenbrack]

When was the last time you installed OSX on a machine you built?

[catch23]

Tell me how Microsoft does. Their tools are excellent, and unlike Apple anyone who want to can build on their foundation.
With MS, you have a partner that will work with you. With Apple, you have someone begging you to write software for their platform right up until Apple decides they don't need you and cuts your throat. Like they did Konfabulator.

MS has standardized computing, bringing the price of owning one down to a level where we can all afford it. That never would have happened with Apple and their closed walls

[tm_anon]

@goodspeed8701

Try removing IE. Go on, try it.

The EU is right in this. MS needs to allow its code to stand up to scrutiny on its own. If a person doesn't want IE, then he shouldn't be forced to have it.

We'll take it to the car analogy again. Imagine walking into a dealership and telling them you'd like to buy a specific car. In order to buy that specific car you wanted, they're telling you that you have to buy this other one that isn't as good, needs roads to be made specific for it to run which the other car won't run on properly, that it is easier to break into and that you can never get rid of. Moreover, so many other people have chosen to buy that car that more and more roads get built for it and it only, meaning the one you really want won't work on those other roads.

Will you buy the car or will you go somewhere else? Oh wait, the non-standards complient car is being forced on you in 90% of the dealerships around and so obviously it must be good (sc).

The EU realizes just how much MS has stifled not only competition, but also the growth of the internet.

[dream_fly]

@ tm_anon,

MS always claimed that IE was part of windows. So your statement "Try removing IE. Go on, try it." is supporting MS's claim.

Also the car analogy is also supporting that IE is part of the "car". You can't get a Ford engine running your BMW transmission, can't you? You buy the car and whatever comes with it.

[Penguinisto]

"Tell me how Microsoft does. Their tools are excellent, and unlike Apple anyone who want to can build on their foundation."

funny, but Xtools isn't crippled, and it costs $0.00 How much is an uncrippled copy of Visual Studio costing these days?


"With MS, you have a partner that will work with you."

...if you pay a hefty fee for the privilege, that is...

" With Apple, you have someone begging you to write software for their platform right up until Apple decides they don't need you and cuts your throat. Like they did Konfabulator."

Too bad you skipped some parts (like, oh, Konfabulator being bought by Yahoo, and a complete dearth of any credible documentation about Konfabulator's "throat" being "cut". )

"MS has standardized computing, bringing the price of owning one down to a level where we can all afford it."

You misspelled IBM up there. Without IBM's standardization of the IBM-PC architecture, there would be no clones, no price pressure, and Microsoft would have remained an Apple applications vendor.

/P

[Nataku4ca]

@penguinisto

there is visual studio express =.= besides u don't have to use it make software on windows there is a bunch of other ones, only those that choose to will buy visual studio

and honestly with
"With MS, you have a partner that will work with you."
i believe he didnt mean literally talking to u over the phone so ur fee claim would also be false like u falsifying everyone elses opinion that has even the slightest idea of say MS not really that evil

and as i recall ibm and microsoft worked together back then, so saying that microsoft was part of standardization of pc(i think he just forgot the word part of) would be too far off. At least if it weren't for MS promoting USB as much as it had back in 98(i think thats when it started) the so beloved usb interface might never have been as embraced. at least I love usb lol

o and god, why is it everytime i see an irrational hateful comment against MS have either u(penguinisto) or Apple096(or how his name is spelled) name on it =.= it gets annoying after awhile and felt like u ppl aren't even trying to think things through before pulling the trigger

[tm_anon]

@dream_fly

You may want to read my car analogy again and this time, take it in its original context. The cars represent browsers. In order to get the browser you want, you have to take IE and you can never be rid of it. The roads were a fairly clever analogy for webpages (see, information superhighway).

Now, I realize from your comment that you were taking the analogy to mean something completely different, thinking that I meant the car was the OS, but seriously, when's the last time you were forced to buy a second OS just to get the one you wanted?

I never stated that IE is not currently part of Windows. However, before stating that MS has always said that IE is part of the Windows operating system, try out Windows 3.1. I've even read stories of being able to completely remove IE from Windows 95, but as I don't have a copy of Win95 lying around to install and test this, I can't know for certain.

Try taking my quotes in context and if you don't understand an analogy, it's ok to ask.

[Penguinisto]

"there is visual studio express"

Id mentioned "uncrippled". Otherwise it's like saying that (Windows example) Outlook Express == Outlook, which is also not true.

"i believe he didnt mean literally talking to u over the phone"

He didn't say, at all. He merely threw out a general statement. Any other aspect barely keeps up with the competition.

I wrote what I did not about any sort of telephone support, but because the competition gives one huge advantage that will cost you (sometimes literally) millions to get from MSFT: Access to the source code. In OSX and Linux, I can see the exact source code for the kernel(s) and write my apps to work with it, all without guesswork and incomplete API docs (which is MSFT's big problem, so they try to give you .NET as a substitute). In OSX, a good share of the libraries have the source code right there - in Linux, all of the libs have the source code right there. In Windows? Again, it'll cost you for the privilege of seeing them.

HTH.

"and as i recall ibm and microsoft worked together back then"

Doesn't matter. If IBM kept their standard proprietary, and with IBM's pricing for PCs (often very close to what Apple charged), you would have had a much, much smaller market than today's, and Microsoft would have been forced to concentrate well over half its efforts on writing Apple software just to stay alive.

/P

[Seaspray0]

"I can see the exact source code for the kernel(s) and write my apps to work with it, all without guesswork..."

When was the last time you wrote an app in assembler code? I haven't written in assembler since the early 90's and it was for a motorola 68000 microprocessor. Yea, like you're actually going to go through all that source code to see how it works? Nobody does that anymore. Not only do API's make life easy, the also provides other functions... making sure your app doesn't mess up someone else's app and making sure your app works with updates to the OS. Those are two things linux programers often ignore.

[CrashPad63]

Who else but Apple can code for their OS? Who else but Apple can develop run their OS on hardware not "allowed by Apple. Who else but Apple can run a browser on their OS? Apple has been the model of monopolistic since their inception. Closed and proprietory behaivior that makes MS OS downright open source.
What browser can you not put on Windows? What hardware can you not use with Windows? What App can you not use on Windows?

[seven7dust]

MS isn't open source wat non-sense
the majority of the standards that they support r closed
and they use this leverage their position
look at directX look at ActiveX etc etc.
I'm not saying it's bad thing
But M.S is just as closed as Apple
the only open platform is linux !

[tm_anon]

apps can be developed for Apple, they're just not. MS Office works on Apple computers and iTunes works on Windows. Both browsers I have installed on my machine work for both Apple and Windows computers.

Please, tell me exactly what hardware you tried to install for Apple that didn't work. I'm not saying it's not possible there is some, but I'm saying that I doubt you even tried. Also, try and install older hardware on a Vista machine and see where you get, there's a reason people talk about having to "upgrade" their hardware just to run Vista.

I switched to Linux with my old hardware. It's running as well as my neighbors fairly new laptop and just as well as her also fairly new desktop PC with roughly 4 times the RAM which just happens to be running XP.

Before trying to compare the two, take a look at what Open Source really means. I'd rather be denied the feast by Apple than to become the feast for MS.

[CrashPad63]

And once again no answer, And taking statements out of context is th lowest form of debate.

[peterdom]

Opera, Firefox, iCab, and even IE all run just fine on a Mac.

[Penguinisto]

I can run OSX' kernel (Darwin) on any x86 or PPC machine I want, without violating any EULA.

Where did you get the idea that folks couldn't do that?

[Penguinisto]

"Who else but Apple can code for their OS?"

Everyone can: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

Want some steak sauce to help with the taste of that shoe leather, Crash?

[CrashPad63]

Microsoft is working very deligently and with pusose to be interoperable with all hardware Apps, coding even going as far as to support open source, a competitir to make sure the operation of any open source will work with Windows. Office works with Open Office, even installing Windows on a Mac is worked through. Oh did you know that the MS office is the #1 purchased software for Mac?
Not open and interoperable? I think you really should look futher into this.

[tm_anon]

How much is that check you're receiving from MS?

[CrashPad63]

"How much is that check you're receiving from MS? " Oh is this not original. Whats the matter? Linus not teaching you shills how to respond.

[eudefender]

Welcome to the world, go and find out why it took the Commission years to get Microsoft to comply with their interoperability ruling. Look what they did with Open XML.

Sure it is a rematch but this time no remorse is given. Microsoft is in deep debt on the interoperability front. They need to pay back and start to obey the laws as any other company.

[CrashPad63]

Welcome to the world, go and find out why it took the Commission years to get Microsoft to comply with their interoperability ruling" Do you have proof of this? Where is the smoking gun if you will? Were you in these compliance commitees?
Didnt think so. By the way when it comes to interoperability, MS was the one initiating alot of the movement for this.
If Linux is so interoperable, why cannot I not play All of my PC games on it? Why cannot I not use all of my Apps and hardware? Think about it before you respond. Youre starting to get dangerously close to being just another shill for Linus.

[tm_anon]

@CrashPad63

Your PC games won't play on any other platform but Windows because they have been coded for Windows only. However, there are programs for Linux which let us play many games coded for PC only. Look up WINE and Cedega, but of course, that might actually prove you wrong so I'm betting you won't.

By the way, when Bill left MS did he take all logic with him along with the business sense needed to keep a company running?

When upgrading from XP to Vista, how many customers were left with nonfunctioning hardware? I switched to Ubuntu from XP and all hardware worked right out of the box. The number of drivers not available for Vista at the moment exceed the number of drivers not available for Linux (any distro).

As for your apps, go look for a .deb file and install it on Windows. Can't? What about a .rpm file? No go? Can you install the app from source code? No? I can. I can also install many .exe files (windows apps) through WINE without an emulator.

I'm guessing you'll respond with yet another poorly thought out response full of FUD. It's ok, at least you're good at something.

[Penguinisto]

"Microsoft is working very deligently and with pusose to be interoperable"

They have no choice anymore. Too many Linux servers and too many OSX clients for them to not have to.

"Office works with Open Office"

Bullsh!t. Even MSFT's developers have admitted that they cannot possibly fully document the file standards for most Office file formats. And OOo got as far as it did in spite of MSFT, not becuase of it.

"Oh did you know that the MS office is the #1 purchased software for Mac? "

...and is usually kept a version behind the Windows version of Office.

[macoverdose_dot_com]

Everything apple is based on open standards. Wanna develop for apple... its a unix system.. go nuts. Its not the closed proprietary windows system that only a few large customers get access to. wanna develop your own broswer.. go grab the open source for webkit and code away.. cant do that with IE's rendering engine. Get the point?

Yes apple ties their hardware and software together... which is why it works so well. But maybe the MS model should be applied to say umm the car industry. How about if Kia makes the engines everyone puts in their cars... lets go get a BMW with the Kia powerplant.. or a ferrari... or chevy or whatever...it'll be awesome. Right? Oh and I have never installed OS X on a machine I built although its easy to do. I dont build my computers for the same reason I dont build my own car. Yes its true anyone who can follow directions that come with any lego set can slap the components together to build a computer... but I dont see how that makes a computer user any better than the next guy.

dream_fly is right when he/she says ONE standard makes it easier on developers and that is at the heart of the matter. You choose IE because its easiest for you to develop for...and its to hard to make it all work with other browsers... I feel your pain. But I would rather develop to open standards that are controlled by the people rather than the standards MS allows. You develop a site for IE and you know it wont work as planned in Firefox or safari or opera and so on. But the reverse is also true. You develop sites that work in Firefox and you know that they will work with safari, opera , ect.. but most likely wont work in IE.... and thats an engineered outcome by MS.

[CrashPad63]

The issue is being faded. The question is not about making it better, or one user is better than the next. Comapring product to product MS is much more open, interoperable and willing to engage in working together than Apple is or has ever been.

[macoverdose_dot_com]

how are MS products more open than apples or any other non MS developer. Once again apples product all revolve around open standards.. and have since the introduction of OS X. MS products ALL revolve around Proprietary MS technology. Wanna know why you cant get your games to play on a linux box? its because of the proprietary MS technology called DirectX that MS wont license out to other platforms... Apple.. linux.... and so on mostly use OpenGL and open standard for all to use.. in fact all open standards could be used by MS but they wont since that would create a level playing field for all competitors. This is the issue with all the MS stuff. They create proprietary technology and lock you in to windows and they can because they have a monopoly. Thats monopoly abuse. Its not illegal to have a monopoly.. its illegal to abuse the position.

[unknown unknown]

"Everything apple is based on open standards. Wanna develop for apple... its a unix system.. go nuts."

Apple is proprietary built on top of open. The underlying BSD code is open however Aqua and many of the application etc are closed. AAC is an open standard but they wrapped it in proprietary DRM (thankfully that at least is fading away).

"Its not the closed proprietary windows system that only a few large customers get access to. wanna develop your own broswer.. go grab the open source for webkit and code away.. cant do that with IE's rendering engine. Get the point?"

The Windows API is not closed off to developers and IE's rendering engine can be dropped into an application through use of a control. Developers have been able to do it since the days of Visual Basic 5 (maybe earlier) and can continue to do so. If you use a non-Microsoft development tool the process is a bit more involved but do able. It may not be open source but it's entirely possible to write a custom UI and custom functionality around the IE rendering engine. Just look the Maxthon or Avant browsers, they have IE at their core.


"I dont build my computers for the same reason I dont build my own car. Yes its true anyone who can follow directions that come with any lego set can slap the components together to build a computer... but I dont see how that makes a computer user any better than the next guy."

It's control, when you build a PC it up to you what goes in it. It's a lot more customizable than anything you get from Dell or Apple etc. Plus you don't get the shovel ware.


"Wanna know why you cant get your games to play on a linux box? its because of the proprietary MS technology called DirectX that MS wont license out to other platforms"

Developers could use OpenGL, even on Windows, but they choose not to. The shenanigans of the group managing OpenGL has lead to a bit of all fall out with developers. They took several years to produce the 1.3 specification, while DirectX advanced considerably, and at the last minute watered it down to the disappointment of many. OpenGL developers had to rely on third party extensions to keep up with what was being built into DirectX. DirectX got programmable pixel and vertex shaders, OpenGL need another extension. While Microsoft won't license their code to third parties, there are effort to create a compatibility layer called Wine.

Every company has proprietary technology they refuse to license, including Apple.

[Nataku4ca]

@unknown unknown

good someone got the things straight, at least in my mind apple and MS are doing exactly the same thing, only difference is apple has better PR

I was able to use and crash pretty much all the OS some of my friends claim "indestructable", may be I'm filled with static electricity or really ****** luck =.= at least I believe all OSs can crash in the hand of beginner user, which is the majority of the pop.

[Penguinisto]

"Comapring product to product MS is much more open"

...so where can I download the source code to Vista then?

(*cue crickets chirping*)

[macoverdose_dot_com]

Microsoft is just now working on IE to be standards compliant.. not for the good of the web though... but because their customers have been migrating to other standard compliant broswers.. and in an attempt to stop the IE from bleeding marketshare. Its good that they have finally been forced to do it .. but they still had to be forced... and just for the record IE 8 so far looks like the most nonstandard compliant browser of all the standard compliant broswers.. its just a baby step in the right direction for MS but its a decent stride forward for the web.

[CrashPad63]

MS is working on standard compliant to be operable with any web site out there. Giving their end user a much more complete and richer experience.
"not for the good of the web though" This however can be said of many of Apple products. Battery replacement on Iphone and Ipod come to mind. Or how about choice of hardware to install in a Mac. Where is copy and paste on Iphone? Where is flash on Iphone? Multitasking non existence in Iphone. do we really need to continue?

[macoverdose_dot_com]

lol okay crashpad... Please explain to me how the iphones lack of c/p.. or its built in battery is stifling innovation.. hurting the web... or has anything at all to do openness of software? GO build a mac on apples site and tell me how its lacking the hardware options.

[sting7k]

So let's just say the EU makes Microsoft take out IE being built into Windows. So now you buy a new computer, fire it up. How are you supposed to get on the internet? Now you can't even download another browser. Just doesn't make any sense. People already have a choice, you don't have to click that IE button more than one time to open it and find the browser you want. After that you don't even have to consider IE.

When is Opera going to file the same complaint against Apple, last time I checked Safari was bundled with OS X as well.

[eudefender]

Unbundling does not mean no browser.

[unknown unknown]

"Unbundling does not mean no browser."


No, it means bundling every browser with Windows, and probably another complaint to the EU when some unheard of rarely used browser doesn't get included.

[Vegaman_Dan]

If this comes to pass, then the US should really consider fining the EU itself for allowing companies like Jaguar, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Saab for selling their vehicles in the US *only* with their brand of engine in them. To be fair, all those companies must be forced to also offer the vehicles for sale with Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan engines as well along with a few of the Korean brands too.

It's exactly the same situation. Somehow I doubt that would ever happen though. The EU is about making money for itself, not their member countries.

[dream_fly]

It's looking quite right that EU, like all others, is looking out for them$elve$. Otherwise how come nobody is complaining about the always included Notepad? Or Paint?

I for one only want to code for the market leader, regardless how they got there. Blu-ray won the war (not fairly I would say) but the world is a better place to have ONE winner. The same is true on IE. Last I checked I didn't see much programmatic help(like ease of debugging javascript, ease of using the webbrowser control, etc) from all other browsers so I will still develop apps for IE only. If IE is moving toward the so call "standard", I will move along. To me IE is the standard.

[Penguinisto]

If Microsoft made whole computers, you might have had a valid point... pity, that.

[tm_anon]

The engine is the kernel. If the EU goes after the kernel then your argument holds water. Until then we're talking media player at most, not engine.

[king_geore]

If I were Microsoft I would shut down all EU facilities putting many people out of work, and tell the EU customers they need to buy Microsoft products via third parties. If they don?t like it to complain to the EU since they forced the issue. Who does the EU think they are trying to force people to use other products? If the other products are better they people will use them no matter what Microsoft supplies. Nobody was ever stopped from using other internet browsers; I use both Firefox and IE7.

[eudefender]

Brilliant idea, please let them follow your advise and see what will happen.

[zelrik]

So What will happen if they do that is an acceleration of competition growth in Europe and huge loss in MS market shares...brilliant idea indeed. What would happen will be the following : No more MS in the EU -> Everybody switch to Linux/Mac in EU -> OEM companies start to get a lot of leverage on MS to negociate prices and stuff problem extends to other countries -> MS goes bankrupt

[mnl1121]

I dont get it. MS makes Windows. They have the right to put anything they want in it. Why are idiots like the makers of Opera and Mozilla complaining? Its not wrong, MS isn't preventing users from installing FF or Opera thereafter. they have not case. I hope MS wins this hands down.

P.S. I love FF, and hate IE and Opera, but this is ridiculous.

[CrashPad63]

Amen to this.

[NickH]

You said "I dont get it. MS makes Windows. They have the right to put anything they want in it."

There are a couple of points here. The most important point is that as Microsoft have a monopoly in desktop operating systems, they are subject to certain constraints on their behavior. These laws are there to protect consumers. As a monopoly holder, this is just a price you have to pay. Most people would think that its a smal price to pay for the benefits of having the monopoly.

The second point is that the EU have **never** told Microsoft what they can and cant put in their O/S. In the case of the Media Player, the EU recognised the pro-competitive aspects of Microsoft providing a free media player bundled with the OS, but what the objected to was the **compulsory** bundling. Hence the N editions.

Microsoft would not be in this position now if they had unbundled IE 3 or 4 years ago. No one wants the N editions, but by providing it without IE, they would not be accused of compulsory bundling. Somehow, I think the EU will be asking for more than just a N editions this time around.

[Penguinisto]

I don't get it. The power company supplies your power. They have the right to make it any voltage and frequency they want. Why are idiots like UL and the NFP complaining? Its not wrong, The power company isn't preventing users from installing 480V devices thereafter.

/P

[unknown unknown]

This should be interesting, the rise of Mozilla's Firefox is the antithesis of everything Opera is claim about Microsoft's bundling of IE. Ironically, Mozilla got it's start on old Netscape code base when it open sourced by Netscape corporate.


The EU is just late to the party with this one. Not to mention they had the chance to address bundling during their first anti-trust hearings with Microsoft, but failed to do so.

[folsco]

"Firefox is in Ubuntu, it's true. Firefox isn't created by Ubuntu nor is it maintained by Ubuntu. There are also at least 6 other browser choices in Add/Remove programs for Ubuntu without ever having to access the internet through a browser in the first place so it could quite easily be left out and you would still have no trouble getting access to the internet through a browser."

Internet explorer is in Windows, TRUE. Firefox or other browsers can as well be downloaded from the internet (since the INTERNET is accessible to everyone and is STINKINGLY cheap!) So no need of hanging around with some set of installation CDs containing rpms/debian packages/... for a new web browser, as you have everything on the internet (even with up-to-date version of "whatever" browser).

+ It would be insane for Canonical<Ubuntu> (a profess Open Source Company) to venture into building another web browser, when there's already a Stream of such to choose from. Microsoft has the developer strength to do this, and they never procrastinate on doing that. Any fault with that? They now go ahead to make that available without stopping users from MAKING THE CHOICE OF DOWNLOADING THEIR PREFERRED INTERNET "SURFER" (BROWSER? anyone) from the internet!

Don't think there's an offence in that.

[tm_anon]

read my response to this in the above thread.

[Jonnygthedrummer]

well if this happens , then i guess we will have to get macs or linux! !!!!!!!!!!!!! the death of M$? lol

[sythara]

What is wrong with all these people?

You do not have to buy Windows. Microsoft is not a monopoly. Nowhere is it required to use Windows OS unless you (or your boss) make the choice.

This communist BS of a regulation of a business is driving me nuts. You don't like the product you're offered, go somewhere else. Its not that difficult to understand. You don't like Ford, buy a Chevy...

[tm_anon]

Try purchasing a new computer with any OS other than Windows. For the most part, it's impossible. Even now, very few alternatives are being offered and when they are, they aren't normally configured very well at all.

[Willy Wonker]

Yeah it is. You have a choose what you want. Just get on the net download yours favortie browser, media player or office suite. Even an OS. EU is taking this too far. If people don't like oh well that is too bad. Doing this doesn't solve real solutions.

[peterdom]

The problem is not just bundling. The problem is that the program which runs IE is programmed into the Windows operating system. You can't separate them without significant progamming changes to IE and Windows. Safari is not part of OS X on the Mac. It's just another Mac program running in OS X just like Photoshop or whatever you might install yourself. Delete Safari and OS X will still work. Try deleting IE from a Windows machine and see what happens.

[Willy Wonker]

Well, this is how Microsoft OS work. That is Microsoft choose of IE running the backbone of Windows. It called Explorer.

[SkyTribe]

MS created N Versions of OS - Nobody bought them. The OS allows you to install any browser you want - not exactly restricting you. Sure, out of the box, IE is installed as part of OS, the vast majority of users are not concerned about the technology, all they want is to be able to access the web simply. Having a browser present on the machine makes this a simple process.

Requiring extra downloads and steps for average user just to placate some other software manufacturers is quite frankly stupid (and most novice users would realistically choose MS anyway) - and having the EU trying to carry out the dirty work of these manufacturers is a waste of tax payers money - yes all those EU taxpayers are paying for this with very little if any benefit at the end . Irrespective of outcome.

Why dont the EU focus on things which are to the benefit of citizens and taxpayers and stop wasting time and energy on things like this.

[t8]

There is a bigger platform out there than Windows. It is called the Web. If Windows forces you how to use the Web, then that is not fair to the consumer. And how are we expected to see great innovation if you have to compete with a product that is forced on consumers whether they want it or not. In fact it is a miracle that there are such good browsers out there at all and that they have about 25% of the market combined. So let consumers choose how they surf the Web, and Microsoft still gets to sell Windows in the process.

[t8]

I would also like to see OEMs not bundle Windows by default. Consumers should also be allowed to choose the OS, Ubuntu, Android, Windows, or another. Imagine how many great OS's there could be now if Microsoft didn't force OEMs to use their one. And think about how limiting viruses would be if people were using different code bases.

If all humans had the same DNA, then humanity would be at risk. Viruses can put at risk nearly 90% of computers at any one time because they are all running Windows.

Please help stop this madness EU. Thanks.

[Rawnchie14]

No one forces you to use OEMs, you're as blind as the EU is.

Just because companies choose not to use other operating systems, is not MS's fault, despite all of your conspiracy theories. I know where to get alternative systems on my computer, so they're available and Windows can be removed from any PC. If you have a problem with Windows, take it up with computer manufacturers that buy the OEMs, not MS.

This is a waste of time, witch hunt.

[t8]

You are actually wrong. Microsoft was convicted of forcing OEMs to bundle Windows. This is partly why they won the OS war. Now the are running on momentum, but they got that momentum illegally.