DEAR FIREFOX
-
@marczellm so are they locking people in to Google?
Also, IE and edge have historically been pretty good on following web standards
-
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Also, IE and edge have historically been pretty good on following web standards
Edge and IE starting with version 7? Sure, they made decent efforts.
IE6 and before? Not so much. Unless you define "web standards" by "whatever the most popular browser is doing", in which case it's true but also a tautology.
-
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@marczellm so are they locking people in to Google?
Also, IE and edge have historically been pretty good on following web standards
You've got it backwards. Before Chrome became the dominant browser, Microsoft pretty much did whatever they wanted. Whatever IE did was the defacto standard and websites were designed and tested against IE. Even today, there are a couple of websites I frequent that don't work properly unless I spoof my useragent and say that I'm using IE.
-
@dkf said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Never forgive, never forget!
What are we supposed to never forgive?
I've forgotten.You forgot the rest:
But we'll continue fighting to the death for it!
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Who shipped (and still ships) bundled browser and claimed (and still claims) it can't be removed because it's part of the OS? Oh wait...
Do you mean the company that makes an OS that only runs on their proprietary hardware, and doesn't allow any browsers other than skins for its own one? No, you don't mean that one? Then wtf are you even talking about?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Who shipped (and still ships) bundled browser and claimed (and still claims) it can't be removed because it's part of the OS? Oh wait...
Still claims?
You can remove IE11 from Windows 10 using the GUI, and Edge can be removed with theRemove-AppXPackagecommand.
-
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Who shipped (and still ships) bundled browser and claimed (and still claims) it can't be removed because it's part of the OS? Oh wait...
Google Chrome OS.
Pretty sure it's Apple.
-
@loopback0 said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Who shipped (and still ships) bundled browser and claimed (and still claims) it can't be removed because it's part of the OS? Oh wait...
Still claims?
You can remove IE11 from Windows 10 using the GUI, and Edge can be removed with theRemove-AppXPackagecommand.Basically all of @levicki's things that Microsoft still does are things they haven't done for at least 10 years. Standard inability to let go of hatred
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
people with an attention span measured in femtoseconds can't understand.
This just in! Guppy discovered that can remember things!
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
That's general consumer ToS, not SLA for businesses.
Clearly the apparently constant "altering of the terms of our agreement" has not deterred it's use.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
So this Microsoft you are talking about is not the same entity which practiced underhanded business tactics to eliminate competition? Should we forget about it because it was "years ago"? Why don't we also forget about Hitler, colonialism and slavery when we are at forgetting things that are not done anymore?
I'm explicitly arguing with the "and they still do [vendor lock in]". Arguing stuff they haven't done in 20 years weakens your case and makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
If by "remove" you mean remove start icon by unchecking a box yes.
No I mean remove it. At the very least it removes the executable and some of the other files.
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
As for Edge, no you can't remove it with Remove-AppxPackage command.
Huh, so you can't. It was possible. I wonder which update changed that.
edit: It's hardly an example of vendor lock-in though.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Check your facts, iexplore.exe is never removed.
Check your facts.
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
No, but it is an example of anti-competitive behavior.
How? It doesn't stop you installing Firefox, setting it to default and forgetting Edge exists.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
So this Microsoft you are talking about is not the same entity which practiced underhanded business tactics to eliminate competition?
This is a very philosophical question, and only philosophy can answer it.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Clearly the apparently constant "altering of the terms of our agreement" has not deterred it's use.
It's not like you have other options when you are dealing with Darth Vader of companies.
And whose fault is that?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
It's not like you have other options when you are dealing with Darth Vader of companies.
And which one is that?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Gąska said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Why are you asking this? It's not what he claimed. He was only talking about .Net Core.
I am asking because most cross-platform apps are not .NET Core so what he brought up is entirely irrelevant as an argument against vendor lock-in.
And did you think that was a relevant statistic? Most cross-platform apps are not Java, is that proof of Oracle vendor lock-in?
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
I thought we were talking about "still do". That was years ago
So this Microsoft you are talking about is not the same entity which practiced underhanded business tactics to eliminate competition? Should we forget about it because it was "years ago"? Why don't we also forget about Hitler, colonialism and slavery when we are at forgetting things that are not done anymore?
When talking about Germany, Britain, and the USA, no, we typically don't give importance to those things.
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
No, it wasn't. It's a cross-platform text editor. Cross-platform, you know, that thing that means there's no Windows lock-in.
"Cross-platform" does not equate "no vendor lock-in". If anything else it serves as a carrot to get people to start using other Microsoft products. It's not free out of the kindness of their hearts.
Stuff that does not encourage lock-in only serves to butter you up for the lock-in.
Tinfoil hats for sale, get yer tinfoil hats. Good solid authentic alien construction.I wasn't aware 'looks like shit' was a moniker of vendor lock-in.
All I said is that a few cross-platform .NET Core apps which look good on all platforms are not proof of no vendor lock-in.
Of course not. But the presence of GUI ability on all platforms is.
Cross platform is vendor lock in. You can't make this shit up.
If you can work with Linux stack in Windows why do you need Linux again?
Beats me. Linux sucks. But you can if you need to.
Yes, exactly, that's what was behind 'Why?'. 'Why do you ask stupid questions?'
No u.
Says the man asking stupid questions.
'Everything else is shit' isn't at all meaningful - is this really your first foray into 'it's hard to have quality software that's also FOSS'? Oh yeah and there isn't vendor lock-in even there because MS Office supports ODF and Office is also available on OSX.
You really don't understand what "vendor lock-in" means, don't you?
Vendor lock-in is when majority of your data is stored in proprietary format -- .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx are still proprietary despite being "open" and no, people are not going to open and resave all their old .doc, .xls, and .ppt files either.
The fact that you can use Microsoft Office on a Mac does not negate the fact that you still end up paying for Microsoft Office in the end and that Microsoft Office is the only application which can render your documents made with Microsoft Office properly.
Or Google Docs or OpenOffice or LibreOffice.
And I know LibreOffice and GDocs supports the old non-XML formats.When my computer's internet options also change settings in a particular web browser, and when the 'webpage viewer' UI component of the OS's GUI SDK uses the renderer from that web browser, I'd consider the web browser a system component.
It's one thing to have a default HTML renderer in the OS and SDK. It's totally another to blatantly promote if not outright enforce default browser based on said renderer.
They promote Windows Explorer and Windows Firewall too. The horror.
Paying you / giving you free/discounted shit is in no way a 'lock in'. It's encouragement.
And if it is an encouragement to not allow competition then that's also illegal, not just lock-in.
Someone should tell Comcast that selling bundles of services discountedly is illegal.
The entire point of the TOS is that it's a legal document that you agree to. I'm pretty sure no court in the world would uphold a TOS whose content you never had access to.
The Microsoft SLA is a
but I don't expect you to know that if you never worked with their licensing.For example, how many Windows Server Hyper-V VMs can you run on a Windows Server Standard? Hint: it used to be 4.
Why do I care? It's in the document. If your lawyers can't interpret a legal document then either they shouldn't be lawyers or the document should be ruled unenforceable depending on whose fault it is.
so where's the problem?
The problem is that you are responsible to make sure you are aware of ToS changes and that you understand what their legalese speech means at all times and asking their representatives never gets you a straight answer. They are playing dirty all the fucking time.
See above. And like I said, they notify you of changes.
Fucked if I know. I highly doubt the story is true as you have recounted it and you misinterpreted what someone told you. E.g. maybe it was a fine and you got Azure credits for free as a token of goodwill.
No you moron, we didn't get Azure credits for free, we got them for 50,000€ and we had to agree to migrate a cetain percentage of our physical machines to Azure as part of that fine. Forcing people to give up on physical machines and move to Azure is just locking them in even further.
@dcon said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Sounds like your lawyers suck.
Of course they suck, we are not Oracle. Any smaller company lawyers are going to suck compared to a behemoth like Microsoft and their lawyer-weasels.
Suck so hard they can't read a legal document?
@loopback0 said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Still claims?
You can remove IE11 from Windows 10 using the GUI, and Edge can be removed with theRemove-AppXPackagecommand.If by "remove" you mean remove start icon by unchecking a box yes. As for Edge, no you can't remove it with Remove-AppxPackage command. You can use
install_wim_tweak.exeto remove it but even if you do so, many things will still try to launch it instead of whatever default you set because they are referencing it directly withms-edgeand assume it exists.And, just to be clear, your argument is that it isn't a system component.
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Basically all of @levicki's things that Microsoft still does are things they haven't done for at least 10 years. Standard inability to let go of hatred
Standard retarded USA citizen mentality of "yeah they did horrible things years ago to get rich and entrench themselves in the market, but they don't do that anymore -- they are all pink, fluffy, and benevolent now."
It's not hatred, it's vigilance, but people with an attention span measured in femtoseconds can't understand.
Absolutely impossible, it's not like they've undergone a significant change in leadership a couple of times or anything.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@levicki Just evangelize about vim, why don't you.
Dude I wrote Z80 assembler in 1982 when neither Windows let alone Visual Studio were around to tell me how to do it, and I did just fine.We had those things called books, which contained instruction set manuals, hardware schematics, chipset register layout, and we read those. We studied those books hard to find out how to squeeze the computer to the very last byte, the very last CPU clock. It was amazing what you could fit in 16K of RAM, let alone 48K, and later 512K with Amiga.Everything we have today is an utter, wasteful, barely cobbled together, donkey shite and Microsoft and IBM are the ones to blame because every alternative to them was better thought out be it Atari, Amiga or dozens of other systems available at the time, all of them gone because of Microsoft and IBM playing all kind of dirty games to sell their shoddy hardware and software engineering.So with great indignance I shit on your lousy future where large corporations are telling you what to think (and now also how to write code), and I proudly declare that I have a mind of my own. Maybe it's faulty by your millennial standards, but at least its mine and it doesn't need your overlords' permission to disagree with this enforced mediocrity.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Gąska said in DEAR FIREFOX:
This is a very philosophical question, and only philosophy can answer it.
It would be philosophical question if we were talking about
plankspeople that constitute Microsoft, but we are talking about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.And what makes Microsoft behave anti-competitively, if not the people within?
In other words, if you replace all planks of the ship and it still steers three degrees to the left like it did with the old planks then for all intents and purposes it's the same rat infested ship.
But does it? Do you have any examples of anti-competitive behavior from the last 5 years?
-
I'm just going to post a totally random emoji every time you say something moronic and irrelevant.
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@loopback0 said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Check your facts.
I have no way to check whether you deleted it manually for that screenshot or the OS really removes the executable as well. If it does, then I stand corrected, that behavior must have been added recently because unchecking it from optionalfeatures.exe didn't do it in previous versions.
Good old 'It's impossible because I couldn't figure it out and didn't bother asking anyone else'.
How? It doesn't stop you installing Firefox, setting it to default and forgetting Edge exists.
Except that some apps insist on opening links in Edge by launching it by means of "ms-edge" protocol.
And just to be clear, your argument is that it shouldn't be a system component.
@Gąska said in DEAR FIREFOX:
This is a very philosophical question, and only philosophy can answer it.
It would be philosophical question if we were talking about
plankspeople that constitute Microsoft, but we are talking about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. In other words, if you replace all planks of the ship and it still steers three degrees to the left like it did with the old planks then for all intents and purposes it's the same rat infested ship.I wonder whether you're a fan of Microsoft or not.
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
And did you think that was a relevant statistic? Most cross-platform apps are not Java, is that proof of Oracle vendor lock-in?
Bettera ask people who use Oracle DB about vendor lock-in.
When talking about Germany, Britain, and the USA, no, we typically don't give importance to those things.
You forgot the other two FVEY members. A tight bunch of imperialist assholes pretending to be democracies offering a fair chance of success to everyone while still being run by old white boys club.
Stuff that does not encourage lock-in
Like what?
Like the stuff I was talking about. If you quoted me normally instead of editing out all the interesting bits you might start making slightly more sense.
Of course not. But the presence of GUI ability on all platforms is.
Believe it or not, AmigaOS had GUI while PC still had text-only user interface. You could have ported that GUI to all platforms too and it would indicate exactly nothing like your example.
Beats me. Linux sucks. But you can if you need to.
That's what I am saying. Linux does suck for desktop use. If Microsoft can get hardcore Linux users to switch you will be witnessing another example of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy they are so famous for.
They're doing something that isn't vendor lock-in, and that's how you know they're pushing towards vendor lock-in. One step up from the previous answer's tinfoil hat.
Says the man asking stupid questions.
Says a man asking stupid questions when he doesn't have real arguments.
Or Google Docs or OpenOffice or LibreOffice.
And I know LibreOffice and GDocs supports the old non-XML formats."Support" != "Render correctly".
Huh?
They promote Windows Explorer and Windows Firewall too. The horror.
How do they promote those?
Something something non-removable default program system component wharrgarbl.
On the other hand, when you click to change default browser in Windows 10 it shows a popup saying "Try Microsoft Edge" with a large "Don't switch" button and a tiny link "Switch anyway" beneath.
Someone should tell Comcast that selling bundles of services discountedly is illegal.
You really picked a shiny example of an ethical company with impeccable billing practices and great customer support... oh wait.
Why do I care?
So you don't know? And you claim to understand how Microsoft licensing works. That means I can discard everything else you shat out on the subject.
No, I don't know some arbitrary number that I could easily look up in the document. You forgot to respond to the parts about your lawyers being so godfucking stupid as to be unable to read said legal document. IOW:
And, just to be clear, your argument is that it isn't a system component.
No, my argument is that IT SHOULDN'T BE a system component. HTML renderer aka webview? Sure, you need such a system component. Browser based on said webview? Hell no, it should not be system component and non-removable.
Glad we established that it's removable then. But it shouldn't be. How do you handle the 'attempt to open URL' action with no browser installed?
Absolutely impossible, it's not like they've undergone a significant change in leadership a couple of times or anything.
I know a country which underwent significant change in leadership many times but they are still a world class assholes.
And yet their strategies and practices changed each time, no?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
No amount of examples would be enough for you because you would just claim they are invalid
[Citation needed]
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
I am going to save us both some effort and not provide any further examples than the ones I already provided.
What examples? The ones that no longer apply in the present?
-
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
How do you handle the 'attempt to open URL' action with no browser installed?
By using the system component for webview. Just, you know, without the program that would (in theory) host it. Since, you know, it wouldn't exist.
-
@Tsaukpaetra A component with no host? Wat?
-
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Tsaukpaetra A component with no host? Wat?
I'm trying to get into @levicki 's head and explain what he means the best I can. I don't think I can succeed, but I can sure try!
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Gąska said in DEAR FIREFOX:
And what makes Microsoft behave anti-competitively, if not the people within?
It's not all people, just those at the helm (pun intended) responsible for the corporate culture. You know, the guys like that one "rogue engineer" from Volkswagen.
And people at the top hsve changed quite a lot in MS recently. You're just further debunking your own point.
But does it? Do you have any examples of anti-competitive behavior from the last 5 years?
No amount of examples would be enough for you because you would just claim they are invalid
One will be more than enough - as long as it's from July 2014 or later. I have no other conditions at all. So far, you've provided zero.
-
@JBert said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Also did you know that DOCX, XSLX, etc. are open standards?
Those "open standards" tend to be undecipherable in some places if you don't have the Office source code to look it up (a lot has to do with further dependencies on vector formats and how the old Office formats used OLE structured storage).
With tags like
lineWrapLikeWord6andshapeLayoutLikeWW8it's really quite obvious. To correctly implement the "standard" you have to emulate MS Word bug-for-bug.
-
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@marczellm so are they locking people in to Google?
Also, IE and edge have historically been pretty good on following web standards
IE?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.".
At least MSDN remembers
-
@LaoC historically was the wrong word, yes. But the last few versions have erred on the side of standards compliance with few if any extensions, whereas chrome has tended to add shit, get all the web devs using it and assume the W3C will add it as a standard since everybody does it anyway
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@levicki Just evangelize about vim, why don't you.
Dude I wrote Z80 assembler in 1982 when neither Windows let alone Visual Studio were around to tell me how to do it, and I did just fine.
We had those things called books, which contained instruction set manuals, hardware schematics, chipset register layout, and we read those. We studied those books hard to find out how to squeeze the computer to the very last byte, the very last CPU clock. It was amazing what you could fit in 16K of RAM, let alone 48K, and later 512K with Amiga.
Everything we have today is an utter, wasteful, barely cobbled together, donkey shite and Microsoft and IBM are the ones to blame because every alternative to them was better thought out be it Atari, Amiga or dozens of other systems available at the time, all of them gone because of Microsoft and IBM playing all kind of dirty games to sell their shoddy hardware and software engineering.
So with great indignance I shit on your lousy future where large corporations are telling you what to think (and now also how to write code), and I proudly declare that I have a mind of my own. Maybe it's faulty by your millennial standards, but at least its mine and it doesn't need your overlords' permission to disagree with this enforced mediocrity.
This is gold. I'm so going to copypasta this all over.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
How do you handle the 'attempt to open URL' action with no browser installed?
By using the system component for webview. Just, you know, without the program that would (in theory) host it. Since, you know, it wouldn't exist.
Actually I'm somewhat surprised that filesystem browser hasn't been made a pre-defined web page loading from a browser yet. After all, everyone has tried to access local files from the browser via
file:///, and it should only make sense that you can browse web pages from filesystem viewer too.
-
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@LaoC historically was the wrong word, yes. But the last few versions have erred on the side of standards compliance with few if any extensions, whereas chrome has tended to add shit, get all the web devs using it and assume the W3C will add it as a standard since everybody does it anyway
I thought you mean Safari with its ES6 tail call optimization compliance. The only feature in ES6 that is practically completely dead (besides module system).
-
@_P_ said in DEAR FIREFOX:
it should only make sense that you can browse web pages from filesystem viewer too.
That's how it used to work in 9x, and how @levicki thinks it still works. IE and Windows Explorer were basically different UIs around the same component
-
@Jaloopa said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@_P_ said in DEAR FIREFOX:
it should only make sense that you can browse web pages from filesystem viewer too.
That's how it used to work in 9x, and how @levicki thinks it still works. IE and Windows Explorer were basically different UIs around the same component
That was the case all the way through Windows XP.
And now there's some sort of connection between Windows Explorer and Edge. You can't run Edge by simply navigating to some directory and clicking on
edge.exe. You to have create a shortcut that contains the magic incantation:%windir%\explorer.exe shell:Appsfolder\Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe!MicrosoftEdge** I don't know if this also applies to the Chromified version of Edge.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Or, you know, you could tell the users that they should download and install another browser before uninstalling the official one?
According to you there should be no "official one".
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
here's a crazy idea,
Sweet, you already know it's insane, so I don't even need to hear about it. Thanks for the heads up!
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
still depending on compatibility shims in IE.
Oh you haven't heard? They're just Loading such sites in an iexplore frame. Boom, compatibility?
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
once again have a monopoly
I'm getting mixed signals here. Do you or do you not want Microsoft to be a monopoly?
-
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
You know I meant
No, I don't. I don't read minds. If reading your mind is an expected normal capability, then no wonder!
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Oh but this way they won't need no stinking frames.
You overestimate the anti-
of Microsoft developers...@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
eat (and choke on) some well deserved crow.
I think I'm failing to read your mind (again); crow isn't all that bad, if a bit oily....
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@dkf said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Did you expect otherwise? Here?
Of course not, just using the opportunity to call them names.
I respond to many names. "
ass" is not one of them.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
No, I don't know some arbitrary number that I could easily look up in the document.
Then why don't you look it up and mansplain it to us here? You obviously can read legalese unlike the lawyers at my company.
Whyever would you conclude that? I'm not a lawyer. I don't get paid to interpret legal documents. Your lawyers, on the other hand, do and therefore should be able to figure it out. If they aren't, then either the bar standard is pretty damn low these days, or the contract is so confusing as to be unenforceable, or you and your company are a bunch of total retards. Really, it could go any of those three ways.
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Glad we established that it's removable then. But it shouldn't be.
No, it's the other way around.
How do you handle the 'attempt to open URL' action with no browser installed?
The real question is how exactly are you attempting to open an URL when you have no browser installed?
Because I have a program I am using and it attempted to open a URL in a browser without assuming any particular browser. For example
Desktop.getDesktop().browse(new URI("https://sanger.dk"))in Java.@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
And yet their strategies and practices changed each time, no?
No, they haven't. They are still
protecting their interestspushing their nose in other people's business, starting armed conflicts, overthrowing governments and installing loyal pawns which allow them to syphon out natural resources and buy (and destroy) anything worth buying, using economic pressure and sanctions to force unfair trade deals on other countries, doing ecologically dirty work in other countries, exploiting cheap labor and lack of regulations in other countries, etc, etc.And I notice the complete lack of any mention of the Holocaust, slavery, or colonialism in your answer. QED.
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
By using the system component for webview. Just, you know, without the program that would (in theory) host it. Since, you know, it wouldn't exist.
Or, you know, you could tell the users that they should download and install another browser before uninstalling the official one?
And then they click OK because nobody reads popups. Now what?
Or, here's a crazy idea, you could have a host application which is not a browser but it is using webview to interface with a digital software distribution system like, you know, some kind of... store? Where users could go to download competing browsers?
You could have a host application which is not a browser but it is using webview. And, you know, just for convenience, maybe add things like back and forward navigation. Maybe some configuration options. Hmm, how about tabs? While we're at it...
By the way, I really hope Microsoft backports ActiveX support to Edge now that they switched to Chromium engine -- all enterprises would wet their panties to get something like that so they can run all those shitty apps still depending on compatibility shims in IE.
I, for one, welcome an ActiveX-Blazor compatibility layer.
That would make Google Chrome no longer necessary for other stuff and they would lose market share while Microsoft would once again have a monopoly, but this time (oh the irony) on a browser based off the open-source.
Microsoft will make Edge not use any Google authentication services because they really want to push Bing and Outlook and whatever else the fuck. So I'll keep using Chrome.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
I respond to many names. "
ass" is not one of them.And this post of yours is not a response then?
I'm not responding to the phrase as if it were my name, no.
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
They try to open the link again and get the popup again but this time they read it before clicking OK?
No, not really.
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Yes, and an option to uninstall it fully would be nice. You know, listing it in the Add/Remove Programs just like any other application we use to open things.
I suppose you also want the likes of Notepad, Windows Photo Viewer, Control Panel, Driver Installation Module, etc. to be listed in Add/Remove Programs too, eh?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
I suppose you also want the likes of Notepad, Windows Photo Viewer, Control Panel, Driver Installation Module, etc. to be listed in Add/Remove Programs too, eh?
Of course, the Windows I am using doesn't even have Add/Remove Programs because I removed that junk too.
And people were shaming me when I did that....
What makes you so special?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@dkf said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Did you expect otherwise? Here?
Of course not, just using the opportunity to call them names.
"Calling someone names" is generally understood to mean calling them insulting names. You've been around here long enough to know that "
ass" is anything but an insult here. Many would regard it as a high compliment.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
eat (and choke on) some well deserved crow.
I think I'm failing to read your mind (again); crow isn't all that bad, if a bit oily....
He probably just gave you the wrong bird.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
No, I don't. I don't read minds. If reading your mind is an expected normal capability, then no wonder!
Nice to see you back @blakeyrat but you've signed in to the wrong alt
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
They try to open the link again and get the popup again but this time they read it before clicking OK?
Awe, you're so sweet
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Whyever would you conclude that?
Because you just said it is easy?
Easy for lawyers. I'm leaning towards the 'total retards' option here.
Because I have a program I am using and it attempted to open a URL in a browser without assuming any particular browser. For example
Desktop.getDesktop().browse(new URI("https://sanger.dk"))in Java.What would happen on Linux if you do that and the user has no browser installed?
Hell if I know. Maybe the HTML file is opened with vim.
What happens if you try to open a .doc file without Office installed?
It asks you what program you want to open the file with.
And I notice the complete lack of any mention of the Holocaust, slavery, or colonialism in your answer. QED.
That's because I was talking about the other fascist country, the USA.
Right. Which would have corresponded to slavery. And didn't.
And then they click OK because nobody reads popups. Now what?
They try to open the link again and get the popup again but this time they read it before clicking OK?
Open what link? We're talking about uninstalling. Remember when I said it helps to fully quote the response?
You could have a host application which is not a browser but it is using webview. And, you know, just for convenience, maybe add things like back and forward navigation. Maybe some configuration options. Hmm, how about tabs? While we're at it...
Yes, and an option to uninstall it fully would be nice. You know, listing it in the Add/Remove Programs just like any other application we use to open things.
Uninstall the system webview component?
Round and round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows!Microsoft will make Edge not use any Google authentication services because they really want to push Bing and Outlook and whatever else the fuck. So I'll keep using Chrome.
They can't break any Google services or nobody will want to use Edge.
Because people will totally use Edge for the Google integration.
What they can do is default to Bing search (and keep asking us to reset to Microsoft defaults like they do now with my IE11 every time I launch it). They could also stop selling Office software and provide only web-based access to it with monthly subscription. That would be enough leverage to push people to use Edge because "Office 365 works best in Edge" just like "Youtube works best in Chrome" now.
Since when was YouTube a desktop app? And since when did Office have anything to do with the browser / Edge?
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@Tsaukpaetra said in DEAR FIREFOX:
I suppose you also want the likes of Notepad, Windows Photo Viewer, Control Panel, Driver Installation Module, etc. to be listed in Add/Remove Programs too, eh?
Of course, the Windows I am using doesn't even have Add/Remove Programs because I removed that junk too.
Tip: Don't do that.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
the Windows I am using doesn't even have Add/Remove Programs because I removed that junk too.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
Easy for lawyers. I'm leaning towards the 'total retards' option here.
That should include yourself then, so answer the question.
If by 'that' you mean lawyers, I'm not a lawyer. If by 'that' you mean total retards, remember I said it was you and your entire company, and not anything to do with me. Helps when you fully quote!
Hell if I know. Maybe the HTML file is opened with vim.
...
It asks you what program you want to open the file with.That's exactly what
would happenis already happening on Windows too. Now tell me why did you even ask that stupid hypothetical?Because that's the opening a file dialog. We're talking about opening a URL.
Right. Which would have corresponded to slavery. And didn't.
Sorry, I can't follow your trainwreck of thoughts. Real slavery did exist in the USA and apparently it still exists, at least when it comes to the general workforce which is so indebted that they can't take a day off when sick and have to slave away 80 hours per week in their cattle pens.
Did you read an article?
Open what link? We're talking about uninstalling. Remember when I said it helps to fully quote the response?
What I meant is they will have to repeat the action that lead to the popup. You never mentioned the exact conditions so fully quoting you would do jack shit to improve this exchange.
You're still not making any sense. You uninstall, it pops up telling you not to uninstall, you click OK, it uninstalls. Now what?
Uninstall the system webview component?
Round and round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows!We stop when you start reading my responses in context of what you wrote. Uninstall the HOST application, leave the webview component.
For raisins.
Because people will totally use Edge for the Google integration.
I am not sure what this even means. Are you agreeing or disagreeing and with whom?
You would know what it meant if you fully quoted. I'm disagreeing with you because you're a total retard as described earlier.
Since when was YouTube a desktop app? And since when did Office have anything to do with the browser / Edge?
Where did I say YouTube is a desktop app? You must be out of your fucking mind.
You were comparing desktop apps migrating to the browser.
As for Office and browser:
- Office apps use WebView component
- You can use all Office apps online using browser
And my lamp uses a light switch component. Doesn't stop it needing a bulb. Office's primary view is not a webview component, it's a rich editor component. Ask @mott555, he wrote a word processor.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
I have no way to check whether you deleted it manually for that screenshot or the OS really removes the executable as well.
Yes, I faked the results even though that could trivially be proven to be bullshit by almost anyone with Windows 10.
-
@levicki said in DEAR FIREFOX:
@pie_flavor said in DEAR FIREFOX:
If by 'that' you mean total retards
Yes, I meant you.
Then what you said had nothing to do with what I said, because what I said was that option three of 'why this situation is the way that it is' is 'you and your company are total retards'. It helps to full-quote!
Because that's the opening a file dialog. We're talking about opening a URL.
If you'll need ms-edge to open lots of things, why should normal users be able to uninstall it?
You uninstall, it pops up telling you not to uninstall, you click OK, it uninstalls. Now what?
-- your first question was about opening URL with no browser installed from an application using API. I answered that and then you changed the question to be "what happens when user initiates browser uninstall and clicks OK without reading the warning".No, it's not a moving goal post. The conversation path followed organically, and in fact this chain started from a @Tsaukpaetra post talking about exactly this. It helps to full-quote!
To answer that totally different question:
It's not like there are ways to prevent people from blindly clicking OK, such as having them wait for a few seconds before a button is enabled or phrasing the question so that the default choice does no harm (in this case cancels uninstallation).
If you name your buttons OK and Cancel, and Cancel proceeds with uninstallation and Ok cancels it, then you are designing your interface in direct contravention of sanity. The only sensible name would be Uninstall or Uninstall anyway which would both then be the one that gets immediately clicked.
It's also impossible to program an uninstaller that would check if user has alternate browser installed and prevent uninstallation if they don't or even better, present an up-to-date list of alternatives to pick from and install before proceeding with uninstalling. I hear that would have been an impossible task for developers.
The former is, yes. The latter? It'd be nice, but without such a feature, you would have to agree that the default behavior of 'can't uninstall it' is pretty good too.
I'm disagreeing with you because...
You are not making sense. You are disagreeing with my claim that Microsoft cannot mess with Chromium code in a way that will render Google services harder to use in Edge if they want people to actually use Edge for anything?
When did I say make Google services harder to use?
You are on some heavy drugs dude.
I'm not, but I feel like I need to be when dealing with you.
You were comparing desktop apps migrating to the browser.
They have aleady migrated. Cue Office 365 online and Google Docs to mention just the relevant ones to this discussion.
Exactly. So you were talking about desktop apps migrating to the browser. Which means that either you think YouTube is a desktop app, or you think that it's acceptable to be careering all over the place in an analogy with no semblance of actual comparison.
And my lamp uses a light switch component. Doesn't stop it needing a bulb. Office's primary view is not a webview component, it's a rich editor component. Ask @mott555, he wrote a word processor.
In a memo to the Office product group in 1998, Bill Gates stated:
One thing we have got to change in our strategy—allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destory [sic] Windows.
Source: Plaintiff's Exhibit from Comes v. Microsoft case (PDF)
See above re: completely irrelevant things.
