PayPal self-contradicting WTF



  • Here's a screenshot (yes, in JPEG format, so almost everyone may hate me) with a bit from a confirmation email I got from PayPal a few minutes ago:

    They insist that you always open a new browser (e.g. Internet Explorer or Netscape) and type the PayPal URL every time you log in to your account.

    The first WTF is that they mention Internet Explorer (I think I've heard something about it being considered as a web browser by some, but I think it's more like a russian roulette or every time you visit a web page with Internet Explorer, God kills a kitten). The second WTF is that they mention Netscape (Didn't it die like a decade ago? I know it may still be breathing on some last-millennium computer and, even so, it's called Netscape Navigator). The third WTF is that they clearly tell you to open a new web browser (Don't they mean web browser window or instance?) and type in the PayPal URL [manually] but on the other hand, they offer you a log in link in the email, so you may get accustomed to this kind of phishing.



  •  I don't understand why people bash IE, when in fact it's an invaluable tool. I mean how else would you download Firefox? :)



  • with Safari, of course.



  • @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.



  • @DOA said:

     I don't understand why people bash IE, when in fact it's an invaluable tool. I mean how else would you download Firefox? :)

     

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...



  • @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

    Except that Mozilla doesn't even want Firefox to be bundled by default.  It's a moronic, unethical idea, to say the least.. 



  • @rohypnol said:

    <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/26/1459205" title="This is a link to a Slashdot article with the title &quot;EU Could Force Bundling Firefox With Windows&quot; that says &quot;The European Commission could force Microsoft to bundle Firefox with future versions of Windows. The revelation came as part of Microsoft's quarterly filing with the Security and Exchange Commission. Among the statements is a clause outlining the penalties being considered by the European watchdog, which recently ruled that Microsoft is harming competition by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The most interesting situation outlined in the filing would see either Microsoft or computer manufacturers forced to install Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari by default alongside Internet Explorer on new Windows-based PCs.&quot; and links to http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245994/eu-could-force-microsoft-to-bundle-firefox-with-windows.html which will open in a new window (theoretically, because the way I edited it, it should have something like target=&quot;_blank&quot;) and I hate punctiation" target="_blank">get rid of it</a>

    Wow, that rocked.

    It's a shame that, while Firefox fixed the bug now that would cut the title tool tip after the 50th character or so, it now hides it every few seconds and you have to move the cursor away from the link and over it again.



  • @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...
    I'd settle for IE's default page to inform you (in big bold letters) about other browsers and provide links.

    Oh, and since I happened to install WinXP from scratch yesterday here's a little fun fact... Putting "Firefox" in IE7's search field will give you anything except the page you want. I don't remember what search engine it uses - some Microsoft piece of crap - but either their engine is garbage and they still wont switch to google or they set it up to do that on purpose. Prats.



  • Guys, Netscape died last year, not earlier.



  • The first time you start IE8 (on Windows 7 or when using the beta) it asks if you want to keep the defaults (Live Search, Live Maps, ...) or go to a page to change everything (yes, you can choose Google as default search provider there).

    So at least they are learning :)



  • @henke37 said:

    Guys, Netscape died last year, not earlier.
     

    Had to visit a Drug Enforcement Agency website yesterday.

    It said one had to use IE or Netscape.  

    IE wouldn't work...couldn't get past password prompt.

    Called DEA.  On hold 20 minutes. While waiting, tried Firefox just for giggles.

    Firefox worked just fine.

     



  • @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

     

    I don't think that the EU understands what "competition" means.



  • @derula said:

    It's a shame that, while Firefox fixed the bug now that would cut the title tool tip after the 50th character or so, it now hides it every few seconds and you have to move the cursor away from the link and over it again.
    Yeah, I curse them for that every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday :D.



  • @Aaron said:

    @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

    I don't think that the EU understands what "competition" means.

    I don't think that you understand what "monopoly" means.



  • @bjolling said:

    @Aaron said:

    @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

    I don't think that the EU understands what "competition" means.

    I don't think that you understand what "monopoly" means.
     

    Oh come on, not this argument again.  MS owns Windows, MS owns IE.  They have the right to distribute their OS with thier browser the same way that Ford can use Ford breaks (or any part for that matter) with their cars.  Or are you trying to tell me that Ford has to use Dodge parts in their cars?

     

    I mean come on FFS, it's not like you HAVE to use IE, you can get your OS and download FF or Chrome or w/e.  



  • @amischiefr said:

    I mean come on FFS, it's not like you HAVE to use IE, you can get your OS and download FF or Chrome or w/e.  
     

    No you can't, at least not if you use Windows. One cannot uninstall IE (well, okay, you can with a lot of trouble and if you don't mind some things breaking). It's still there, lurking in the background, being vulnerable to attacks.

    @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.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    @amischiefr said:

    I mean come on FFS, it's not like you HAVE to use IE, you can get your OS and download FF or Chrome or w/e.  
     

    No you can't, at least not if you use Windows. One cannot uninstall IE (well, okay, you can with a lot of trouble and if you don't mind some things breaking). It's still there, lurking in the background, being vulnerable to attacks.

    @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.

    I dunno, I hate MS like any other geek but I think that Microsoft should be allowed to do what the hell they want. Then they will make shitty programs which will fuck over simple people too and then you can actually make a good argument about switching to other browsers/office programs/OSes. It's not fair to tell them what their product should consist of.

    Like I said, I don't like MS but I mostly hate ignorant people that don't even want to hear about better and free stuff. Those people are the problem not Microsoft which only tries to make a ton of money like any other corporation. As long as you have idiots that actually believe in what ads, salesmen and even spam tell them you will have Microsoft like companies.



  • @squeem said:

    @henke37 said:

    Guys, Netscape died last year, not earlier.
     

    Had to visit a Drug Enforcement Agency website yesterday.

    It said one had to use IE or Netscape.  

    But of course.  Anyone not using a true-blue patriotic browser is obviously some kind of goddam' long-haired pot-smoking hippie commie traitor!  The DEA must protect our precious bodily fluids!

    @squeem said:

    IE wouldn't work...couldn't get past password prompt.

    Called DEA.  On hold 20 minutes. While waiting, tried Firefox just for giggles.

    Firefox worked just fine.

     

    Commie!



  • @henke37 said:

    Guys, Netscape died last year, not earlier.
    No, it died a lot earlier, we just burried it last year.



  • @DOA said:

     I don't understand why people bash IE, when in fact it's an invaluable tool. I mean how else would you download Firefox? :)

    [code]
    >ftp -A releases.mozilla.org
    ftp> bin
    ftp> get "/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/ru/Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe"
    ftp> bye
    [/code]
    


  • No you can't, at least not if you use Windows. One cannot uninstall IE
    (well, okay, you can with a lot of trouble and if you don't mind some
    things breaking). It's still there, lurking in the background, being
    vulnerable to attacks.

     

    You can uninstall IE (manually) if you really want, but you can't uninstall the DLL that actually renders the HTML.

    But it's not like Microsoft competitors are any different. You can't remove webkit from Macs, either.

     

    The main difference of course being that it's much easier to buy a non-Ford car if you don't like them.

     

    BS. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy Windows.



  • The uninstall process just removes the shortcuts and a few registry entries. 

    It does not remove IE. 

    The same thing goes for the Media Player, it's not removed, only the shortcuts are hidden.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    @amischiefr said:

    I mean come on FFS, it's not like you HAVE to use IE, you can get your OS and download FF or Chrome or w/e.  
     

    No you can't, at least not if you use Windows. One cannot uninstall IE (well, okay, you can with a lot of trouble and if you don't mind some things breaking). It's still there, lurking in the background, being vulnerable to attacks.

     

    So you can't uninstall it... How exactly, if you don't use it because you installed FF, and you set FF to your default browser, is it a "vulnerability"?

    @Monomelodies said:

    @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.


    Yes, yes they do.  You may have a case to tell them that they have to allow for the removal of IE, but you have no right to tell them they can't include IE with their OS.  What basis do you have to tell them they can't?



  • @bjolling said:

    @Aaron said:

    @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

    I don't think that the EU understands what "competition" means.

    I don't think that you understand what "monopoly" means.
     

    I believe that the official EU definition is "Any organization that's, like, really big and stuff, except when it's owned by the government because they really care about the public."



  • @Monomelodies said:

    No you can't, at least not if you use Windows. One cannot uninstall IE (well, okay, you can with a lot of trouble and if you don't mind some things breaking). It's still there, lurking in the background, being vulnerable to attacks.
     

    Not if you aren't using it and have another default browser it isn't.   But are you really naive enough to think Firefox does not have vulnerabilities? Firefox seems to have the same process of discovering-exploits-and-pushing-out-a-patch-as-needed that MS does for their browser.



  •  And here's some more juice I got while trying to contact them by sending an email (that actually just takes me to an on-line form):

     

    Here are a few suggested search results based on your question:

    We are unable to complete your request.

    An unexpected error has occurred.

    Error message detail

    <font size="3"> font size was -3 but i changed it to +3 (rohypnol)

    java.lang.Exception: XssFilterSecurityException
    at com.paypal.tool.filter.XssFilter.doFilter(XssFilter.java:69)
    at weblogic.servlet.internal.FilterChainImpl.doFilter(FilterChainImpl.java:27)
    at atg.servlet.pipeline.TailPipelineServlet.service(TailPipelineServlet.java:90)
    at atg.servlet.pipeline.PipelineableServletImpl.passRequest(PipelineableServletImpl.java:116)
    at atg.servlet.pipeline.DispatcherPipelineServletImpl.service(DispatcherPipelineServletImpl.java:202)
    at atg.servlet.pipeline.PipelineableServletImpl.passRequest(PipelineableServletImpl.java:116)
    at atg.userprofiling.ExpiredPasswordServlet.service(ExpiredPasswordServlet.java:356)
    at atg.servlet.pipeline.PipelineableServletImpl.passRequest(PipelineableServletImpl.java:116)
    at atg.servlet.pipeline.MimeTyperPipelineServlet.service(MimeTyperPipelineServlet.java:206)
    ....stack trace CROPPED after 10 lines.
    </font>




    Please try again later or resubmit your request now


    12:39 PST Feb 10 2009

    Home Page

    the "Home Page" url above is ACTUALLY pointing to localhost:1884, I haven't changed it, that's the way it was on the original error message

    If the suggestions above do not answer your question, please complete the form below. PayPal Customer Service will contact you within 2-3 days.


    I've added the red and blue borders. The blue div was actually an iframe and the red one had display: none.


  • @DOA said:

     I don't understand why people bash IE, when in fact it's an invaluable tool. I mean how else would you download Firefox? :)

    Using wget of course, what else do you think? (If you don't have wget or netcat, it is because there is something missing on your computer)

    <font size="-3">(Disclaimer: of course I prefer Vonkeror but the method of wget is esentially is the same anyways)</font>



  • @Monomelodies said:

    No you can't, at least not if you use Windows. One cannot uninstall IE (well, okay, you can with a lot of trouble and if you don't mind some things breaking). It's still there, lurking in the background, being vulnerable to attacks.

    Yes, and sitting on the pool deck 50 feet away from the water makes you vulnerable to drowning.

    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.

    I'm also not really into Ford's transmissions, they don't shift fast enough, so I'd like to put in one that Audi makes.  Oh, and those door panels are a joke, anybody could break into the car like that, so let's replace those with some quality Ferrari doors, the cool ones that rotate up instead of out.  And what's with this paint?  You mean I can't just get it without the factory paint?  What the hell is that?  And look how much effort it is to replace the factory speedometer with my neon-yellow one!  Can't they just ship the damn thing without a dashboard?

    For 99% of computer users, "the internet" is just part of the computer.  Hell, most home users probably don't spend more than 5 minutes a day outside their web browsers.  Shipping an operating system without a web browser today would be like shipping a car without a steering wheel.  Most customers do NOT want to choose, and would in fact be horrified if you told them that it was not included in their purchase (not that many of you are familiar with the "purchase" concept anyway).



  • @amischiefr said:

    @bjolling said:

    @Aaron said:

    @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

    I don't think that the EU understands what "competition" means.

    I don't think that you understand what "monopoly" means.
     

    Oh come on, not this argument again.  MS owns Windows, MS owns IE.  They have the right to distribute their OS with thier browser the same way that Ford can use Ford breaks (or any part for that matter) with their cars.  Or are you trying to tell me that Ford has to use Dodge parts in their cars?

    I mean come on FFS, it's not like you HAVE to use IE, you can get your OS and download FF or Chrome or w/e.  

    MS was ordered to split, with one "baby Microsoft" in charge of the OS, and the other "MS" doing the other software (IE, Office). The only reason MS got away with it was that Bush came into power:

    @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Anti-trust said:

    The proposed remedy (dividing Microsoft into two companies) was
    overturned on appeal. While new penalties were under consideration, the
    Clinton administration ended and the Bush administration took office.
    The new administration announced that in the interest of ending the
    case as quickly as possible, it would no longer seek to break the
    company up
    , and that it would stop investigating claims of illegal
    tying of products
    .

    I'm sure Ma Bell would've wished for an outcome such like this. The DOJ had already found MS guilty of antitrust laws, and Microsoft got away scot-free.

    Anyway, the EU ruling seems to ask MS to untie IE from the OS itself. Try running Windows Update without IE and you'll find the real concern with the IE bundling.



  •  Sorry but your car analogy is not correct.

    It's fair for Microsoft to implement anything to make an OPERATING SYSTEM but it's not fair to preinstall additional software and make it not removable.

    Compared to your car analogy, Ford is within it's rights to impose a color, doors, transmissions, as they're part of the structure of the car, much like memory swapping, graphical user interface (notice nobody asks microsoft to allow kde to replace the windows gui) and so on.

    They're not allowed to impose a car stereo or gps system and make it in such a way that it's not 100% compatible with the other stereo systems/gps systems on the market and also that can not be removed from the car completely. Just like a car stereo/gps is not critical for the car, so is a web browser, a paint application, a sound recorder, a media player etc critical to the operating system.

    Internet Explorer does just that, it's not 100% compatible with standards (it was actually made on purpose that way) and it's so hard nowadays to remove it completely it's almost impossible. It's hard because lots of programs use it, like Yahoo Messenger, Windows Explorer, MSN Messenge, Outlook and lots more.

    For proof, just set the Internet Eplorer's security to Maximum or High and you'll see how Yahoo Messenger starts to crap itself because javascript code can't be executed correctly or you get the Internet's Explorer popup window to add a certain html page to the list of allowed websites it can open (freezing YM in the meantime). I know this as I use Windows 2003 and by default IE comes with High Security and I use to get that a lot.

    On the bad side, it's funny how when you switch from IE6 to IE7 lots of application start to look "different" - it's because IE7 enabled anti-aliasing (or "Cleartype") by default.

     

    Microsoft should just create a library or several libraries and offer them just like a runtime, like the C++ distribuitable runtime, so that applications would still work even without IE installed, and remove the browser completely from the OS.

    This browser selection can be implemented very easily, just have a wizard at startup downloading a RSS feed or something, just like Windows Updates downloads patch information, and show a list of browsers alphabetically with a brief description. User would then be able to select one or more browsers. 

     

    quote:

    However having an OS without a default browser does sound hard to use for non-tech users.

     

    Yeah, I bet it would be really hard, when you could get a CD with Firefox browser for free from a computer store or just go with a usb stick to a friend and get one. If you can order and get Ubuntu by mail, it surely would be really hard to get a Firefox cd. Heck, 5 years ago I used to buy computer magazines which came with CDs having 3-5 web browsers on them just to spare people from downloading 20MB Netscape Navigator on 33.6kbps dial-up modems.

     

     



  • @mariushm said:

    The uninstall process just removes the shortcuts and a few registry entries.

    It does not remove IE.

    The same thing goes for the Media Player, it's not removed, only the shortcuts are hidden.

    You are forgetting how many programs depend on the IE and media-player libraries. A ton of non-MS stuff would stop working if you removed ALL of IE and WMP.



  • @mariushm said:

    The uninstall process just removes the shortcuts and a few registry entries. 

    It does not remove IE. 

    The same thing goes for the Media Player, it's not removed, only the shortcuts are hidden.

     

    When you say "remove IE" do you actually mean "remove the DLL that Windows uses to render HTML?" In that case, you're right. But that DLL isn't IE. IE is the browser front-end to it. And that DLL is needed for something like 75% of the software on your computer, so removing it would break most of the software you run. Ditto all that with Media Player.

    Like I said above, people who get pissy over IE need to realize it's just a front-end to the OSes HTML renderer, nothing more. Same with Safari on Macs. For all practical purposes, removing the .exe and all the file associations is the same thing as uninstalling it.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    Try running Windows Update without IE and you'll find the real concern with the IE bundling.

     

    The Windows Update control panel in XP and Vista works fine without IE. You could have tried that, you know, instead of just ignorantly implying that it requires IE.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    I'm sure Ma Bell would've wished for an outcome such like this. The DOJ had already found MS guilty of antitrust laws, and Microsoft got away scot-free.

    They didn't quite get off free, they just weren't broken up.  And the divesture of AT&T was awful for the US phone industry.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    Anyway, the EU ruling seems to ask MS to untie IE from the OS itself. Try running Windows Update without IE and you'll find the real concern with the IE bundling.

    I'm pretty sure Windows Update no longer requires IE at all.  And who cares if it does?  It also requires, um, Windows.



  • Ok, I agree that IE sucks, but this statement:

    @mariushm said:

    Internet Explorer does just that,
    it's not 100% compatible with standards (it was actually made on
    purpose that way) and it's so hard nowadays to remove it completely
    it's almost impossible. It's hard because lots of programs use it, like
    Yahoo Messenger, Windows Explorer, MSN Messenge, Outlook and lots more.

    Is simply unfair. Most of the features that IE have that aren't in the standard are either:

    1) Fairly extended from the standard using the correct technique for doing so at the time those features were introduced. (ActiveX fits in this category. It's implemented using the correct technique for extending HTML.)

    2) Written according to the standard, but the standard changed *after* (that version of) IE was released. (The CSS box model is in this category; the original standard for CSS was so vaguely-worded that Microsoft's implementation was just as correct as Netscape's. The standard was "clarified" after IE was already released, and after thousands of websites were already using IE's interpretation of CSS.)

    3) Are a product of their time. Netscape raped the standards just as much as older versions of IE did; the only difference is that the old Netscape code was flushed down the crapper and IE's hasn't been (yet.) Then again, the standards sucked ass.

    Also, I think it's complete crap that the standards bodies follow the Firefox example, even when the IE example makes more sense. For example, using "innerText" as the equivalent to "innerHTML" instead of Firefox's lame "textContent". Or defining the float CSS property in JS as "cssFloat" when IE had already implemented and was using "styleFloat". I honestly think the standardies bodies are just full of the same anti-MS goons that populate Slashdot, and do whatever they can to sabotage IE. Or maybe I'm paranoid.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Is simply unfair. Most of the features that IE have that aren't in the standard are either:

    1) Fairly extended from the standard using the correct technique for doing so at the time those features were introduced. (ActiveX fits in this category. It's implemented using the correct technique for extending HTML.)

    2) Written according to the standard, but the standard changed after (that version of) IE was released. (The CSS box model is in this category; the original standard for CSS was so vaguely-worded that Microsoft's implementation was just as correct as Netscape's. The standard was "clarified" after IE was already released, and after thousands of websites were already using IE's interpretation of CSS.)

    3) Are a product of their time. Netscape raped the standards just as much as older versions of IE did; the only difference is that the old Netscape code was flushed down the crapper and IE's hasn't been (yet.) Then again, the standards sucked ass.

    Also, I think it's complete crap that the standards bodies follow the Firefox example, even when the IE example makes more sense. For example, using "innerText" as the equivalent to "innerHTML" instead of Firefox's lame "textContent". Or defining the float CSS property in JS as "cssFloat" when IE had already implemented and was using "styleFloat". I honestly think the standardies bodies are just full of the same anti-MS goons that populate Slashdot, and do whatever they can to sabotage IE. Or maybe I'm paranoid.

    Meh, the W3C is a pretty crappy organization and the HTML / CSS specs are full WTFs.  I support MS moving more towards the standards simply because it makes my life easier, not because the standards are necessarily superior.  IE may be a pain to code for at times, but it's still the vast majority of the browser market so it's the de facto standard at the very least.  I've used Mozilla and Firefox for 7 years now simply because I think they are better browsers and the extensions for FF make web development much simpler.  I certainly don't think FF is objectively all that better than IE, though.  Both have their WTFs and if you code for IE adapting for FF is a PITA and vice-versa.  FF does seem more developer-friendly, though, and prior to IE7 it had the upper hand with tabs.  Also, the extensions give a good amount of control for multimedia content (such as Flashblock) which is nice from a browsing perspective.



  • Wow, a sane response. Thanks, Morbius. I fully expected a flame.

    Most web developers are of the "Firefox, Firefox, rah rah rah!" variety and simply won't admit that Firefox sucks in many significant ways. I still can't figure out why it loves to barf empty text nodes all over the DOM tree, other than to make life a living hell for AJAX applications that reconfigure webpages during runtime.

    I agree that Firefox's Firebug is better than IE's Web Developer Toolbar, but it's also obvious where its inspiration lies when it was built. As for "which browser is better?" I call them about even... IE has flaws, and Firefox has flaws. Both crash at about the same rate, both have the same number of stupid bugs, and with the advent of IE8, both are pointlessly obsessed with standards compliance wank-offs rather than adding new features that normal human beings might actually care about.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @mariushm said:

    The uninstall process just removes the shortcuts and a few registry entries. 

    It does not remove IE. 

    The same thing goes for the Media Player, it's not removed, only the shortcuts are hidden.

     

    When you say "remove IE" do you actually mean "remove the DLL that Windows uses to render HTML?" In that case, you're right. But that DLL isn't IE. IE is the browser front-end to it. And that DLL is needed for something like 75% of the software on your computer, so removing it would break most of the software you run. Ditto all that with Media Player.

    Like I said above, people who get pissy over IE need to realize it's just a front-end to the OSes HTML renderer, nothing more. Same with Safari on Macs. For all practical purposes, removing the .exe and all the file associations is the same thing as uninstalling it.

    Wow.  Can we get a "utterly missing the point" award over here anyway?  Your silly semantic quibble alters nothing.  The DLL absolutely IS IE, not the 1-line executable wrapper around it.  By your definition of "is", rundll 32 is every single control panel applet, because it's the actual exe that invokes the .cpl (= dll in disguise) files, no?

    IE is the COM object that renders HTML content in a container.  That is what the DLL implements.  Therefore IE is the DLL, not the trivial wrapper.



  • @Aaron said:

    @bjolling said:
    @Aaron said:
    @rohypnol said:

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of it pretty soon - at least in the EU...

    I don't think that the EU understands what "competition" means.

    I don't think that you understand what "monopoly" means.
    I believe that the official EU definition is "Any organization that's, like, really big and stuff, except when it's owned by the government because they really care about the public."

    Yes, size matters but it's not the only criterium.

    It's also about (ab)using your position in the market to (un)willingly stiffle competition, innovation, choice etc. Even if Microsoft just included IE out of the goodness of their heart it is holding back other browsers. More importantly IE is part of a complete B2C or B2B chain strategy (e.g Windows Server --> MS SQL Server --> .NET Webservers (SOAP) --> ASP/ASP.NET on IIS --> Windows --> IE/VBScript/ActiveX/Silverlight) that makes companies reluctant to replace one of these parts with an application from another vendor. My current client still have IE-only websites both internally and in their B2B channel.

    Microsoft off course is trying to weaken this argument. Their partnership with Novel (Mono, Moonlight) comes to mind but also their quest to turn every one of their technologies in an official ISO standard (SOAP, OOXML)



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    Most web developers are of the "Firefox, Firefox, rah rah rah!" variety and simply won't admit that Firefox sucks in many significant ways. I still can't figure out why it loves to barf empty text nodes all over the DOM tree, other than to make life a living hell for AJAX applications that reconfigure webpages during runtime.

    I agree that Firefox's Firebug is better than IE's Web Developer Toolbar, but it's also obvious where its inspiration lies when it was built. As for "which browser is better?" I call them about even... IE has flaws, and Firefox has flaws. Both crash at about the same rate, both have the same number of stupid bugs, and with the advent of IE8, both are pointlessly obsessed with standards compliance wank-offs rather than adding new features that normal human beings might actually care about.

    You know from a web developer's point of view I'd have to go with Firefox every time for it's plugins if for no other reason. Web developer, Firebug, FirePHP (especially when mucking about with the Zend framework), Fireshot, etc. Not to mention I like my programs separated from one another, as opposed to the conjoined twins Microsoft has made of Windows and IE.

    Besides who trusts Microsoft to make an impartial browser? Putting their own search engine in IE as default instead of Google (which any sane person would use) sends only one message: "We'll gladly sacrifice the quality of your online experience just to make a buck". Not that you can't change the default of course, but if that's their general attitude you might as well go elsewhere now and save yourself the agitation later on.



  • @mariushm said:

     Sorry but your car analogy is not correct.

    It's fair for Microsoft to implement anything to make an OPERATING SYSTEM but it's not fair to preinstall additional software and make it not removable.

    The difficulty is, where does the OS stop, and 'additional software' start? Microsoft say the web browser is part of the OS, others say it isn't.

    If you took it to the extreme, you would have Windows without IE, Media Player (OK so far), calculator, command prompt, explorer, notepad, disk defragmenter, disk checker, control panel, solitaire etc. You can get better alternatives for all those things, so should Microsoft strip them out as well?

    None of those things are part of the 'OS'. The 'OS' is the memory management, process management and top levels of the I/O management.

    Microsoft obviously wouldn't be able to sell Windows to ANYONE if that was all there was. Just like no one would download Ubuntu if that's all there was in there. People download Ubuntu because it has editors, web browsers, utilities galore etc in it. Just like people buy (or otherwise "obtain") Windows because it can be used for useful things 'out of the box'.

    You can't expect Microsoft to cripple their software just because they're the only people who can make an OS which is usable by Joe Public. It isn't really Microsoft's fault that the only competition with a chance is written by geeks for geeks. Windows might not be technically as great as Linux, but at least you don't need to break out the compiler to recompile the kernel every time you want to install any new hardware!


    They're not allowed to impose a car stereo or gps system and make it in such a way that it's not 100% compatible with the other stereo systems/gps systems on the market and also that can not be removed from the car completely.

    Aren't they?  Hmm, the law must be different in the USA... Well, I suppose you could remove it from the car completely, but you'd be left with a hole in the dashboard which nothing else will fit exactly.

    Internet Explorer does just that, it's not 100% compatible with standards (it was actually made on purpose that way) and it's so hard nowadays to remove it completely it's almost impossible. It's hard because lots of programs use it, like Yahoo Messenger, Windows Explorer, MSN Messenge, Outlook and lots more.

    No one forces Yahoo to use the HTML rendering COM object. Obviously Microsoft will use it. If they didn't bundle IE, they'd still want to bundle an HTML renderer COM object with Messenger & Outlook etc, that's an ideal use for a reusable component! Essentially all IE is is a wrapper around the HTML component. If you want to get rid of IE but keep the component you're essentially just getting rid of a COM container.


    Microsoft should just create a library or several libraries and offer them just like a runtime, like the C++ distribuitable runtime, so that applications would still work even without IE installed, and remove the browser completely from the OS.

    That's essentially what they do if you 'remove' IE. You are left with the HTML renderer.




  • @bjolling said:

    Yes, size matters but it's not the only criterium.

    that's what she said ...



  • @DOA said:

    Besides who trusts Microsoft to make an impartial browser? Putting their own search engine in IE as default instead of Google
    Why would you expect them to make Google the default?  They obviously have confidence in their own search engine, and they want the advertising bucks that come from people using their search engine, so they made it the default.  Why not choose Yahoo! or Hotbot (is that still around)?  Would you expect Chrome to default to MSN?

    Also, who cares what the default is.  IIRC it was a very simple matter to change it to Google, and I never thought about it again until just now.



  • @DaveK said:

    Wow.  Can we get a "utterly missing the point" award over here anyway?  Your silly semantic quibble alters nothing.  The DLL absolutely IS IE, not the 1-line executable wrapper around it.  By your definition of "is", rundll 32 is every single control panel applet, because it's the actual exe that invokes the .cpl (= dll in disguise) files, no?

    IE is the COM object that renders HTML content in a container.  That is what the DLL implements.  Therefore IE is the DLL, not the trivial wrapper.

     

    Fine; but then you're arguing that Microsoft should keep IE. Removing the DLL would break a high percentage of applications on Windows, as removing WebKit would break the same percentage of applications on Macintosh. An HTML renderer is required by the OS. (Your argument might be different if there were a drop-in replacement to the DLL that could be used on Windows; there isn't.)

    The court would simply be demanding a version of Windows that was useless for running software. Even for the EU, that's a retarded hurdle to leap, and helps nobody.



  • @DOA said:

    Besides who trusts [b]Mozilla[/b] to make an impartial browser? Putting [b]one of their biggest sponsors' search engines[/b]  in [b]Firefox[/b] as default instead of [b]Live Search[/b] ([b]which isn't even on the default list of search engines you can switch to[/b]) sends only one message: "We'll gladly sacrifice the quality of your online experience just to make a buck". Not that you can't change the default of course, but if that's their general attitude you might as well go elsewhere now and save yourself the agitation later on.

    FTFY



  • @dhromed said:

    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

     

    You avoid getting any IE taint on your Firefox installation! ;)

    Microsoft seems largely reformed in this area, but 10-20 years ago I wouldn't have been surprised to see a microsoft product "accidently" corrupting the download or installation of a competing product.

     

     



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Why would you expect them to make Google the default?  They obviously have confidence in their own search engine, and they want the advertising bucks that come from people using their search engine, so they made it the default.  Why not choose Yahoo! or Hotbot (is that still around)?
    That's easy to answer... which search engine do you use? And why?



  • @durendal.mk3 said:

    @DOA said:

    Besides who trusts Mozilla to make an impartial browser? Putting one of their biggest sponsors' search engines  in Firefox as default instead of Live Search (which isn't even on the default list of search engines you can switch to) sends only one message: "We'll gladly sacrifice the quality of your online experience just to make a buck". Not that you can't change the default of course, but if that's their general attitude you might as well go elsewhere now and save yourself the agitation later on.

    FTFY

    Yeah, because god forbid we can't switch from Google to Live Search.



  • @lanzz said:

    with Safari, of course.

    of course you will use wget!



  • @DOA said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    Why would you expect them to make Google the default?  They obviously have confidence in their own search engine, and they want the advertising bucks that come from people using their search engine, so they made it the default.  Why not choose Yahoo! or Hotbot (is that still around)?
    That's easy to answer... which search engine do you use? And why?
    I use Google because ... well who cares?  You seem to have decided in your infinite wisdom that Google is the best search engine out there and all others pale in comparison, no matter what you're searching for, etc blah blah blah, so of course, makers of competing engines should default to Google because they're already the best and why try to compete.

    Nice try.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.