PayPal self-contradicting WTF
-
@PJH said:
Did I miss something?
I'm not sure. I was going to write something about how it is indeed getting quite difficult to put aftermarket audio systems in new cars, but having skimmed the last 20 posts, my head is spinning around constantly like in that one horror movie.
-
Hilarious! The "East Coast Represent!" which may actually mean "East Coast Representative!" (but what's a minor thing like coherence in writing?) responds by using that staple of the schoolyard, name calling.
What is most revealing is that name calling by a supposed adult is perfectly fine behavoir here while the use of "pissy" is a bannable offence.
Some might even find the use of "retard", in an attempt to insult, to be on par with a crack like "semi-literate gook". Neither should be used by adults in polite and public discourse.
You know what? It's okay to be a little self-righteous if you're actually right.
-
-
@Able to circumvent said:
"pissy" is a bannable offence.
Where, might I ask, did you witness such a banning?
@Able to circumvent said:
polite and public discourse.
You appear to assume that this mode of discourse is always-on around these parts, when in fact is mostly-off by default and largely-eschewed when faced with the decision to enter into it.
This thread is fast losing interestingness, though.
-
@Amazed by the prissy rules said:
Let me see if I have this straight. A site with "WTF" in its name, which if I understand correctly is shorthand for "What the fuck", has the balls to suspend users for the use of "pissy" ?
FTFY
-
@dhromed said:
This thread is fast losing interestingness, though.
You know, I was thinking that, but it now occurs to me we might have a legitimate schizo on our hands here. He's even creating a new account for each post because he seems to think someone is banning him. This guy is quickly becoming my favorite dysfunctional retard on here. He's like a mumbling, psychotic, pantsless early Christmas present.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This guy is quickly becoming my favorite dysfunctional retard on here. He's like a mumbling, psychotic, pantsless early Christmas present.
He might have pants.
-
-
Hey asswipe, what's the nick that you think was banned?
-
@belgariontheking said:
Hey asswipe, what's the nick that you think was banned?
Most likely DaveK because of his queerbait 4chan signature. On the one hand, I hate it for being stupid. On the other, this is the second idiot who has thought it was a legitimate ban, which almost makes me want to change my signature to it. Maybe DaveK knows something I don't know...
-
At least for the last 3 years or so, I've only banned obvious spammers, as much as I might be tempted...
-
@ammoQ said:
At least for the last 3 years or so, I've only banned obvious spammers, as much as I might be tempted...
I know, that pstorer is a troublemaker...
-
@ammoQ said:
At least for the last 3 years or so, I've only banned obvious spammers, as much as I might be tempted...
MPS? Or was that Alex? Or longer than 3 years or so?
-
@PJH said:
@ammoQ said:
It was less than 2 years ago. So most likely Alex's hand.At least for the last 3 years or so, I've only banned obvious spammers, as much as I might be tempted...
MPS? Or was that Alex? Or longer than 3 years or so?
-
@Lingerance said:
@PJH said:
@ammoQ said:
It was less than 2 years ago. So most likely Alex's hand.At least for the last 3 years or so, I've only banned obvious spammers, as much as I might be tempted...
MPS? Or was that Alex? Or longer than 3 years or so?It was most definitely Alex. And had not the pure, shining grace of ammoQ overcome him, his hand surely would have smoten me as well.
-
@Monomelodies said:
There are several models of Volkswagen where the radio (whether a plain radio or a nav unit) is somehow inextricably linked with the ECU - pull the radio to swap it, the ECU will gladly ignore your commands to start the fucking car. This is perfectly fine in the eyes of the EU. Your analogy is broken (with the exception that yes, you can totally go out and buy a non-Volkswagen car - but I can also totally go buy a Mac).@amischiefr said:
They have the right to distribute their OS with thier browser
No they don't. They manufacture both the platform as well as the software, so they need to tread carefully. To stay in the car analogies: you buy a Ford which comes with a navigation system by Ford. But you think navigations by TomTom are better. Only, you can't remove Ford's. Installing side-by-side is NOT equal to choice, and since you can't uninstall Ford's your car will still go up in flames if it short-circuits and manages to catch fire. AND you're still paying for Ford's system, even if not directly. Also, Ford explicitly tells you that you can't rip it out and sell it on e-Bay to a non-Ford driver. It's not even your actual property...
The main difference of course being that it's much easier to buy a non-Ford car if you don't like them.
The body of IE that you "can't remove" is the god damned web browser MFC control - which many other applications depend on (including a number of components in Windows itself - and if you argue for ONE FUCKING SECOND that Microsoft should be legally prohibited from using their own API, I'll personally come piss in your breakfast cereal and sodomize your firstborn). But let's just ignore that fact for right now.
Furthermore, the only reason Windows 7 didn't ship with a browser choice in the EU is because NONE OF THE OTHER BROWSER MANUFACTURERS WOULD LET MICROSOFT DISTRIBUTE IT - which means that a Microsoft web browser would have to be used to send you over to their website to download it - which the EU said was unacceptable ANYWAY. Therefore the EU is (through sheer force of ignorance) attempting to more or less outlaw the use of Windows as a web browsing platform unless the computer was sold by a company which was able to get the rights to distribute another browser.
The course of action that I have advocated Microsoft taking here is just saying "Fuck you" to the entire European market, rip every vestige of IE out of the OS, rip out the web browser control, rip out (without replacement) every component of Windows that requires i and prepare a boxed copy of IE8 that restores all that functionality. That other browsers are not sold in boxes is irrelevant and a failing of the other software, not of Microsoft.
-
@Weng said:
piss in your breakfast cereal and sodomize your firstborn
Yes, these things are in the same category.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@belgariontheking said:
Possibly, but I doubt this dude would keep making up accounts just because he thought DaveK was getting banned.Hey asswipe, what's the nick that you think was banned?
Most likely DaveK because of his queerbait 4chan signature. On the one hand, I hate it for being stupid. On the other, this is the second idiot who has thought it was a legitimate ban, which almost makes me want to change my signature to it. Maybe DaveK knows something I don't know...Also, I linked a thread in IRC the other day, and someone in there thought DaveK was banned, so add one to your count.
-
The problem with your reasoning is that VW is not a monopoly - it's not a company that produces let's say 80% of the cars in EU. If this was the case, then VW would have been a monopoly and it wouldn't be allowed to do what you say it does.
Same thing happens with Apple and Safari - as they're not a monopoly or a very big player in the market they don't have to follow the same rules Microsoft has to follow.
Now... regarding the "can't remove IE because it's a MFC control" - that's bullshit. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from creating a 20-50 MB .dll library (or set of libraries) that contains 90% of all the functionality all the applications would even need from the integrated Internet Explorer. Steam (Valve's game distribution thing) just recently moved their interface from using IE to using Webkit - the main Webkit library is 10.6 MB and the whole Steam package is 30 MB.
Each application that would rely on IE for their interface would just install this library and work with it just fine and for older applications which are no longer updated but rely on IE being installed, Microsoft can simply offer to install as additional package in the Add/Remove control panel applet.
Nowadays the only big reason that I see for keeping IE is Windows Update - but Windows Update itself wouldn't need Internet Explorer if it wasn't for the Active X control - if Microsoft would move from Active X control to a Java applet the problem would be solved,
-
@mariushm said:
Now... regarding the "can't remove IE because it's a MFC control" - that's bullshit. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from creating a 20-50 MB .dll library (or set of libraries) that contains 90% of all the functionality all the applications would even need from the integrated Internet Explorer.
You mean MSHTML.DLL (9 MB)? Microsoft's ahead of you by about, oh, a decade or so. It's always good to prove your utter ignorance of the situation when entering a debate though, kudos.
A big problem with the "OMG IE IS EVIL!" movement is that people never specify if they're offended by MSHTML.DLL existing, or by iexplore.exe. The former is required in any modern OS, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded. The latter, on the other hand, is an easily-ignored application, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded. (And uninstallable anyway; even before it showed up in Add/Remove you could just delete the iexplore.exe icon and nothing bad happened.)
@mariushm said:
Each application that would rely on IE for their interface would just install this library and work with it just fine and for older applications which are no longer updated but rely on IE being installed, Microsoft can simply offer to install as additional package in the Add/Remove control panel applet.
Well, since Windows itself contains applications that use MSHTML.DLL, and aren't in danger of people asking for them to be removed (for example, the entire help system is written around that DLL), your proposal there would just be status quo... Microsoft would install the library for Windows to use by default and we've come full-circle.
@mariushm said:
Nowadays the only big reason that I see for keeping IE is Windows Update -
Windows Update hasn't relied on IE in... 4 years now. Again: good job advertising your ignorance. Maybe you should actually learn something about Windows, then come back and make your retarded argument?
Look, if you don't like IE, just don't use it. Nobody's holding a fucking gun to your head. But the people who immediately run to the government to save them from the *scrary* default browser? Those people should really just die in a fire. What an utter waste of taxes.
-
@blakeyrat said:
[MSHTML.DLL] is required in any modern OS, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded.
Really? I've been fine without it for several years now.
-
@Lingerance said:
@blakeyrat said:
[MSHTML.DLL] is required in any modern OS, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded.
Really? I've been fine without it for several years now.more power to you. But it doesn't change the facts that:
Windows ships with components that rely on it.
Its would be retarded to force MS to ship an OS without a HTML renderer control.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You mean MSHTML.DLL (9 MB)? Microsoft's ahead of you by about, oh, a decade or so. It's always good to prove your utter ignorance of the situation when entering a debate though, kudos.
A big problem with the "OMG IE IS EVIL!" movement is that people never specify if they're offended by MSHTML.DLL existing, or by iexplore.exe. The former is required in any modern OS, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded. The latter, on the other hand, is an easily-ignored application, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded. (And uninstallable anyway; even before it showed up in Add/Remove you could just delete the iexplore.exe icon and nothing bad happened.)
As the HTML controls are written by Microsoft, there's nothing stopping them from making what I believe to be called "static builds" of each application that needs this control. I mean executables that have the library inside the executable. Sure, it will be a 20-30 MB executable but Windows 7 has already a 4-8 GB so who cares.
MSHTML is unfortunately not just a single library, there's lots of other files it depends on. For example, let's have a looksie at what libraries is the Help program loading, besides other (around) 200 css, js, chm and js Sysinternals' Filemon.exe repors:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\ieframe.dll
C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\OFFICE11\MSOXMLMF.dll
C:\Program Files\Common Files\SourceTec\SWF Catcher\SWFCatcher.dll
C:\PROGRA~1\Zend\ZENDST~1.0\toolbars\ZENDIE~1.dll
C:\WINDOWS\AppPatch\systest.sdb
C:\WINDOWS\AppPatch\sysmain.sdb
C:\WINDOWS\debug\UserMode\ChkAcc.log
C:\WINDOWS\debug\UserMode\ChkAcc.bak
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\WS2HELP.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\HCAppRes.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\pchshell.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\UxTheme.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\ws03res.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\ws2_32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\acaptuser32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\USERENV.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\mshtml.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\msls31.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\CLBCatQ.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\PSAPI.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\apphelp.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\MSIMG32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\ieframe.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\COMRes.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\SXS.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\SETUPAPI.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\xpsp2res.dll
C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries\ShimEng.dll
C:\WINDOWS\Registration\R00000000000d.clb
C:\WINDOWS\system32\mlang.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\USERENV.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\msxml3.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\WS2HELP.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ws2_32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\msimtf.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\xpsp2res.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ws03res.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\SHELL32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\itss.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\SETUPAPI.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ole32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\msls31.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\PSAPI.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\urlmon.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\UxTheme.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\MSIMG32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\System32\stdole2.tlb
C:\WINDOWS\system32\IMM32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\acaptuser32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\rpcrt4.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\en-US\IEFRAME.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntdll.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtml.tlb
C:\WINDOWS\system32\msxml3r.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\SXS.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\netmsg.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\Msctf.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\rpcss.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\stdole32.tlb
C:\WINDOWS\system32\CLBCatQ.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\rdshost.exe
C:\WINDOWS\system32\atl.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtml.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ShimEng.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\msctfime.ime
C:\WINDOWS\system32\config\software.LOG
C:\WINDOWS\system32\kernel32.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\WININET.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\COMRes.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ieframe.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\apphelp.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\en-US\mshtmled.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtmled.dll
C:\WINDOWS\system32\jscript.dll
C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.3790.3959_x-ww_D8713E55\COMCTL32.dll@blakeyrat said:
Windows Update hasn't relied on IE in... 4 years now. Again: good job advertising your ignorance. Maybe you should actually learn something about Windows, then come back and make your retarded argument?
Sure, if you're corporate and just push the updates to workstations, maybe you don't. But regular users go to http://www.update.microsoft.com and guesswhat that says?
The icon in the start menu is also hardcoded to use Internet Explorer and not any browser - it points to wupdmgr.exe, which is (kind of) hardcoded to work with IE only ... and has the following url inside, hardcoded in the executable :
hcp://system/updatectr/updatecenter.htm
which of course it only works in IE and starts the help system to run windows update.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lingerance said:
My comment was more geared towards the fact that not every OS (As you claimed) relies on it. Even then Windows is usable without it, the only sub-systems I've noted that don't work are update and the help. Which of course shouldn't be the case, but it is. Personally I don't care.@blakeyrat said:
[MSHTML.DLL] is required in any modern OS, so asking Microsoft to remove it is... well simply retarded.
Really? I've been fine without it for several years now.more power to you. But it doesn't change the facts that:
Windows ships with components that rely on it.
Its would be retarded to force MS to ship an OS without a HTML renderer control.
-
@mariushm said:
Sure, if you're corporate and just push the updates to workstations, maybe you don't. But regular users go to http://www.update.microsoft.com and guesswhat that says?
On a modern version of Windows, it says "hey dork, use the fucking control panel you idiot. This site doesn't do jack anymore."
If you're using an ancient release, then yes, maybe that's still relevant. But personally, I don't like using OSes released in 2001 nine years later.
Please update the hyperbole for the current era, thank you.
-
@Lingerance said:
My comment was more geared towards the fact that not every OS (As you claimed) relies on it. Even then Windows is usable without it, the only sub-systems I've noted that don't work are update and the help. Which of course shouldn't be the case, but it is. Personally I don't care.
Which OS doesn't?
I mean, sure... I guess like QNX doesn't. Let's limit ourselves to consumer-oriented OSes.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I'm pretty sure Windows is the only OS that even uses DLLs, so it's fairly safe to say every non-Windows OS doesn't rely on the DLL in question. If you meant equivalents, Linux doesn't require a web-browser or the required libraries as critical components. It can render the help files and receive updates just fine (exception: DSL and Ubuntu both use a web-browser to render man pages for some reason, Ubuntu doesn't always do this though). I'm certain Mac OS X is in the same boat.Which OS doesn't?
I mean, sure... I guess like QNX doesn't. Let's limit ourselves to consumer-oriented OSes.
-
@Lingerance said:
I'm pretty sure Windows is the only OS that even uses DLLs, so it's fairly safe to say every non-Windows OS doesn't rely on the DLL in question. If you meant equivalents, Linux doesn't require a web-browser or the required libraries as critical components. It can render the help files and receive updates just fine (exception: DSL and Ubuntu both use a web-browser to render man pages for some reason, Ubuntu doesn't always do this though). I'm certain Mac OS X is in the same boat.
Don't bullshit me, I know both GNOME and KDE use the hell out of their HTML controls. OS X is actually the only one I'm unsure about, although I know it *has* an HTML control, I don't know what built-in OS apps use it. (I'm wagering iTunes does, if nothing else.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
On a modern version of Windows, it says "hey dork, use the fucking control panel you idiot. This site doesn't do jack anymore."
If you're using an ancient release, then yes, maybe that's still relevant. But personally, I don't like using OSes released in 2001 nine years later.
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise is modern enough.
Don't bullshit me, I know both GNOME and KDE use the hell out of their HTML controls. OS X is actually the only one I'm unsure about, although I know it *has* an HTML control, I don't know what built-in OS apps use it. (I'm wagering iTunes does, if nothing else.)
And are you FORCED to use either Gnome or KDE? No, you can install Linux without any of those or with other guis.
-
@mariushm said:
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise is modern enough.
Yeah, there haven't been two server releases since it came out... oh.
-
@mariushm said:
And are you FORCED to use either Gnome or KDE? No, you can install Linux without any of those or with other guis.
That's like saying you can opt out of power windows when you buy a Hyundai shitbox. Can we stick to talking about operating systems used by people without neck beards?
-
@Aaron said:
Can we stick to talking about operating systems used by people without neck beards?
If we do that, we risk losing the all-important Amish demographic.
-
@bstorer said:
@Aaron said:
Can we stick to talking about operating systems used by people without neck beards?
If we do that, we risk losing the all-important Amish demographic.Fuck 'em, they're all Mac users.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@bstorer said:
If we do that, we risk losing the all-important Amish demographic.
Fuck 'em, they're all Mac users.
Really? I thought they were all still using punch cards.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What a bunch of overpaying morons. Do you have any idea how many tool sheds or pieces of wicker furniture you'd have to build to afford one Mac? They could build their own Linux system for half the price and spend the savings on an extra wheel or axle for their buggy, so that they don't get stuck on the road to Fort Walla Walla.@bstorer said:
@Aaron said:
Can we stick to talking about operating systems used by people without neck beards?
If we do that, we risk losing the all-important Amish demographic.Fuck 'em, they're all Mac users.
-
@ender said:
@mariushm said:
Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise is modern enough.
Yeah, there haven't been two server releases since it came out... oh.Because when you colocate a dedicated server and its hardware runs perfectly with Windows 2003, you suddently feel the urge to buy another dedicated server, get windows 2008 and move all the shit to the new server, disrupt your business, run QA on the new servers for weeks, just because there's a new OS out there.
Just because there's something new out there, doesn't mean the old stuff is obsolete and inadequate.
-
@Aaron said:
When did they get round to using paper that wasn't the devil's work? News to me...@morbiuswilters said:
@bstorer said:
If we do that, we risk losing the all-important Amish demographic.
Fuck 'em, they're all Mac users.
Really? I thought they were all still using punch cards.
-
@dhromed said:
@lanzz said:
with Safari, of course.
So...
1. Use IE to go to Apple.com and download Safari/Win
2. Use Safari to go to getfirefox.com and, er, get Firefox.
3. Uninstall Safari
?
I left out the proft step for obvious reasons.
Incorrect.
You download safari with google chrome.
-
@mariushm said:
Because when you colocate a dedicated server and its hardware runs perfectly with Windows 2003, you suddently feel the urge to buy another dedicated server, get windows 2008 and move all the shit to the new server, disrupt your business, run QA on the new servers for weeks, just because there's a new OS out there.
Just because there's something new out there, doesn't mean the old stuff is obsolete and inadequate.
Nobody's saying it's obsolete and inadequete. But for the purposes of this discussion (IE is used by Windows Update), it's old enough to not be relevant.
Unless your complaint is, "Microsoft has failed to go back in time and patch OSes created before they knew they had to patch them." In which case, Microsoft lacks time machine technology.
-
@dhromed said:
@lanzz said:
with Safari, of course.
So...
1. Use IE to go to Apple.com and download Safari/Win
2. Use Safari to go to getfirefox.com and, er, get Firefox.
3. Uninstall Safari
?
I left out the proft step for obvious reasons.
start > run > ftp.exe releases.mozilla.orgUSER anonymous
PASS whatever
CD /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/win32/en-US/
PASV
LS
TYPE I
RETR Firefox Setup 3.6.exe
... or just use the basic built in ftp clientto get your browser, if you don't get it for free already on CD/DVD from any store or from any IT magazine that comes with a DVD....
Some time ago you used to type this much just to boot a computer...
-
@mariushm said:
... or just use the basic built in ftp clientto get your browser, if you don't get it for free already on CD/DVD from any store or from any IT magazine that comes with a DVD....
Some time ago you used to type this much just to boot a computer...
Jesus Fucking Christ you are a dipshit. Who in the fuck still reads magazines, gets software off of freely-distrubuted CDs (or CDs at all?) or uses FTP? Holy shit, people should just write their own HTML parser and display engine! You used to have to type that much to even write your own kernel, derp-dee-doo!!
Seriously, fucking pathetic, man. You lose.
-
@mariushm said:
start > run > ftp.exe releases.mozilla.orgUSER anonymous
PASS whatever
CD /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/win32/en-US/
PASV
LS
TYPE I
RETR Firefox Setup 3.6.exe
... or just use the basic built in ftp clientto get your browser, if you don't get it for free already on CD/DVD from any store or from any IT magazine that comes with a DVD....
Some time ago you used to type this much just to boot a computer...
Wow, that's some crazy h@x0r shit you're doing there, did you learn that all on your own?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Who in the fuck still reads magazines, gets software off of freely-distrubuted CDs (or CDs at all?) or uses FTP?
People who are incredibly angry that a convicted monopoli$t is trying to offer them a free web browser. Who cares if grampa can't figure out how to do all this? If he doesn't get it then maybe he shouldn't be on the internet at all, because this is obviously way better than having IE pre-installed and going to www.firefox.com to download a different browser if you actually give two shits. IE is wasting precious megabytes! What if I need that space to store my rants about how programmers should work for free? Did I mention that Micro$oft was a Convicted Monopoli$t?
-
@Aaron said:
People who are incredibly angry that a convicted monopoli$t is trying to offer them a free web browser.
This. In today's world, the greater crime would be to release a consumer OS without a web browser.
-
Look guys, I really don't care if IE is inside the OS or not, I was just stating that the UE decision in MY oppinion it was a fair one.
When you are a monopoly, no matter how you put it, things change and you have to follow some more strict rules and one of these rules is to offer fair ground for all developers. Nobody says Microsoft is not allowed to have Internet Explorer, but that it must be possible for users to uninstall it and for system builders to replace it with something else, if they wish to. As this is apparently not possible - because MS intentionally integrated lots of products with it (Office, Sharepoint, Outlook Express, ASP.net had IE specific output at some time and didn't work right on browsers that follow standards... all use IE to keep users and companies locked in using IE) - UE decided to force MS in showing that screen.
Now the reason why I would prefer (but don't care) to have a Windows without IE and to see Windows versions without IE, is 1. security reasons (there are bugs and exploits announced every month for IE 6 and 7) and 2. developers and software producers will no longer assume IE is installed everywhere and make "optimizations" for IE.
Regarding how you get a browser... seriously guys... is this really a problem?
System builders will install the operating system for you and copy on the drive two or three browsers and write a short autorun style program that would ask people to install a browser when they first boot the PC - it's not rocket science.
Grandpa will get the same PC as he does now, from companies like Dell or HP, with bloatware and toolbars and all the crap, so they're not affected.
When you buy components to build a computer, you get a CD with almost every one, which holds manuals, drivers and whatever crap they add. Just like Ubuntu offered free CDs (and still does: https://shipit.ubuntu.com/) IT companies can request a few hundred CDs and give them for free with every purchase. You really don't need a browser to download a browser.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Don't bullshit me, I know both GNOME and KDE use the hell out of their HTML controls.
I believe we've had this conversation before. GNOME and KDE are not Linux, nor are they essential parts of Linux, nor are they limited to working on Linux alone. Last time I checked XFCE, LDE and Enlightenment don't even have HTML controls, and all three are Desktop Environments just as GNOME and KDE are. Even using a DE isn't required.
-
@mariushm said:
shit
Look, we've already debunked most of this garbage years ago. Please don't make us rehash it yet again. Spoiler alert: you are stupid and wrong.
-
@Lingerance said:
@blakeyrat said:
Don't bullshit me, I know both GNOME and KDE use the hell out of their HTML controls.
I believe we've had this conversation before. GNOME and KDE are not Linux, nor are they essential parts of Linux, nor are they limited to working on Linux alone. Last time I checked XFCE, LDE and Enlightenment don't even have HTML controls, and all three are Desktop Environments just as GNOME and KDE are. Even using a DE isn't required.Which is not the argument that's being made. We're talking about consumer, desktop OSes here. I don't think any variant of Linux should even be in the running, but if one is it's going to be something like Ubuntu or Knoppix which is a fat desktop environment.
In fact, the entire argument is gay. Having HTML rendering built deeply into the OS is a feature. Like all features, it has its benefits and downsides. There is no absolute "right" way to build a complex desktop OS. And while it might be fair to critique the tradeoffs and advantages of various methods, these inverse dick-waving contests ("mine is smaller and less likely to get a virus!"--yeah, because it's less likely to see any action at all) are tedious and exhausting.
-
System builders could bundle other browsers when XP came out. They didn't. So why is Microsoft being punished because Dell, HP, Sony, etc didn't exercise their right to pack in another browser?
The sad truth is that customers want IE.
-
@blakeyrat said:
System builders could bundle other browsers when XP came out. They didn't. So why is Microsoft being punished because Dell, HP, Sony, etc didn't exercise their right to pack in another browser?
The sad truth is that customers want IE.
Microsoft paid them not to install others, Dell and HP and others were paid by advertisers to bundle toolbars that worked on IE as Active-X controls so there was no interest in providing alternatives and finally, adding a second browser to their OS image they use to preload automatically on all computers would make it harder for them for almost no benefit - why keep two OS images (one without Firefox for businesses and one with), pay someone to keep the OS image updated, why risk having legal issues with Microsoft because your OS image doesn't set Firefox to work by default with bing.... AFAIK Dell only paid about 35$ for each Windows license so you can imagine they had to do some things to get the low price.
Some business still prefer IE over other browsers simply because its configuration can be restricted and controlled by administrators from a central server, and administrators can change the settings to all computers in a network automatically if they want to. This is still not really possible with Firefox or other browsers.
The customers don't really *want* IE, most just don't know there are alternative or don't bother trying out others until they get their computers so infected children fix their systems and change the internet explorer shortcut to point to firefox.exe
For most people, the blue e is associated with "the internet" - go on the internet equals clicking on that blue e...
