EU: Microsoft 'shields' IE from competition
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
browser with Windows...
"The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission
to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which
makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts
competition on the merits between competing Web browsers insofar as it
provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage
which other Web browsers are unable to match," the EU said. The
Commission...believes the lack of competition was "detrimental to the
pace of product innovation." ...
The EU's antitrust agency cited the September 2007 ruling by the
government's second-highest court as precedent. That decision rejected
Microsoft's appeal of the original 2004 verdict, and reaffirmed the
illegality of Microsoft's practice of typing Windows Media Player to
Windows...
"The Commission may impose a fine on Microsoft, require Microsoft to
cease the abuse and impose a remedy that would restore genuine
consumer choice and enable competition on its merits," the agency
said....
In its original complaint, Opera also accused Microsoft of stymieing
the development of Web standards by forcing site designers to adhere
to IE's own implementation of certain protocols. "Microsoft's
unilateral control over standards in some markets creates a de facto
standard that is more costly to support, harder to maintain and
technologically inferior, and that can even expose users to security
risks," Opera charged in late 2007....
Other antitrust regulars have cited IE's dominance as well. In October
2007, for instance, a group of U.S. state attorneys general urged a
federal judge to hold Microsoft to a 2002 antitrust settlement another
five years, in part over concerns over IE. A year ago, U.S. District
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly extended her monitoring of
Microsoft to November of this year.
</Quote>
Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> <Quote>
> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
> browser with Windows...
I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
Force them to use the command line FTP program?
I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
download a different browser.
alt
How did we do it before web browsers shipped with operating systems? Oh
yeah, install discs. You do remember those, don't you?
I'm sure that Firefox could be easily burned to a CD and then put into
retail stores with a $2 price tag to cover copying and distribution (or
give them away with a $10 or more purchase).
And in case someone says that noone will go into a store to purchase
firefox, they go in to purchase Office and other software, so why not a
web browser installer CD?
Terry Porter
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>> browser with Windows...
>
> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
Install one, just like users did before IE was available.
> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
Force isn't necessary, if users *want something* they will get it.
>
> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
That's obvious.
> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
> download a different browser.
Why not use the Windows package manager ?
OOPS, forgot! Windows is so lacklustre, they havent got one!
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>> browser with Windows...
>
> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
> windows.
How about building another strawman?
The issue is *not* shipping IE with wintendo, it is the tight integration
with the OS. Which is arbitrarily and absolutely not needed
And, as a "neat" side effect, hampers other browsers
< snip more Erik F droppings >
--
The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>> browser with Windows...
>
> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>
> download a different browser.
PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
Andrew Halliwell
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>> browser with Windows...
>
> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
There IS another alternative y'know.
1: Unbundle IE as far as not making it essensial to system operations.
2: Have it as an option during install.
3: Bundle firefox too and include that as an option during install as well.
Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
(i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
name)
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Phil Da Lick!
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>> browser with Windows...
>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>
> There IS another alternative y'know.
> 1: Unbundle IE as far as not making it essensial to system operations.
> 2: Have it as an option during install.
> 3: Bundle firefox too and include that as an option during install as well.
Or allow OEMs to bundle FF, or opera.
4: Open up windows update to reputable organisations like mozilla so
updates for FF et al could be obtained from one place. I'm sure the
larger ISVs like mozilla would love this option.
5: Provide APIs to select partners such as mozilla to allo FF to provide
the system functions that IE does, possibly as some kind of add-on.
George Orwell
PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>> browser with Windows...
>
> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
> Force them to use the command line^W^W GUI FTP program?
Corrected.
Always strrrrrrrrrrrrrrretching for FUD, eh?
> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
> download a different browser.
I think the idea is to allow OEMs to bundle a replacement browser, the way
Wordperfect can get its word processor, and McAfee its antivirus software,
onto some machines.
--
No running on pool deck.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
> name)
Microsoft wanted a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the
Internet.
--
What a bonanza! An unknown beginner to be directed by Lubitsch, in a script
by Wilder and Brackett, and to play with Paramount's two superstars, Gary
Cooper and Claudette Colbert, and to be beaten up by both of them!
-- David Niven, "Bring On the Empty Horses"
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
> name)
Microsoft gave IE away for free because that was the way to kill
Netscape (selling below cost). After that they couldn't start
charging money for it, because the DOJ was on their case. But they
did immediately stop investing any resources in it (hence IE stagnated
until Firefox came along). Besides, even if they didn't make any
money off IE directly, it had other (extend, embrace, extinguish)
purposes, namely, making the web compatible only with IE. A friend of
mine who worked for AOL in that period (after they bought Netscape)
has a lot to say about Microsoft dirty standards tricks. Making the
web compatible only with IE was an effective way of shutting out Linux
(on which IE doesn't work, of course). In fact, without Firefox,
Linux could never have gotten any traction at all.
Ezekiel
<nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:1bf7a57e-962e-410f...@n10g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
>> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
>> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
>> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
>> name)
>
> Microsoft gave IE away for free because that was the way to kill
> Netscape (selling below cost).
And how much did Netscape cost exactly... oh that's right, it was also free
and "selling below cost." And how much does Mozilla charge for Firefox? Oh
that's also free and "below cost." And Safari costs how much exactly...
that's free and "selling below cost" as well.
Good logic there dumbo.
> After that they couldn't start
> charging money for it, because the DOJ was on their case.
Let us know how much other companies "charge" for their browser. Get back to
us with that dumbo.
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
Netscape originally charged money. Microsoft never did. Since it
cost Microsoft money to produce IE, you could say it was selling
"below cost." If you don't like that phrase, how about "using
monopoly position to strangle competition." Here is what Wikipedia
says:
"Netscape Navigator was not free to the general public until January
1998,[14] while Internet Explorer and IIS have always been free or
came bundled with an operating system and/or other applications."
Since IE has always been free, and since there are now open source
browsers, it would be difficult for anyone to charge for a browser
nowadays. Those who put out browsers make their money in other ways.
Fireforx, for example, receives substantial sums from Google, which
has an interest in seeing that Microsoft does not control the www.
Andrew Halliwell
>> Microsoft gave IE away for free because that was the way to kill
>> Netscape (selling below cost).
>
> And how much did Netscape cost exactly... oh that's right, it was also free
> and "selling below cost."
Free was it?
For everyone?
Or just free for non-commercial use?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
chrisv
>After takin' a swig o' grog, Andrew Halliwell belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
>> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
>> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
>> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
>> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
>> name)
>
>Microsoft wanted a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the
>Internet.
They envisioned a world where, if one wanted the full Internet
experience, one would have to buy Micro$oft products. IMO, about the
most evil thing that they have ever tried to do. I mean, in all of
history, the Internet, like nothing else, *demands* universal
accessability.
amicus_curious
"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
message news:c651e08ef82f8581...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist very
strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together to get the
majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do Windows itself. With
nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are not likely to support a bunch
of browsers. In any case it is ever so simple to install Firefox or Chrome
on a machine that is connected to the internet. The EU is just after
Microsoft's money and dipping their beak into the successful companies in
the proud Mafia tradition so common there. Microsoft just charges more for
their products in EMEA and everyone is content.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Ezekiel <ze...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Microsoft gave IE away for free because that was the way to kill
>>> Netscape (selling below cost).
>>
>> And how much did Netscape cost exactly... oh that's right, it was also free
>> and "selling below cost."
>
> Free was it?
> For everyone?
> Or just free for non-commercial use?
At first you had to buy a copy of Netscape.
Zeke's forgotten.
--
Census Taker to Housewife:
Did you ever have the measles, and, if so, how many?
Andrew Halliwell
> That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist very
> strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together to get the
> majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do Windows itself. With
> nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are not likely to support a bunch
> of browsers. In any case it is ever so simple to install Firefox or Chrome
> on a machine that is connected to the internet. The EU is just after
> Microsoft's money and dipping their beak into the successful companies in
> the proud Mafia tradition so common there. Microsoft just charges more for
> their products in EMEA and everyone is content.
LOL! You really are clueless.
Your so-called Mafia started in the USA due to the feckin alcohol ban in the
'20s!
Just because a lot of them happened to come from italy did not mean the
mafia STARTED in italy. The mafia is one of america's proud traditions.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist very
>> strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together to get the
>> majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do Windows itself. With
>> nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are not likely to support a bunch
>> of browsers. In any case it is ever so simple to install Firefox or Chrome
>> on a machine that is connected to the internet. The EU is just after
>> Microsoft's money and dipping their beak into the successful companies in
>> the proud Mafia tradition so common there. Microsoft just charges more for
>> their products in EMEA and everyone is content.
>
> Mafia tradition so common where exactly?
> LOL! You really are clueless.
> Your so-called Mafia started in the USA due to the feckin alcohol ban in the
> '20s!
> Just because a lot of them happened to come from italy did not mean the
> mafia STARTED in italy. The mafia is one of america's proud traditions.
amicus is just a Microsoft dittohead.
--
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
Hadron
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>> browser with Windows...
>>
>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>
> There IS another alternative y'know.
> 1: Unbundle IE as far as not making it essensial to system operations.
> 2: Have it as an option during install.
> 3: Bundle firefox too and include that as an option during install as well.
>
> Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
What problem?
it is intertwined. Fact. History. Whatever. Ship it as a starting point
for people to get on the net to download other stuff.
Oh. You hadn't thought of that eh?
> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially
> not
How did they squash the oposition. What ARE you talking about. I use
firefox. Many people use Opera. All free and Free.
You totally confuse me.
> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
> name)
Whatever.
It's their OS and they SHOULD be able to ship what they want with
it. Dont like it? Dont use it. you CAN install competition you know. If
they stopped Windows installing non Windows SW you might, just might,
have a point.
Hadron
> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <Quote>
>>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>>> browser with Windows...
>>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>>
>> There IS another alternative y'know.
>> 1: Unbundle IE as far as not making it essensial to system operations.
>> 2: Have it as an option during install.
>> 3: Bundle firefox too and include that as an option during install as well.
>
> Or allow OEMs to bundle FF, or opera.
>
They ARE allowed to. Round my way they used to bundle StarOffice, for
example. Few people bought them and those that did tended to then buy
the student edition of MS Office to replace it.
Your conspiracy theories are just that.
Now instead of telling MS what they should or should not deliver on
THEIR OS, maybe you could suggest ways for Linux to improve its desktop
share.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <Quote>
>>>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>>>> browser with Windows...
>>>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>>>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>>>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>>> There IS another alternative y'know.
>>> 1: Unbundle IE as far as not making it essensial to system operations.
>>> 2: Have it as an option during install.
>>> 3: Bundle firefox too and include that as an option during install as well.
>> Or allow OEMs to bundle FF, or opera.
>>
>
> They ARE allowed to. Round my way they used to bundle StarOffice, for
> example. Few people bought them and those that did tended to then buy
> the student edition of MS Office to replace it.
>
> Your conspiracy theories are just that.
>
I notice you snipped the meat of my post. Here it is again for your
enjoyment.
4: Open up windows update to reputable organisations like mozilla so
updates for FF et al could be obtained from one place. I'm sure the
larger ISVs like mozilla would love this option.
5: Provide APIs to select partners such as mozilla to allo FF to provide
the system functions that IE does, possibly as some kind of add-on.
Show me an OEM that can do that and I'll be impressed.
> Now instead of telling MS what they should or should not deliver on
> THEIR OS, maybe you could suggest ways for Linux to improve its desktop
> share.
You first, "True Linux Advocate".
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> >After takin' a swig o' grog, Andrew Halliwell belched out
> > this bit o' wisdom:
> >
> >> Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
> >> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
> >> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
> >> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
> >> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
> >> name)
> >
> >Microsoft wanted a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the
> >Internet.
>
> They envisioned a world where, if one wanted the full Internet
> experience, one would have to buy Micro$oft products.
No, they envisioned a world where if one wanted to access the internet
at all, they would have to buy Microsoft products. Preferably also
pay by the hour. Did you see their latest patents on pay-by-the-hour
use of Word and other apps? And of course they would like to see a
world where anyone who wanted to access any electronic entertainment
at all would have to pay Microsoft.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>>
>> They ARE allowed to. Round my way they used to bundle StarOffice, for
>> example. Few people bought them and those that did tended to then buy
>> the student edition of MS Office to replace it.
>>
>> Your conspiracy theories are just that.
>
> I notice you snipped the meat of my post. Here it is again for your
> enjoyment.
>
> 4: Open up windows update to reputable organisations like mozilla so
> updates for FF et al could be obtained from one place. I'm sure the
> larger ISVs like mozilla would love this option.
> 5: Provide APIs to select partners such as mozilla to allo FF to provide
> the system functions that IE does, possibly as some kind of add-on.
>
> Show me an OEM that can do that and I'll be impressed.
>
> > Now instead of telling MS what they should or should not deliver on
> > THEIR OS, maybe you could suggest ways for Linux to improve its desktop
> > share.
>
> You first, "True Linux Advocate".
Hadron needs to read the Comes document.
--
No extensible language will be universal.
-- T. Cheatham
The Lost Packet
"reading" being the operative term here. He hasn't got that down yet.
--
TLP
- The following signature is encoded double-ROT-47. Unauthorised
duplication and/or decryption is a violation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
- Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door
went nuts.
- No, I will not fix your computer.
- Thought: It must be a bitch to write your name in the snow in Arabic...
- Don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things.
- Rice: 1.4 billion Chinese can't all be wrong.
- I'm dreaming of a better world where chickens can cross the road and
not have their motives questioned!
- If you can make a cheesecake you can install a Linux driver from source.
- Don't listen to the do-gooders, condoms are useless. They split,
they leak and they burst. And the human stomach can't handle the impact
of two kilos of cocaine.
- Users who XNA their posts are admitting that their ramblings aren't
worth reading.
- (on Windows) You know why "last known good configuration" almost
never works? Because the last known good configuration was a blank disk.
- Sinister Midget, c.o.l.a. 15 Jan 2009
- Here's to our wives and sweethearts; may they never meet.
*#* Signoff: labo-rat (find / -name \*yourbase\* -exec chown us:us {} \;)
amicus_curious
"Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:imhe46-...@ponder.sky.com...
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist very
>> strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together to get the
>> majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do Windows itself. With
>> nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are not likely to support a
>> bunch
>> of browsers. In any case it is ever so simple to install Firefox or
>> Chrome
>> on a machine that is connected to the internet. The EU is just after
>> Microsoft's money and dipping their beak into the successful companies in
>> the proud Mafia tradition so common there. Microsoft just charges more
>> for
>> their products in EMEA and everyone is content.
>
> Mafia tradition so common where exactly?
> LOL! You really are clueless.
Quit being such a dumbass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia
The EU is delighting in the revenues they are receiving from successful
operations by US companies in the EU. It only results in much higher prices
for goods there as these companies simply charge more to cover the costs.
Who's the bigger fool?
A PC in the USofA is about half the price of a PC in the EU because of all
these taxes being collected by the various governments involved. No one
over there complains because they have been beaten into submission for
hundreds of years. Enjoy being a chump.
MJ Ruscito
>
> Mafia tradition so common where exactly?
> LOL! You really are clueless.
> Your so-called Mafia started in the USA due to the feckin alcohol ban in the
> '20s!
> Just because a lot of them happened to come from italy did not mean the
> mafia STARTED in italy. The mafia is one of america's proud traditions.
>
andrew = idiot
The American Mafia started in Sicily in the mid 19th century, with roots
going back to 1282.
Andrew Halliwell
> How did they squash the oposition. What ARE you talking about. I use
> firefox. Many people use Opera. All free and Free.
Netscape wasn't.
Until it was forced on them.
And netscape was a far superior product until they were forced to give it
away.
> You totally confuse me.
And it's such a simple thing to do too!
Also, opera wasn't free until about 3 years ago.
If you wanted the non-advert supported version, you were expected to pay for
it. And what on earth gives you the impression that opera is free and Free?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Hadron
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How did they squash the oposition. What ARE you talking about. I use
>> firefox. Many people use Opera. All free and Free.
>
> Netscape wasn't.
> Until it was forced on them.
> And netscape was a far superior product until they were forced to give it
> away.
Once again : how did they "squash" the competition. Once again, I use
Firefox. Others do. Others use other things.
>
>
>> You totally confuse me.
>
> And it's such a simple thing to do too!
You seem to manage it regularly by making things up and distorting the
truth.
>
> Also, opera wasn't free until about 3 years ago.
So what. So you must hate them?
> If you wanted the non-advert supported version, you were expected to pay for
> it. And what on earth gives you the impression that opera is free and
> Free?
I assumed it was. If its not I stand corrected. I certainly didn't pay
for it when I tried it. And I do use Firefox so I guess MS "squashed"
nothing.
They shipped a default browser.
I can hear you squawking if you could not get on the web after an MS
Install.
Hadron
I have done numerous times.
Typical bullshit, in denial, COLA "advocate" response.
>
> Hadron needs to read the Comes document.
Hadron needs to read nothing to know that more effort needs to be done
to improve people's perception of Linux and to improve a lot of the
desktop applications which businesses would rely on.
Andrew Halliwell
>> Also, opera wasn't free until about 3 years ago.
>
> So what. So you must hate them?
???
Nonsense noted.
>> If you wanted the non-advert supported version, you were expected to pay for
>> it. And what on earth gives you the impression that opera is free and
>> Free?
>
> I assumed it was. If its not I stand corrected. I certainly didn't pay
> for it when I tried it. And I do use Firefox so I guess MS "squashed"
> nothing.
So now you don't know the difference between free and Free, riiiight.
Opera isn't open source or Free Software.
Never has been, still dumbfounded that you think it is.
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Sinister Midget
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>> browser with Windows...
>
> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
You're right. OEMs wouldn't do anything to change the situation. So
they need to quit picking on Fester and let him keep suckering people
into using the most dangerous "browser" ever known to man.
--
All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song.
--Louis Armstrong
chrisv
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>Microsoft wanted a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the
>>>Internet.
>>
>> They envisioned a world where, if one wanted the full Internet
>> experience, one would have to buy Micro$oft products.
>
>No, they envisioned a world where if one wanted to access the internet
>at all, they would have to buy Microsoft products.
Well, I'm not sure that controlling the Internet in that fashion would
be a practical goal. However, if they were able to coerce even a
relatively small number of key Web sites to work only with IE, a lot
of people would be feel trapped into using IE, because they really
want to be able to use Ebay, Yahoo, Facebook, or whatever.
Thank God for OSS, which allowed the development and availability of
Firefox, without a traditional business model (which would be
vulnerable to Micro$oft torpedoing). I'm sure that many people do not
understand what a bullet we all dodged, there.
Imagine, everyone being *forced* to buy M$ products, in order to fully
use the Internet. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel <ze...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Microsoft gave IE away for free because that was the way to kill
>>> Netscape (selling below cost).
>>
>> And how much did Netscape cost exactly... oh that's right, it was also
>> free
>> and "selling below cost."
>
> Free was it?
> For everyone?
> Or just free for non-commercial use?
Since I never used Netscape for commercial use it was always free for me.
Doing a bit of Googling into this I found that:
1 - Originally Netscape Navigator was supposed to be free to everyone.
Netscape wanted it this way to further the "free and open" spirit of the
internet.
2 - At the last minute Netscape decided to charge for commercial use of
Navigator. Personal use was still free but commercial use wasn't.
3 - This attempt to charge for commercial use only lasted a few months
before Netscape made all versions of Navigator free for both personal and
commercial use.
One belief (certainly popular in COLA and the anti-MS crowd) is that MS
sabatoged Netscape and that's why they failed. I have no doubt that MS did
*not* want to lose the web-browser market but I don't think that it's quite
all that simple. Look at Linux, Firefox, Apache, etc. They all seem to be
doing well and MS would like to see them go away as well.
A major contributing factor to the death of Netscape is Netscape itself. If
you look at the "marketshare" that Navigator had, usage was growing like
wildfire and then collapsed. One reason is that MS was putting a lot of
resources into IE which was getting better and better. But a bigger problem
is that Netscape Navigator got really, really bad. The later versions of
Navigator (especially v4.0 and later) were terribly slow, buggy and prone to
crashes. What was once a good browser became ridiculously bad and meanwhile
IE got better and better. The "browser war" was officially over.
(Note - I think that MS would have eventually won anyhow. But when Netscape
released completely crappy versions of NS it was game.. set... and match. MS
smelled blood and they went in for the kill. )
Oh yeah... I always thought that Marc Andreesen (sp?) was a complete twit.
In every interview and photo he seemed so smug and full of himself as if he
was gods gift to technology. Just my opinion.
Sermo Malifer
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist very
>> strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together to get the
>> majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do Windows itself. With
>> nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are not likely to support a bunch
>> of browsers. In any case it is ever so simple to install Firefox or Chrome
>> on a machine that is connected to the internet. The EU is just after
>> Microsoft's money and dipping their beak into the successful companies in
>> the proud Mafia tradition so common there. Microsoft just charges more for
>> their products in EMEA and everyone is content.
>
> Mafia tradition so common where exactly?
> LOL! You really are clueless.
> Your so-called Mafia started in the USA due to the feckin alcohol ban in the
> '20s!
> Just because a lot of them happened to come from italy did not mean the
> mafia STARTED in italy. The mafia is one of america's proud traditions.
No, the Mafia started in Sicily and was exported to the U.S. The
gangsters of the '20s and '30s weren't all Mafia, not even the Italian ones.
Phil Da Lick!
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> They ARE allowed to. Round my way they used to bundle StarOffice, for
>>>> example. Few people bought them and those that did tended to then buy
>>>> the student edition of MS Office to replace it.
>>>>
>>>> Your conspiracy theories are just that.
>>> I notice you snipped the meat of my post. Here it is again for your
>>> enjoyment.
>>>
>>> 4: Open up windows update to reputable organisations like mozilla so
>>> updates for FF et al could be obtained from one place. I'm sure the
>>> larger ISVs like mozilla would love this option.
>>> 5: Provide APIs to select partners such as mozilla to allo FF to provide
>>> the system functions that IE does, possibly as some kind of add-on.
>>>
>>> Show me an OEM that can do that and I'll be impressed.
>>>
>>>> Now instead of telling MS what they should or should not deliver on
>>>> THEIR OS, maybe you could suggest ways for Linux to improve its desktop
>>>> share.
>>> You first, "True Linux Advocate".
>
> I have done numerous times.
>
> Typical bullshit, in denial, COLA "advocate" response.
Well, you're certainly the expert on bullshit. Now excuse me whilst I
check to see whether my pants are on fire as you suggest - nope they're not.
Hadron
Halliwell doing his "Hmmm?" bit and getting things wrong again is he?
Oh! Yes he is!
LOL.
As usual with COLA "advocates" he has no clue.
The FIRST line in Wikipedia puts him right.
"The Mafia is one of America's proud traditions".
*chuckle*
Hadron
Still no suggestions on how Linux can improve perception Phil?
No.
OK, you keep telling anyone who will listen where MS went wrong.
I'm sure they are all dying to hear your views.
Peter Köhlmann
Poor Hadron Quark. Just because it is in Wikipedia it is suddenly the
gospel?
Here, some more info
1863 was the first play of a comedy "I mafiusi di la Vicaria" (The Mafiosi
(of the prison) of Vicaria). It was played in Palermo, Sicily and later
translated from scilian dialect to italian
In 1865 Filippo Gualtieros, Prefect of Palermo, called the thugs roaming
the streets "Maffia"
Yes, "one of America's proud traditions" my ass. As usual, you know nothing
about the things you blubber about
The Mafia is much older though, and the other "wings" of it,
like ’Ndrangheta or Comorra, existed well before italian
immigrants "exported" them to the US and formed the Cosa Nostra
You are truyl an idiot, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark
--
Ehrman's Commentary:
(1) Things will get worse before they get better.
(2) Who said things would get better?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>> browser with Windows...
>>
>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>> windows.
>
> How about building another strawman?
You need to read the EU's ruling.
> The issue is *not* shipping IE with wintendo
Yes, it is.
> it is the tight integration with the OS.
No, it's not. According to the EU, they don't want Microsoft to ship the
browser with the OS *AT ALL*.
Erik Funkenbusch
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message news:ufgk6rsbu2mw$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>> browser with Windows...
>>
>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>>
>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
>> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
>> download a different browser.
>
> PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
Along with all the adware and spyware junk? You really want to leave it to
OEM's who pollute your PC's with all that other crap to choose which
browser to install? It'll be 5 minutes before they compile their own
firefox with embedded advertising that doesn't let you remove it.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>>
>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the
>> competition, in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a
>> browser to download a different browser.
>
> How did we do it before web browsers shipped with operating systems? Oh
> yeah, install discs. You do remember those, don't you?
You mean for the year or so web browsers existed before they started
shipping with OS's? When there was almost no market? And now you want to
force end users to have to install a disk seperately? I thought you Linux
guys bitch about that sort of thing... you know, everything has to get
installed when you install the OS or it just sucks?
> I'm sure that Firefox could be easily burned to a CD and then put into
> retail stores with a $2 price tag to cover copying and distribution (or
> give them away with a $10 or more purchase).
Great, so no you want to impose a distribution channel on a non-profit
organization. I'm sure they just LOVE that idea. Has anyone asked THEM if
that's what they want?
> And in case someone says that noone will go into a store to purchase
> firefox, they go in to purchase Office and other software, so why not a
> web browser installer CD?
Every oth OS comes with a browser. It's ridiculous to force one OS to not
ship with one.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>> browser with Windows...
>>
>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>
> There IS another alternative y'know.
No there isn't. EU's ruling, remove IE. Period.
> 1: Unbundle IE as far as not making it essensial to system operations.
That's basically been done already. IE is no longer integrated into the
shell of Vista or 7 and is no longer used to download updates. It's still
needed for help, but it's ridiculous to tell users they can't have help
because MS isn't allowed to ship a browser with their OS.
> 2: Have it as an option during install.
Wouldn't meet the EU's ruling. Bundle means include. To unbundle means to
no longer include.
> 3: Bundle firefox too and include that as an option during install as well.
Gee, odd that you use a different definition of "bundle" for Firefox, than
you do IE. What would "unbundling firefox" mean then? I bet it would mean
not including it, right?
> Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
> I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
> squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
> after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
> (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
> name)
You're forgetting, MS can't just choose whatever it wants to. The EU has
made a ruling, and MS has to live with whatever it is. It's not your place
to change that either.
chrisv
>You're forgetting, MS can't just choose whatever it wants to. The EU has
>made a ruling, and MS has to live with whatever it is. It's not your place
>to change that either.
Well, if it seems a bit strong, M$ has got no one to blame but
themselves. They wielded IE like a weapon.
The Lost Packet
> On 19 Jan 2009 11:14:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message news:ufgk6rsbu2mw$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <Quote>
>>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>>> browser with Windows...
>>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>>>
there's a version of xp for the European market that ships without WMP.
This build is about a Euro less than regular XP to OEMs and two less for
retail. What is the fucking point? It's a spit in the face to orders
made in the EU that Microsoft start unbundling.
>>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
>>> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
>>> download a different browser.
how about a script which offers a choice between, say, IE, Firefox,
Opera, Lynx, Safari... etc., etc., etc. at activation time? Which then
hunts for a net connection by which to download a browser. Otherwise,
fall back to an extremely basic text-based browser. Something
commandline-ish?
>> PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
>
> Along with all the adware and spyware junk? You really want to leave it to
> OEM's who pollute your PC's with all that other crap to choose which
> browser to install? It'll be 5 minutes before they compile their own
> firefox with embedded advertising that doesn't let you remove it.
There's no adware with Firefox. The closest thing to "Spyware" is the
Bugzilla plugin which automatically sends bug reports back to Mozilla -
said bug reports are actually read by human eyes and generally acted
upon before the next major release (usually by the next minor). I
wouldn't call Bugzilla spyware though, what stealth or visible spyware
has the source code in full public view? Anyone with experience in
Perl/MySQL can read and understand the source code and understand
exactly what it's doing. Should the bundled Firefox browser come with
adware, all the user needs do is update (major or minor) and uncheck the
plugin module for import... and the problem goes away. Even if the
advertising is embedded deep in the code, getting and installing a clean
update from Moz is sure to eradicate said adcode, especially a major
update which is guaranteed to overwrite the executable.
Erik Funkenbusch
> 4: Open up windows update to reputable organisations like mozilla so
> updates for FF et al could be obtained from one place. I'm sure the
> larger ISVs like mozilla would love this option.
Windows update no longer uses IE, so I don't understand what your point is.
> 5: Provide APIs to select partners such as mozilla to allo FF to provide
> the system functions that IE does, possibly as some kind of add-on.
The API's have been there for ages, and in fact some people have written
help integration code, but it was never popular and abandoned.
> Show me an OEM that can do that and I'll be impressed.
Show me an OEM that WANTS to do that. When the EU forced MS to sell a
version of Windows without Windows Media Player, nobody wanted it. Still
nobody wants it.
This is different, though, now they don't want Microsoft to ship IE at all,
not just a version without IE.
Erik Funkenbusch
> there's a version of xp for the European market that ships without WMP.
> This build is about a Euro less than regular XP to OEMs and two less for
> retail. What is the fucking point? It's a spit in the face to orders
> made in the EU that Microsoft start unbundling.
Do you really think that Windows Media Player makes up more than about 1 or
2 Euro's of the cost of Windows? Windows has about 60 million lines of
code. WMP is less than 1 million lines of code by my estimation.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft should slash the price of Windows in half
just because it doesn't have a media player? That's like suggesting that
removing the radio out of a car should slash it's price in half.
The fact is, nobody wants an OS without a media player, or a web browser.
>>>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
>>>> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
>>>> download a different browser.
>
> how about a script which offers a choice between, say, IE, Firefox,
> Opera, Lynx, Safari... etc., etc., etc. at activation time? Which then
> hunts for a net connection by which to download a browser. Otherwise,
> fall back to an extremely basic text-based browser. Something
> commandline-ish?
So what if I want, say, Flock as my favorite browser. I have to download
Firefox just so I can download flock?
Also remember that these installs have to be static. What happens if Opera
changes their download location, or Firefox changes it's name? Suddenly,
these scripts don't work anymore and anyone that reinstalls their OS from a
recovery CD is without a browser.
Microsoft can't control third parties. Any solution they design today
would be brittle and break in time because of that.
My point is that nobody gives any thought to the repercussions of these
claims "Oh, just unbundle the browser, that should be easy".
Are there solutions, most likely. Are there solutions that meet the EU's
requirements? Who knows. Are there solutions *anyeone* will want?
Probably not.
>>> PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
>>
>> Along with all the adware and spyware junk? You really want to leave it to
>> OEM's who pollute your PC's with all that other crap to choose which
>> browser to install? It'll be 5 minutes before they compile their own
>> firefox with embedded advertising that doesn't let you remove it.
>
> There's no adware with Firefox.
What part of "compile their own" didn't you understand? Firefox is free
software, and anyone is allowed to make any changes they want, including
adding spyware and adware.
Peter Köhlmann
Given your history, provide the links, Erik F
I say you are lying
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
The Lost Packet
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:36:29 +0000, The Lost Packet wrote:
>
>> there's a version of xp for the European market that ships without WMP.
>> This build is about a Euro less than regular XP to OEMs and two less for
>> retail. What is the fucking point? It's a spit in the face to orders
>> made in the EU that Microsoft start unbundling.
>
> Do you really think that Windows Media Player makes up more than about 1 or
> 2 Euro's of the cost of Windows? Windows has about 60 million lines of
> code. WMP is less than 1 million lines of code by my estimation.
>
> Are you suggesting that Microsoft should slash the price of Windows in half
> just because it doesn't have a media player? That's like suggesting that
> removing the radio out of a car should slash it's price in half.
>
> The fact is, nobody wants an OS without a media player, or a web browser.
>
>>>>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
>>>>> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
>>>>> download a different browser.
>> how about a script which offers a choice between, say, IE, Firefox,
>> Opera, Lynx, Safari... etc., etc., etc. at activation time? Which then
>> hunts for a net connection by which to download a browser. Otherwise,
>> fall back to an extremely basic text-based browser. Something
>> commandline-ish?
>
> So what if I want, say, Flock as my favorite browser. I have to download
> Firefox just so I can download flock?
>
Why not? Flock is built on the same fargin' codebase.
> Also remember that these installs have to be static. What happens if Opera
> changes their download location, or Firefox changes it's name? Suddenly,
> these scripts don't work anymore and anyone that reinstalls their OS from a
> recovery CD is without a browser.
>
That's down to the individual vendors - if they want to maintain user
choice, and keep their oar in the water, they need to keep a sharp eye
on their domain registrations.
> Microsoft can't control third parties. Any solution they design today
> would be brittle and break in time because of that.
>
I would certainly have several points to argue against that, but I'm
sure nobody here wants a 5MB text file in their Usenet inbox.
> My point is that nobody gives any thought to the repercussions of these
> claims "Oh, just unbundle the browser, that should be easy".
>
Oh, believe me, I did. I came to the conclusion that without a bundled
browser, the user has several choices with which to install one:
use a CD;
use commandline FTP or Telnet;
use a prebuilt script at activation time with several choices and lists
of mirror servers for each;
use a singular package manager at *install time* which takes the
binaries from a singular repository distributed across several servers
(I'm not saying swamp the user with a choice of twenty different package
managers, just something which pops up and says "Hi! You need a browser,
which of these are you most comfortable with/feel most secure with?
Don't forget you can always jump on the net afterward and download a
different browser from somewhere else if none of these fine offerings
tickle your tastebuds!");
...among others that fleeted across my Blond Linuxy mind.
> Are there solutions, most likely.
See above...
Are there solutions that meet the EU's
> requirements?
See above...
Who knows. Are there solutions *anyone* will want?
Tupo corrected (there, aren't I nice?)
Hey, I'd be happy with the last one.
> Probably not.
>
>>>> PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
>>> Along with all the adware and spyware junk? You really want to leave it to
>>> OEM's who pollute your PC's with all that other crap to choose which
>>> browser to install? It'll be 5 minutes before they compile their own
>>> firefox with embedded advertising that doesn't let you remove it.
>> There's no adware with Firefox.
>
> What part of "compile their own" didn't you understand?
I know exactly what it means in context; please don't call my reading
comprehension skills into question, or you may find that said action is
thrown right back at you with a large slice of lemon wrapped around a
razor blade. And that will fucking /sting/.
Firefox is free
> software, and anyone is allowed to make any changes they want, including
> adding spyware and adware.
You snipped the bit where I said updating Firefox by a major release
directly from Mozilla is pretty much guaranteed to eradicate the adware
should that be the case.
You should work for Fox News Corp., Mr. Funkenbusch; your creative
editing is really quite remarkable.
--
TLP
- The following signature is encoded double-ROT-47. Unauthorised
duplication and/or decryption is a violation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
- Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door
went nuts.
- No, I will not fix your computer.
- Thought: It must be a bitch to write your name in the snow in Arabic...
- Don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things.
- Rice: 1.4 billion Chinese can't all be wrong.
- I'm dreaming of a better world where chickens can cross the road and
not have their motives questioned!
- If you can make a cheesecake you can install a Linux driver from source.
- Don't listen to the do-gooders, condoms are useless. They split,
they leak and they burst. And the human stomach can't handle the impact
of two kilos of cocaine.
- Users who XNA their Usenet posts are admitting that their ramblings
aren't worth reading.
- (on Windows) You know why "last known good configuration" almost
never works? Because the last known good configuration was a blank disk.
- Sinister Midget, c.o.l.a. 15 Jan 2009
- Here's to our wives and sweethearts; may they never meet.
- (on writing) I suggest words formed into sentences, occasionally
divided by punctuation, then further constructed into paragraphs
containing references to the subject matter, with a detailed analysis of
that subject matter organised into chapters, and finally ending with a
conclusion. Be sure to use your own words, and not those found elsewhere
such as in a dictionary, otherwise you may be found guilty of copyright
violation - an offence punishable by death in certain states of the USA.
- Homer, c.o.l.a. 19 Jan 2009
- Forget nicotine patches, they don't smoke for shit and you only fit
3 in a rizla. I'm back to my 5 lighters a day.
Hadron
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2009 11:14:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>
>>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message news:ufgk6rsbu2mw$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:54:26 -0800 (PST), nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <Quote>
>>>>> The European Union's antitrust agency...confirmed that it has charged
>>>>> Microsoft with breaking the law, saying that the company "shields"
>>>>> Internet Explorer (IE) from "head-to-head competition" by bundling its
>>>>> browser with Windows...
>>>> I'm kind of curious. Suppose Microsoft was forced to not ship IE with
>>>> windows. How would an end user even get a browser on their computer?
>>>> Force them to use the command line FTP program?
>>>>
>
> there's a version of xp for the European market that ships without
> WMP. This build is about a Euro less than regular XP to OEMs and two
> less for retail. What is the fucking point? It's a spit in the face to
> orders made in the EU that Microsoft start unbundling.
Why? WMP is a tiny, tiny part. And since COLA morons tend to think
everything should be "free" they should probably knock nothing off since
WMP is a "free" add on like IE.
>
>>>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
>>>> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
>>>> download a different browser.
>
> how about a script which offers a choice between, say, IE, Firefox,
> Opera, Lynx, Safari... etc., etc., etc. at activation time? Which then
> hunts for a net connection by which to download a browser. Otherwise,
> fall back to an extremely basic text-based browser. Something
> commandline-ish?
Or just ship IE on their OS and let people use it or not.
Oh yes ....
"a script" indeed ...
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:36:29 +0000, The Lost Packet wrote:
>>
>>> there's a version of xp for the European market that ships without WMP.
>>> This build is about a Euro less than regular XP to OEMs and two less for
>>> retail. What is the fucking point? It's a spit in the face to orders
>>> made in the EU that Microsoft start unbundling.
>>
>> Do you really think that Windows Media Player makes up more than about 1 or
>> 2 Euro's of the cost of Windows? Windows has about 60 million lines of
>> code. WMP is less than 1 million lines of code by my estimation.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that Microsoft should slash the price of Windows in half
>> just because it doesn't have a media player? That's like suggesting that
>> removing the radio out of a car should slash it's price in half.
>>
>> The fact is, nobody wants an OS without a media player, or a web browser.
I notice you didn't respond to this part.
>>>>>> I fail to see how unbundling IE makes anything easier on the competition,
>>>>>> in fact, it makes it harder since the end user won't have a browser to
>>>>>> download a different browser.
>>> how about a script which offers a choice between, say, IE, Firefox,
>>> Opera, Lynx, Safari... etc., etc., etc. at activation time? Which then
>>> hunts for a net connection by which to download a browser. Otherwise,
>>> fall back to an extremely basic text-based browser. Something
>>> commandline-ish?
>>
>> So what if I want, say, Flock as my favorite browser. I have to download
>> Firefox just so I can download flock?
>
> Why not? Flock is built on the same fargin' codebase.
But they're different installations. Meaning, you have to download the
complete firefox just so you can download the complete flock. Moronic.
>> Also remember that these installs have to be static. What happens if Opera
>> changes their download location, or Firefox changes it's name? Suddenly,
>> these scripts don't work anymore and anyone that reinstalls their OS from a
>> recovery CD is without a browser.
>
> That's down to the individual vendors - if they want to maintain user
> choice, and keep their oar in the water, they need to keep a sharp eye
> on their domain registrations.
So you think the OEM should just be able to impose additional requirements
on OEM's because they don't like that Microsoft ships with a browser. You
know, OEM's that are already existing on razor thin margins?
>> Microsoft can't control third parties. Any solution they design today
>> would be brittle and break in time because of that.
>
> I would certainly have several points to argue against that, but I'm
> sure nobody here wants a 5MB text file in their Usenet inbox.
And none of them would likely be relevant.
>> My point is that nobody gives any thought to the repercussions of these
>> claims "Oh, just unbundle the browser, that should be easy".
>
> Oh, believe me, I did. I came to the conclusion that without a bundled
> browser, the user has several choices with which to install one:
>
> use a CD;
> use commandline FTP or Telnet;
> use a prebuilt script at activation time with several choices and lists
> of mirror servers for each;
> use a singular package manager at *install time* which takes the
> binaries from a singular repository distributed across several servers
> (I'm not saying swamp the user with a choice of twenty different package
> managers, just something which pops up and says "Hi! You need a browser,
> which of these are you most comfortable with/feel most secure with?
> Don't forget you can always jump on the net afterward and download a
> different browser from somewhere else if none of these fine offerings
> tickle your tastebuds!");
>
> ...among others that fleeted across my Blond Linuxy mind.
So now you want to shove the burden on the end user. Use THEIR bandwidth
(which in many parts of the world, including parts of europe, are metered),
waste THEIR time, and force them to choose between a number of things they
probably won't even understand.
>> Are there solutions, most likely.
>
> See above...
>
> Are there solutions that meet the EU's
>> requirements?
>
> See above...
See above. Nice that you don't mind burdening OEM's or end users just to
piss off Microsoft.
> Who knows. Are there solutions *anyone* will want?
>
> Tupo corrected (there, aren't I nice?)
And I didn't correct yours, because i'm intelligent enough to know what you
meant without rubbing it in your face.
> Hey, I'd be happy with the last one.
>
>> Probably not.
Fact is, nobody will want an OS without a browser. Funny how the EU's
requirements to ship an OS without a media player seems to have done
nothing to change the market. Could it be shipping a media player doesn't
make any difference? People will use what they want to use? Nah, that
can't be it.
>>>>> PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
>>>> Along with all the adware and spyware junk? You really want to leave it to
>>>> OEM's who pollute your PC's with all that other crap to choose which
>>>> browser to install? It'll be 5 minutes before they compile their own
>>>> firefox with embedded advertising that doesn't let you remove it.
>>> There's no adware with Firefox.
>>
>> What part of "compile their own" didn't you understand?
>
> I know exactly what it means in context; please don't call my reading
> comprehension skills into question, or you may find that said action is
> thrown right back at you with a large slice of lemon wrapped around a
> razor blade. And that will fucking /sting/.
Then perhaps you shouldn't write a long missive about things that have
nothing to do with the context. I made no mention of adware shipping with
the version of firefox you download, but that didn't stop you from going
off on a tangent about bugzilla.
> Firefox is free
>> software, and anyone is allowed to make any changes they want, including
>> adding spyware and adware.
>
> You snipped the bit where I said updating Firefox by a major release
> directly from Mozilla is pretty much guaranteed to eradicate the adware
> should that be the case.
Oh, yes, because OEM's would never figure out that they need only install
their files to a non-default location. That would be so difficult. And it
would be so difficult for them to replace the updater to get it from their
own repository. You use the word "guarantee" far too much.
My point is that OEM's don't care about what the end user wants, or they
wouldn't ship all that crud on every desktop. What makes you think giving
the OEM the choice of what to install will be any better for the end user?
> You should work for Fox News Corp., Mr. Funkenbusch; your creative
> editing is really quite remarkable.
I didn't "edit". I merely cut out your tangential rants that had nothing
to do with my point.
Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F
> I say you are lying
Since you've said you will not follow any link Erik provides, what would
be the point of him providing links?
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
Two points :
1) you think everyone is lying.
2) you refuse (or are unable) to follow links.
No one need provide ANYTHING for you since you are a known impostor and
ubertroll.
Go back to patting Terry "Telnet" Porter on his derriere.
Peter Köhlmann
Feel free to provide the link where I have said something like that. liar
Tim Smith
Why do you indulge in this idiotic game of attributing false claims?
You are not a dishonest cretin like Hadron Snot Quark or flatfish, so why
do you subscribe to their dishonesty?
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
-- Tom Christiansen
Snit
reply_in_group-D2E...@news.supernews.com on 1/19/09 5:40 PM:
Peter often insists people provide links or message IDs... but Peter often
fails to when he makes claims and is called on his BS.
It is just how he trolls... pretty much he is not capable of being any more
clever than that.
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Andrew Halliwell
> 1) you think everyone is lying.
Errrr, no that's yours and DFS's most common accusation.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
Homer
> <Quote>
[...]
> "The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission
> to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which
> makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts
> competition on the merits between competing Web browsers insofar as
> it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution
> advantage which other Web browsers are unable to match," the EU said.
> The Commission...believes the lack of competition was "detrimental to
> the pace of product innovation." ...
I still think the EU is missing a much more essential point: The problem
is not that IE is bundled with Windows by default (and indeed supposedly
inextricably so), it's that Windows is bundled with retail PCs.
But then maybe the Commission have a long-term plan and just haven't got
that far ... yet. Here's hoping.
The solution is: Mandate that software, *any* software, including the OS
may /only/ be bundled by OEMs (not the software vendor itself), and that
OEMs may only bundle any software if they provide alternative choices by
that software vendor's competitors, where any alternatives exist.
IOW, at the POS, prebuilt PC buyers should have the /choice/ of which OS
is installed on that PC, and which applications, including the option to
have no OS or applications at all (a so-called "Naked PC").
Now to the question which Bill Gates evaded in his DOJ interrogation, of
what exactly differentiates an /application/ from an OS /component/, and
therefore what should be deemed anti-competitive if bundled by default?
Well we could engage in a futile debate about the semantics of operating
systems, but I think the answer can be found much more simply. If any OS
component has alternatives available from competing vendors, then /that/
component can be replaced, and those alternatives should be available as
a choice to consumers, on all PC hardware at the POS.
So what are these alternative:
Windows: Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, others [1]
Internet Explorer: Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera
Windows Media Player: Songbird, MPlayer, RealPlayer
.Net: Java
Outlook Express/Windows Mail: Thunderbird, Evolution, Eudora
Windows Movie Maker: Avidemux, VirtualDubMod, Vegas Movie Studio
Windows Photo Gallery: imgSeek, Picasa, Adobe Photoshop Elements
Notepad/Wordpad: GNU Emacs, metapad, UltraEdit
Windows Backup: BackupPC, Macrium Reflect FREE, Acronis TrueImage
Windows Firewall: iSafer Winsock Firewall, ZoneAlarm, Outpost
Antivirus (none): ClamWin, Avast, NOD32
Windows Defender: Winpooch, Spybot S&D, Adaware
Any other Windows built-in applications that could be replaced?
Well Microsoft Works or Office is often bundled too, so you can add:
Office: OpenOffice.org, IBM Lotus Symphony, SoftMaker Office
So how this would be implemented? First Microsoft would have to /remove/
the above components from the Windows install disc, and place them on to
a supplemental disc. The OEMs would then have the freedom to combine any
of the above into various combinations of HDD images, so they then offer
customers a choice of software configurations based on those selections.
So for example, Dell might have 4 Windows configurations, comprising the
Microsoft applications set; the GPL set; the Freeware set; and a Premium
set (corresponding to the order I've listed the alternatives above). The
alternative operating systems would just need one HDD image each, as the
supporting applications are all Free Software, and come with the distros
anyway. This gives a total of 7 pre-install options at the POS, with the
Microsoft applications set being just one of them. Everyone's a winner.
Naturally the shills will whine about this being impractical and costing
too much, and whatever other nonsense they can think of to justify their
paymaster's monopoly. Save it, I'm not interested. This is the only fair
way of selling preinstalled PCs, so I really don't care if it adds a few
dollars/pounds to the price. The market will adjust, and a level playing
field will be achieved. Problem solved.
Now, where did I put Neelie Kroes' E-mail address?
[1] Note: Mac OS X is not an alternative on commodity PCs, thanks to the
ridiculous policy Apple has which prohibits that OS being installed onto
anything other than officially branded Apple hardware:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
In this regard, I believe Apple should /also/ be brought to account, and
forced to unbundle Mac OS X from the hardware, and sell them separately.
The EU might also take a look at other highly anti-competitive practises
by Apple, such as its attempt to prevent iPods from being managed by any
software other than iTunes:
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
07:53:38 up 75 days, 15:36, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.00
Hadron
Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1) you think everyone is lying.
>
> Errrr, no that's yours and DFS's most common accusation.
I dont think everyone is lying.
I know MOST COLA "advocates" tell lies.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
F.U.D.
--
Most of our lives are about proving something, either to ourselves or to
someone else.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:36:29 +0000, The Lost Packet wrote:
F.U.D.
--
Checking host system type...
i586-unknown-linux
configure: error: sorry, this is the gnu os, not linux
-- Topic on #Linux
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Firefox is free
>> software, and anyone is allowed to make any changes they want, including
>> adding spyware and adware.
>
> You snipped the bit where I said updating Firefox by a major release
> directly from Mozilla is pretty much guaranteed to eradicate the adware
> should that be the case.
>
> You should work for Fox News Corp., Mr. Funkenbusch; your creative
> editing is really quite remarkable.
His powers of ext^Hcrapolation are extraordinary, too.
--
We are all dying -- and we're gonna be dead for a long time.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron needs to read the Comes document.
>
> Hadron needs to read nothing to know that more effort needs to be done
> to improve people's perception of Linux and to improve a lot of the
> desktop applications which businesses would rely on.
Oh whoop de doo. Stating the obvious (which also applies to Windows, by the
way) does not answer the real need: a fair market with real choice.
--
How can you govern a nation which has 246 kinds of cheese?
-- Charles de Gaulle
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> writes:
>
>>
>> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F
>> I say you are lying
>
> Two points :
>
> 1) you think everyone is lying.
> 2) you refuse (or are unable) to follow links.
>
> No one need provide ANYTHING for you since you are a known impostor and
> ubertroll.
Palpable irony.
> Go back to patting Terry "Telnet" Porter on his derriere.
What's this obsession with posteriors?
--
The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first.
-- Blaise Pascal
William Poaster
trolls, Andrew Halliwell was heard to say:
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1) you think everyone is lying.
>
> Errrr, no that's yours and DFS's most common accusation.
Indeed. All the M$ fanbois Quack & DooFu$ *ever* do is shout "Lie" or
"Liar".
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F I say you are lying
>>
>> Two points :
>>
>> 1) you think everyone is lying.
>> 2) you refuse (or are unable) to follow links.
>>
>> No one need provide ANYTHING for you since you are a known impostor and
>> ubertroll.
>
> Palpable irony.
Isn't it! LOL
>> Go back to patting Terry "Telnet" Porter on his derriere.
>
> What's this obsession with posteriors?
Because Hardon Quack is a horse's ass?
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Andrew Halliwell belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>> That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist very
>>> strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together to get
>>> the majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do Windows itself.
>>> With nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are not likely to support
>>> a bunch of browsers. In any case it is ever so simple to install
>>> Firefox or Chrome on a machine that is connected to the internet. The
>>> EU is just after Microsoft's money and dipping their beak into the
>>> successful companies in the proud Mafia tradition so common there.
>>> Microsoft just charges more for their products in EMEA and everyone is
>>> content.
>>
>> Mafia tradition so common where exactly? LOL! You really are clueless.
>> Your so-called Mafia started in the USA due to the feckin alcohol ban in
>> the '20s!
>> Just because a lot of them happened to come from italy did not mean the
>> mafia STARTED in italy. The mafia is one of america's proud traditions.
>
> amicus is just a Microsoft dittohead.
No surprise as amicus_curious is Bill Weisgerber, a M$ shill.
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron needs to read the Comes document.
>>
>> Hadron needs to read nothing to know that more effort needs to be done
>> to improve people's perception of Linux and to improve a lot of the
>> desktop applications which businesses would rely on.
>
> Oh whoop de doo. Stating the obvious (which also applies to Windows, by
> the way) does not answer the real need: a fair market with real choice.
Well of course Hadron needs to read nothing, because:
1] he's a know it all. (except he knows f#ck all about Linux) .
2] he very often doesn't understand what he reads anyway!
Peter Köhlmann
Of you wintendo fanbois certainly nobody is telling the truth.
Although none of the others is lying as much as you do, Hadron Quark
> 2) you refuse (or are unable) to follow links.
You might try to prove *that* idiocy of yours.
I have stated that I will *not* follow broken links.
If you guys are too incompetent to provide so much as a working link for
your claims, I certainly will not do anything at all to read that shite.
Not even so much as splicing a link. It either works or doesn't. Your call
I have followed links much more than you liars would have liked, since all
too often they did not contain the material you hoped they do (and were
too dumb to understand)
> No one need provide ANYTHING for you since you are a known impostor and
> ubertroll.
Idiot
> Go back to patting Terry "Telnet" Porter on his derriere.
The "me-tooer" here is you, Hadron Quark. You are the one applauding and
defending the worst assholes in COLA history constantly
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
DFS
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <4974fba9$0$31346$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>,
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F
>>> I say you are lying
>>
>> Since you've said you will not follow any link Erik provides, what
>> would be the point of him providing links?
>
> Feel free to provide the link where I have said something like that.
> liar Tim Smith
Here's a similar example of your dishonesty, dumbkopf: You've stated several
times that Snit was in your lifetime killfile, yet you continue to reply to
him.
3/20/2008: " I have killfiled Snot for eternity..."
6/26/2008: "...that dishonest twit is killfiled for life here..."
6/27/2008: "...you are killfiled for lifetime, Michael Glasser."
6/27/2008: "...you, Michael Glasser, are killfiled *forever* ...."
Why should anything you say be believed?
> Why do you indulge in this idiotic game of attributing false claims?
When Tim provides the quote - and I'm certain he will because he doesn't
exaggerate in the slightest - you'll whine and lie and try to shift the
topic.
You're an idiot, Kohlmann. You couldn't care less to talk about Linux on
cola - you just like to argue with people you claim aren't worth arguing
with.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4974fba9$0$31346$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>,
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F
>>>> I say you are lying
>>>
>>> Since you've said you will not follow any link Erik provides, what
>>> would be the point of him providing links?
>>
>> Feel free to provide the link where I have said something like that.
>> liar Tim Smith
>
> Here's a similar example of your dishonesty, dumbkopf: You've stated
> several times that Snit was in your lifetime killfile, yet you continue
> to reply to him.
>
> 3/20/2008: " I have killfiled Snot for eternity..."
>
> 6/26/2008: "...that dishonest twit is killfiled for life here..."
>
> 6/27/2008: "...you are killfiled for lifetime, Michael Glasser."
>
> 6/27/2008: "...you, Michael Glasser, are killfiled *forever* ...."
>
>
> Why should anything you say be believed?
>
So you are actually too damn stupid to realize that I still see Snot
Michael Glassers shite by quoting?
Are you too cretinous to realize that it is Michael Glasser, the
dumbest "IT teacher" in all of history, who continues to reply to me,
although he knows damn well that I don't see his garbage except when it
gets quoted?
Who would have guessed that there are actually vermin even dumber than
Glasser or Hadron Quark?
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:27:33 -0500, above the shrieking & whining of the
> trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F I say you are lying
>>>
>>> Two points :
>>>
>>> 1) you think everyone is lying.
>>> 2) you refuse (or are unable) to follow links.
>>>
>>> No one need provide ANYTHING for you since you are a known impostor and
>>> ubertroll.
>>
>> Palpable irony.
>
> Isn't it! LOL
>
>>> Go back to patting Terry "Telnet" Porter on his derriere.
>>
>> What's this obsession with posteriors?
>
> Because Hardon Quack is a horse's ass?
More likely, an ass's whore.
--
Freshest if eaten before date on carton.
Snit
4975e140$0$30236$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 1/20/09 7:35 AM:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4974fba9$0$31346$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>,
>>>> Peter K�hlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Given your history, provide the links, Erik F
>>>>> I say you are lying
>>>>
>>>> Since you've said you will not follow any link Erik provides, what
>>>> would be the point of him providing links?
>>>
>>> Feel free to provide the link where I have said something like that.
>>> liar Tim Smith
>>
>> Here's a similar example of your dishonesty, dumbkopf: You've stated
>> several times that Snit was in your lifetime killfile, yet you continue
>> to reply to him.
>>
>> 3/20/2008: " I have killfiled Snot for eternity..."
>>
>> 6/26/2008: "...that dishonest twit is killfiled for life here..."
>>
>> 6/27/2008: "...you are killfiled for lifetime, Michael Glasser."
>>
>> 6/27/2008: "...you, Michael Glasser, are killfiled *forever* ...."
>>
>>
>> Why should anything you say be believed?
>>
>
> So you are actually too damn stupid to realize that I still see Snot
> Michael Glassers shite by quoting?
> Are you too cretinous to realize that it is Michael Glasser, the
> dumbest "IT teacher" in all of history, who continues to reply to me,
> although he knows damn well that I don't see his garbage except when it
> gets quoted?
>
> Who would have guessed that there are actually vermin even dumber than
> Glasser or Hadron Quark?
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
SZkdl.6458$Qa....@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 1/20/09 7:23 AM:
He claims to have me kill filed yet he still obsesses over me. Weird.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
chrisv
>
>> On 19 Jan 2009 11:14:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>>
>>> PC manufactureres will obviously pre-install a browser, but not necesarily IE.
>>
>> Along with all the adware and spyware junk? You really want to leave it to
>> OEM's who pollute your PC's with all that other crap to choose which
>> browser to install? It'll be 5 minutes before they compile their own
>> firefox with embedded advertising that doesn't let you remove it.
Oh, you are a fscking hoot, Fuddie.
"Oh, save us, Microshaft! Protect us from those evil OEM's. We know
you have our best interests at heart!"
Sheesh! You think we're as stupid as you are, Fuddie?
>F.U.D.
Idiocy, too.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Verily I say unto thee, that nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu spake thusly:
>> <Quote>
> [...]
>> "The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission
>> to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which
>> makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts
>> competition on the merits between competing Web browsers insofar as
>> it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution
>> advantage which other Web browsers are unable to match," the EU said.
>> The Commission...believes the lack of competition was "detrimental to
>> the pace of product innovation." ...
>
> I still think the EU is missing a much more essential point: The problem
> is not that IE is bundled with Windows by default (and indeed supposedly
> inextricably so), it's that Windows is bundled with retail PCs.
This action leads back to one entity, Opera. They've been bitching to
anyone that will listen for years, blaming Microsoft and even Mozilla for
the lack of market for a commercial web browser.
Their claim, which the EU seems to have bought into, is that the mere
distribution of IE with windows is anti-competitive.
IE is no longer anywhere near as tightly integrated into the OS as it used
to be. The shell is no longer integrated with it, you don't need it to
download updates, etc.. the only thing that remains, and I see no way to
reasonably prevent this, is that thousands of apps assume IE will be
present and use IE's rendering engine, including the help subsystem.
> Now to the question which Bill Gates evaded in his DOJ interrogation, of
> what exactly differentiates an /application/ from an OS /component/, and
> therefore what should be deemed anti-competitive if bundled by default?
Today, it's simply not acceptable to ship an OS without an HTML rendering
OS component. Help systems and various apps rely on this functionality.
Apple has Webkit, Windows has Trident. Regardless of whether an end user
application called a browser exists on the computer, there needs to be the
OS component.
> Well we could engage in a futile debate about the semantics of operating
> systems, but I think the answer can be found much more simply. If any OS
> component has alternatives available from competing vendors, then /that/
> component can be replaced, and those alternatives should be available as
> a choice to consumers, on all PC hardware at the POS.
There is no plug-in compatible alternative to Trident. Someone once made
such a plug-in for Mozilla, but it has long since been abandoned.
> So what are these alternative:
>
> .Net: Java
Java is not a replacement for .NET, nor is .NET a replacement for Java.
Applications depend on the specific API's, therefore they are not drop-in
replacements.
> Outlook Express/Windows Mail: Thunderbird, Evolution, Eudora
7 will not ship this, but instead includes it as a part of Windows Live
which you can choose to download after you install if you like.
> Windows Movie Maker: Avidemux, VirtualDubMod, Vegas Movie Studio
Same as above.
> Windows Photo Gallery: imgSeek, Picasa, Adobe Photoshop Elements
Same as above.
> Notepad/Wordpad: GNU Emacs, metapad, UltraEdit
Oh, please. Neither of these tools are going to replace any featureful
editor and some basic text editor needs to be included in the OS.
> Windows Backup: BackupPC, Macrium Reflect FREE, Acronis TrueImage
Again, a backup system is becoming crucial.
> Windows Firewall: iSafer Winsock Firewall, ZoneAlarm, Outpost
Again, basic stuff. Every OS includes a firewall these days.
> Antivirus (none): ClamWin, Avast, NOD32
And most OEM's already install some form of antivirus.
> Windows Defender: Winpooch, Spybot S&D, Adaware
Again, it's you morons who criticize Microsoft for not including that
stuff, now you don't want them to?
> Any other Windows built-in applications that could be replaced?
>
> Well Microsoft Works or Office is often bundled too, so you can add:
>
> Office: OpenOffice.org, IBM Lotus Symphony, SoftMaker Office
Many OEM's already offer that.
> So how this would be implemented? First Microsoft would have to /remove/
> the above components from the Windows install disc, and place them on to
> a supplemental disc.
Followed by you guys bitching about how difficult it is to install Windows,
and how it needs more than one disk, and everything isn't automated...
Nice way to set up more complaints about Windows.
> Naturally the shills will whine about this being impractical and costing
> too much, and whatever other nonsense they can think of to justify their
> paymaster's monopoly. Save it, I'm not interested. This is the only fair
> way of selling preinstalled PCs, so I really don't care if it adds a few
> dollars/pounds to the price. The market will adjust, and a level playing
> field will be achieved. Problem solved.
And giving you another excuse to bitch about Windows.
Doug Mentohl
> IE is no longer anywhere near as tightly integrated into the OS as it used to be .. the only thing that remains .. the help subsystem.
"I think we should have to do even more cloning .. of Netscape", Oct 1995
"PSD needs to get serious about cloning Netscape .. We will bind the
shell to the Internet Explorer so that running any other browser is a
jolting experience", Nov 1995
"I would NOT phrase the survey, or other things only in terms of "put
the browser in the OS .. Instead you need to ask a more neutral question
about how the internet technology needs to merge with local computing",
Feb 1998
Erik Funkenbusch
Do you have a point?
Didn't think so Duh!g
chrisv
>My point is that OEM's don't care about what the end user wants, or they
>wouldn't ship all that crud on every desktop. What makes you think giving
>the OEM the choice of what to install will be any better for the end user?
Gods, you are an immoral and dishonest fsck, Fuddie. There was so
much idiocy and hypocrisy in your post, it's hard to know where to
start.
To make a long story short:
YES, allowing the OEM a choice is GOOD for the consumer, AND the OEM.
NO, that's NOT a great "burden" on the OEM. If *anything* is a
burden, it's cost of Windows!
A CD with a choice of browsers and media players is really not a big
deal, and that's only one of many options available.
Your FUD regarding OSS browsers being "bad" because they could be
altered, for the worse, by the OEM, is about the silliest thing I've
read in here lately. Idiot.
Your whining about using the poor customer's bandwidth, to download a
browser, is almost as bad. This is simply not an issue, for the vast
majority of end users. CD's could be used, otherwise.
This is not about "pissing off" Micro$oft. This is about offering at
least a *chance* for other software companies to compete with them,
which is God-damned difficult when they can leverage their OS
dominance to place all their other software front and center, while
simultaneously *denying* the OEM the privilege of doing the same with
alternates!
All of this would be less important, if it weren't for Micro$oft's
demonstrated designs to subvert and ignore standards, leading to
customer-owned data and Web-sites which can only be used with
Micro$oft products.
Erik Funkenbusch
I'm leaving all this there to point something out.
Odd that none of your comments actually addressed the part you quoted.
Let me repeat.
What makes you think that OEM's wouldn't use this opportunity to put more
advertising bullshit in the consumers face?
Peter Köhlmann
Well, have you ever heard the term "bad advertising", Erik F?
You have exactly one guess how long it would take until word gets around
about that sneaky OEM
That particular OEM could sell its "goods" for half price ever on, I would
never buy from him.
You wintendo fanbois on the other hand seem dumb enough to let such guys
get away with such practices. Otherwise you would not even have come up
with such a laughable scenario
--
The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:20:49 -0600, chrisv wrote:
You mean they don't /already/ put enough ad bs there in the current monopoly
situation?
The /least/ the OEM can do is install a /secure/ browser!!!
--
I wouldn't marry her with a ten foot pole.
cc
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Andrew Halliwell belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
> > I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
> > squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
> > after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
> > (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
> > name)
>
> Microsoft wanted a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the
> Internet.
>
Although you could kind of see that thinking 10 years ago, when it
still seemed like a browser mattered alot, would/should Microsoft
still care today? I can't imagine they earn any money off of IE either
directly or indirectly. More and more sites are developed for any
browser, like they should be, and if the content is browser agnostic,
what does Microsoft gain from IE, other than saying we have the most
popular browser, and most popular browser = best web company?
cc
> Hadron wrote:
> > Sermo Malifer <sermomali...@noemail.com> writes:
>
> >> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> >>> amicus_curious <A...@sti.net> wrote:
> >>>> That is a fair go, though. I doubt that Microsoft would resist
> >>>> very strongly, rather they would get a strong IE promotion together
> >>>> to get the majority of buyers to request IE, just as they do
> >>>> Windows itself. With nothing in the pot to pay them, the OEMs are
> >>>> not likely to support a bunch of browsers. In any case it is ever
> >>>> so simple to install Firefox or Chrome on a machine that is
> >>>> connected to the internet. The EU is just after Microsoft's money
> >>>> and dipping their beak into the successful companies in the proud
> >>>> Mafia tradition so common there. Microsoft just charges more for
> >>>> their products in EMEA and everyone is content.
> >>> Mafia tradition so common where exactly?
> >>> LOL! You really are clueless. Your so-called Mafia started in the
> >>> USA due to the feckin alcohol ban in the
> >>> '20s!
> >>> Just because a lot of them happened to come from italy did not mean the
> >>> mafia STARTED in italy. The mafia is one of america's proud traditions.
>
> >> gangsters of the '20s and '30s weren't all Mafia, not even the Italian
> >> ones.
>
> > Halliwell doing his "Hmmm?" bit and getting things wrong again is he?
> > Oh! Yes he is!
>
> > LOL.
>
> > As usual with COLA "advocates" he has no clue.
>
> > The FIRST line in Wikipedia puts him right.
>
> > "The Mafia is one of America's proud traditions".
>
> > *chuckle*
>
> Poor Hadron Quark. Just because it is in Wikipedia it is suddenly the
> gospel?
>
> Here, some more info
>
> 1863 was the first play of a comedy "I mafiusi di la Vicaria" (The Mafiosi
> (of the prison) of Vicaria). It was played in Palermo, Sicily and later
> translated from scilian dialect to italian
> In 1865 Filippo Gualtieros, Prefect of Palermo, called the thugs roaming
> the streets "Maffia"
>
> Yes, "one of America's proud traditions" my ass. As usual, you know nothing
> about the things you blubber about
>
> The Mafia is much older though, and the other "wings" of it,
> like ’Ndrangheta or Comorra, existed well before italian
> immigrants "exported" them to the US and formed the Cosa Nostra
>
> You are truyl an idiot, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark
You need to learn to read Petey.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Jan 19, 8:03 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Andrew Halliwell belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> > Problem solved, Altertnative: install both firefox and IE by default.
>> > I don't know why microsoft became so obsessed with IE to the point of
>> > squashing the competition anyway. There was no money in it. Specially not
>> > after Netscape released the code and firebird began its reign.
>> > (i.e. before firebird became firefox cos it clashed with another project
>> > name)
>>
>> Microsoft wanted a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the
>> Internet.
>
> Although you could kind of see that thinking 10 years ago, when it
> still seemed like a browser mattered alot, would/should Microsoft
> still care today? I can't imagine they earn any money off of IE either
> directly or indirectly. More and more sites are developed for any
> browser, like they should be, and if the content is browser agnostic,
> what does Microsoft gain from IE, other than saying we have the most
> popular browser, and most popular browser = best web company?
That might be enough. But Microsoft really wants you all building software
and services on their platform. And that's only natural, really. The
problem is they can leverage the platform to screw other companies; and they
do that, though their influence is waning (but only slighty).
--
<Overfiend> penis jokes are okay in mixed company. VMS is NOT!!!
Homer
> IE is no longer anywhere near as tightly integrated into the OS as
> it used to be .. the only thing that remains .. the help subsystem.
Fine, then Microsoft should have no problem removing it.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:23:14 up 76 days, 12:06, 4 users, load average: 0.02, 0.06, 0.01
DFS
> Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:
>
>> IE is no longer anywhere near as tightly integrated into the OS as
>> it used to be .. the only thing that remains .. the help subsystem.
>
> Fine, then Microsoft should have no problem removing it.
Why should they?
Homer
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> What makes you think that OEM's wouldn't use this opportunity to
>> put more advertising bullshit in the consumers face?
>
> Well, have you ever heard the term "bad advertising", Erik F?
>
> You have exactly one guess how long it would take until word gets
> around about that sneaky OEM
>
> That particular OEM could sell its "goods" for half price ever on, I
> would never buy from him.
> You wintendo fanbois on the other hand seem dumb enough to let such
> guys get away with such practices. Otherwise you would not even have
> come up with such a laughable scenario
Also, what makes Fuddie think an OEM somehow needs Firefox, or any other
Free Software, to spam customers with adware? If they are predisposed to
doing that sort of thing, then they'd do it, with or without Firefox. Of
course, as you point out, they wouldn't get away with doing it very long
before customers voted with their wallets.
I find it absolutely hysterical that the entire basis for Fuddie's gripe
with offering people choice, is that choice might facilitate abuse.
Yes, obviously we all need to be "protected" from choice ... for our own
good, of course. We only need one way: One Microsoft Way, presumably.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:49:43 up 76 days, 12:32, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
DFS
> Yes, obviously we all need to be "protected" from choice ... for our
> own good, of course.
Don't worry [H]ypocrite. The lackeys and evil morons at the European
"Competition Commission" will protect you from big bad Microsoft and their
nefarious media player and web browser.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
I await your apology.
Hint : try to read Halliwell's claims. THEN read my reply.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>> What makes you think that OEM's wouldn't use this opportunity to
>>> put more advertising bullshit in the consumers face?
>>
>> Well, have you ever heard the term "bad advertising", Erik F?
>>
>> You have exactly one guess how long it would take until word gets
>> around about that sneaky OEM
>
> I find it absolutely hysterical that the entire basis for Fuddie's gripe
> with offering people choice, is that choice might facilitate abuse.
>
> Yes, obviously we all need to be "protected" from choice ... for our own
> good, of course. We only need one way: One Microsoft Way, presumably.
Well, Erik has a point. Without this silly interference in Microsoft's
desktop monopoly, customers would:
1. Not be exposed to silly adware, just Microsoft logos, which they would
welcome as the signature of a comforting old friend.
2. Have only one browser to worry about, and it would be stable, since
Microsoft would have no need to add features to it to compete.
3. Have a leaner machine, since only Microsoft formats and protocols
would need to be supported. (No messy PNG transparency support, for
example).
As an even bigger benefit, all non-Microsoft servers would be forced off of
the internet -- why should companies be able to port Microsoft protocols and
formats to their own operating systems! Customers are better served by
using only the Real Thing throughout the software stack!
This would also cut down on the arguing in newsgroups. After all, if we are
all in the same safe, secure, Microsoft fold, what is there to argue about?
--
You shall be rewarded for a dastardly deed.
cc
Good luck getting that. My money is either on killfiling you because
you showed he was wrong, or an absolute denial and refusal to read
previous posts because you're "a troll and you must be lying."
Hadron
So if I replace my name with Halliwell's in Peter's tirade , what we get
is:
,----
| >Poor Andrew Halliwell. Just because it is not in Wikipedia it is
| >suddenly the gospel?
| >
| >Here, some more info
| >
| >1863 was the first play of a comedy "I mafiusi di la Vicaria" (The Mafiosi
| >(of the prison) of Vicaria). It was played in Palermo, Sicily and later
| >translated from scilian dialect to italian
| >In 1865 Filippo Gualtieros, Prefect of Palermo, called the thugs roaming
| >the streets "Maffia"
| >
| >Yes, "one of America's proud traditions" my ass. As usual, you know nothing
| >about the things you blubber about
| >
| >The Mafia is much older though, and the other "wings" of it,
| >like ’Ndrangheta or Comorra, existed well before italian
| >immigrants "exported" them to the US and formed the Cosa Nostra
| >
| >You are truyl an idiot, "Degree in Computer Science" Andrew Halliwell
`----
You could not make this type of thing up. Hilarious.
chrisv
>I'm leaving all this
Good thing you did "leave" it, Fuddie, because, you will note, I
slam-dunked pretty-much every "point" in your FUD-filled post.
>What makes you think that OEM's wouldn't use this opportunity to put more
>advertising bullshit in the consumers face?
Others have addressed this point for me, I've seen.
Stop pretending that Micro$oft control of the OEM's is good for the
consumer. It is not.
Stop pretending that offering more choice to the OEMs and consumers
would be difficult and/or expensive. It is not.
DFS
> Stop pretending that Micro$oft control of the OEM's is good for the
> consumer. It is not.
Stop pretending MS has any control whatsoever over any OEM.
> Stop pretending that offering more choice to the OEMs and consumers
> would be difficult and/or expensive. It is not.
Stop pretending marketing and supporting Linux is easy and free. It is not.
Doug Mentohl
> Do you have a point? Didn't think so Duh!g
You're all washed up fuddie, have been for a long time, like a punch
drunk fighter all you can do is shamble about the place mumbling to
yourself .. a sad case ...
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/nm_quinn_071030_ssh.jpg
Homer
> Microsoft really wants you all building software and services on
> their platform.
Yes, it's about the "stack", as the Vole puts it.
One OS, one development platform, one set of proprietary standards, just
one beneficiary.
> And that's only natural, really.
It's an archaic and (IMHO) highly immoral view of the software business,
or /any/ business for that matter. Greed may be "natural", but that does
not mean it should be tolerated. Businesses can and should be able to co
-exist in harmony, except in some cultures apparently, where the goal is
to destroy everyone else, and hoard everything for oneself.
> The problem is they can leverage the platform to screw other
> companies
An even more fundamental problem is that they are encouraged to do so by
laws that actually encourage that kind of behaviour, but then ironically
requires other laws to mitigate the inevitable damage.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
20:19:36 up 77 days, 4:02, 5 users, load average: 0.02, 0.05, 0.00