Will we EVER see IE 7?!?!?

[Nothinman]

But technically I can, I can do whatever I want to the mm/* files in the Linux source code.

And Linux will still continue to operate?

Depending on what I do with them. If I delete them of course it won't work, but I can replace them with another memory manager or even write my own if I wish.

But Microsoft isn't a monopoly

No matter how many times you say it, it's not true. Microsoft is a monopoly and has been convicted of abusing that monopoly, end of story.

So if you have a majority market share it is now illegal to produce superior products that people choose to use over others'?

1) I don't find IE to be superior no matter how many times you say it is. And if I really had a choice I wouldn't be complaining. How would you like it if a car manufacturer didn't allow the removal of the stock stereo head unit because the rest of the car would stop working, they said "Hey, you can always install one along side it and have both but you can't remove ours."? I don't keep up on cars so maybe that's happened, but I know I wouldn't buy one of those cars if they existed.

Who decides what is a vital part of the OS? The person who made it of course. And Microsoft have decided that in their OS the HTML renderer forms a core component. The HTML rendering engine is used by many things in Windows including the online help and similar.

Which means there's all the more places for MSHTML exploits and there's nothing we as users of that system can do about it, yay.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

How would you like it if a car manufacturer didn't allow the removal of the stock stereo head unit because the rest of the car would stop working, they said "Hey, you can always install one along side it and have both but you can't remove ours."?

It has happened... A lot of oem car alarms / remote entry units are integrated into the radio. Also, a lot of radios are integrated into the dash so they cannot be removed..

anyway, back to ms: windows is definitely much more integrated than linux, nobody is arguing that... which is bad for security, yes. It does allow for centralized patch management, tho, which is good for security. Bottom line, no patched system has been compromized through windows' fault to date. Linux systems have to be patched just as regularly, and it's usually a LOT harder...

as far as IE goes, if you don't use it (while still applying patches regularly) what's the big deal? are you really trying to run windows xp on your 1gb BIGfoot drive or smth?

 

[Nothinman]

Linux systems have to be patched just as regularly, and it's usually a LOT harder...

No it's not. Apt, yum, up2date, etc are all simple to use and don't require a specific web browser, or even a GUI for that matter, like WU does.

as far as IE goes, if you don't use it (while still applying patches regularly) what's the big deal? are you really trying to run windows xp on your 1gb BIGfoot drive or smth?

The point is simply that I can't remove it when there's no good reason for it to be so tightly engrained in the system. Ideally I should be able to replace MSHTML with another renderer like Gecko or Opera and have everything from IE to help use it instead of IE making it so that IE can be fully removed. Part of that not working is the fault of the Mozilla/Opera developers not maintaining a MSHTML-like control, but I did see one and the maintainer said it was such a PITA that it wasn't worth it. It makes me wonder why MS made the API so convoluted that someone who knows something as big and hairy as Mozilla inside and out says the API sucks.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The point is simply that I can't remove it when there's no good reason for it to be so tightly engrained in the system. Ideally I should be able to replace MSHTML with another renderer like Gecko or Opera and have everything from IE to help use it instead of IE making it so that IE can be fully removed.

Still does not ring as a legitimate concern... With the car analogy, if you want to swap steering columns every week, you buy a kit car. by using windows, you accept ie, just like you accept that taurus is front-wheel drive, no?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: Nothinman

How would you like it if a car manufacturer didn't allow the removal of the stock stereo head unit because the rest of the car would stop working, they said "Hey, you can always install one along side it and have both but you can't remove ours."?

It has happened... A lot of oem car alarms / remote entry units are integrated into the radio. Also, a lot of radios are integrated into the dash so they cannot be removed..

anyway, back to ms: windows is definitely much more integrated than linux, nobody is arguing that... which is bad for security, yes. It does allow for centralized patch management, tho, which is good for security. Bottom line, no patched system has been compromized through windows' fault to date. Linux systems have to be patched just as regularly, and it's usually a LOT harder...

Try again when you've actually used Linux.

as far as IE goes, if you don't use it (while still applying patches regularly) what's the big deal? are you really trying to run windows xp on your 1gb BIGfoot drive or smth?

Same reason whi I hate Solaris installtion process.
You can remove pretty much everything from it, but if you remove X, alot of important stuff goes along with it, etc etc.
In the end, you've either got X, or it's gonna be a PITA to pick which packages to install or not.

Windows is the same, only worse.
More junk to keep patched up.
I actually had MMC go bad on me once, every time I'd start it, however I did it, I'd get an "Illegal action" or whatever it says, stuff like that is another good reason why a solid system shouldn't be dependand on too complicated applications/libraries unless necessary.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Try again when you've actually used Linux.

let's see, between slack8.1, suse 8.2, redhat 9, none of them were as straightforward as WUP. redhat has a recurring fee for updates, suse can't connect to the server 80% of the time, and slack, well, it's slack, it's a kit car

the integration level of windows is a design choice, it's not as loose as linux, but not as tight as apples. Seems to be they have the exact level the market demands... once, again, what is the problem with not using IE, even if it's isntalled?

 

[Nothinman]

the integration level of windows is a design choice, it's not as loose as linux, but not as tight as apples

Atleast with OS X I can boot into single user mode and get a real shell to fix sh!t, on Windows the Recovery Console is a joke.

once, again, what is the problem with not using IE, even if it's isntalled?

You're using it whether you run iexplore or not, MSHTML is used in all kinds of places. Say someone puts a html file on the network that is crafted to exploit MSHTML just selecting it to delete it will get you exploited because of the preview sh!t.

 

[Ruckas]

Originally posted by: ClueLis

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: ClueLis
Here's the problem:

The claim that they have always made is that IE is inseperable from the core OS, which is why they were not required to remove IE from their operating system in the courts.

Oh, and you're right. Kernal probably wasn't the right word.

I am forced to agree with you here. I've tried since win95 to uninstall and delete IE. Everytime I do I run into some random problem down the road. Forcing me to reinstall it. I can't be certain that it's directly linked with the kernel. But explorer constantly crashes if you remove IE. So...Give it a try yourself if you don't believe me 🙂

Ruckas-

 

[Ruckas]

Why did it post twice? *smashes head against wall*

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Ruckas
Why did it post twice? *smashes head against wall*

you're still a fledling. post more and it'll happen less. In the mean time, at least it pumps your post count.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: Sunner
Try again when you've actually used Linux.

let's see, between slack8.1, suse 8.2, redhat 9, none of them were as straightforward as WUP. redhat has a recurring fee for updates, suse can't connect to the server 80% of the time, and slack, well, it's slack, it's a kit car

the integration level of windows is a design choice, it's not as loose as linux, but not as tight as apples. Seems to be they have the exact level the market demands... once, again, what is the problem with not using IE, even if it's isntalled?

Funny, when I wanna update a box at work I log in and type "rpm -Fhv ftp://username@address.to.our.rpm.repository/Updates/*.rpm", wait for 30 seconds, restart services which were affected, and Im done.

Wow, takes all of 1-1½ minutes.

 

[Nothinman]

Funny, when I wanna update a box at work I log in and type "rpm -Fhv ftp://username@address.to.our.rpm.repository/Updates/*.rpm", wait for 30 seconds, restart services which were affected, and Im done.

Same, and at home it's even easier only requiring an 'apt-get update' followed by 'apt-get upgrade' and anything that needs restarted is done automatically.

 

[BFG10K]

Damn, you must really love MS, I can't think of any other reason to defend them the way you do, at least Ameesh works there

I don't love them, I'm just sick of the beaurocrats employing hypocrisy and double standards to argue their cases.

Lets take someone like Apple for example, who does indeed have a monopoly on the Macintosh desktop market. They used this monopoly to physically force the clone makers out of business by employing ROM blocks that disabled MacOS from booting on non-Apple computers. Where was the DOJ then? Apple used their monopoly to shut down all of their competitors but where was the DOJ? I thought the DOJ was supposed to be preventing things like that?

No, all it comes down to is the flawed reasoning that market share is the sole determining factor of who the DOJ targets. Meanwhile smaller vendors are getting away with exactly what the DOJ claims they're supposed to be fighting.

An OS won't work without a memory manager, all OS's I know of, except Windows, work fine without a HTML rendering engine,

And?

hence, a memory manager is needed and a HTML rendering engine is not.

I'm sorry but your logic is flawed. Windows does in fact require an HTML rendering engine and neither you nor the DOJ have any right to impose what you think should be in the OS of another person or company.

If you do so then how far do we take it? Shall we ban McDonald's from putting pickles into their Hamburgers because somedody decides that pickles are not part of a standard Hamburger? What gives the state the right to interefere like that? Microsoft's HTML rendering engine isn't illegal by any stretch of the imagination and thus the state has absolutely no right to try to control it.

They accepted it cause they had no choice

Show me how Microsoft physically forced the OEM - through threats of death, mind control, or similar - the license agreement presented to them.

Supperior products? That's not what it's about,

Of course not, because it couldn't actually be that some people want to use MS's products.

it's about MS locking it's customers into an MS environment since their products are intentionally made to be uncompatible with all other products on the market

So it's now bad to have proprietry standards and industry secrets? The way you talk you seem to think that all software should be free and open like Linux is. Good luck trying to make any money from that.

I would prefer to have several companies competing, it promotes innovation, better prices, and overall better products, see the video vard market for example, but if this isn't something you want...well you're just a strange fella I guess, from my point of view anyways.

I'm all for competition, I'm just against the state ripping into a 100% legal company simply because the competitors whine loudly enough. These days you don't actually have to produce any good software, all you have to do is shout loudly enough to the DOJ and they'll be sure to force Microsoft to bundle your inferior product with Windows. Like I said before, it's nothing more than communism.

 

[BFG10K]

Sorry, but you just don't seem to understand antitrust law, monopoly power, and abuse of monopoly power.

I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

LOL, I've been developing software since before college (BS CS) and for a decade after it, and have been following Microsoft's flouting of antitrust law since the days of Windows 3.0.

Then stop thinking like a beaurocrat and think like a software engineer instead. The Windows API was made for software engineers, not for greedy politicians and lawyers.

A monopoly (which Microsoft is in the legal sense, whether you like it or not) can't use it's monopoly to stifle potential competitors by, as in my example, threatening to cut off access to internals information to one Microsft partner solely because it is also working with one of those potential competitors, while still allowing the internals access to other partners.

How might they cut those off? If they remove the entries from the MSDN library then everyone will lose access to them and then everyone will complain. If they don't notice it then Microsoft will simply be shooting themselves in the foot since they're crippling the very developers that are the life-blood of their OS.

All of this comes down to Microsoft not being (legally) allowed to use its OS monopoly power to unfairly create new monopolies in browsers, file and web servers, Office suites, etc.

Show me where Microsoft physically prevents anyone from using non-Microsoft browsers, file and web servers and Office suites in a similar fashion like...say...Apple's ROM block which they used to shut down the competing clone makers.

 

[BFG10K]

Depending on what I do with them. If I delete them of course it won't work, but I can replace them with another memory manager or even write my own if I wish.

But you can't operate Linux without a memory manager, just like you can't operate Windows without an HTML renderer.

Using an open-source version of Linux probably wasn't the best example though. Replace it with a closed-source version or any OS where you don't have the ability to change the memory manager and my example will probably be clearer.

No matter how many times you say it, it's not true. Microsoft is a monopoly and has been convicted of abusing that monopoly, end of story.

Right, because if they were convicted then it must be true.

Do you also think OJ Simpson was innocent?

1) I don't find IE to be superior no matter how many times you say it is.

Then don't use it. I fail to see how your personal preference allows you to then leap up the ladder and use it to justify that the state should force Microsoft to remove it. I don't like the memory manager in MacOS 9 - can I tell the DOJ to launch an anti-trust case against Apple to force them remove it?

How would you like it if a car manufacturer didn't allow the removal of the stock stereo head unit because the rest of the car would stop working,

You mean like how you can't remove the memory manager in any closed-source OS because it'll stop working without it?

Which means there's all the more places for MSHTML exploits and there's nothing we as users of that system can do about it, yay.

Because we all know that Linux has absolutely zero exploits.

 

[Nothinman]

Lets take someone like Apple for example, who does indeed have a monopoly on the Macintosh desktop market.

And Dell has a monopoly on the Dell desktop market and Ford has a monopoly on the Ford car market, those don't count. Noone said Apple was better but Apple competes in a much larger PC desktop market that they have nowhere near a monopoly in.

Shall we ban McDonald's from putting pickles into their Hamburgers because somedody decides that pickles are not part of a standard Hamburger?

Atleast I can ask McDonald's to remove the pickles and they will, I ask MS to remove IE and they laugh.

These days you don't actually have to produce any good software, all you have to do is shout loudly enough to the DOJ and they'll be sure to force Microsoft to bundle your inferior product with Windows.

Name 1 product that's being forcibly included with Windows.

And?

And nothing, if you can't understand why a memory manager is required and an HTML renderer isn't you shouldn't be making those judgements.

Show me where Microsoft physically prevents anyone from using non-Microsoft browsers, file and web servers and Office suites in a similar fashion

How about you show me instructions on how to install a 3rd party SMB file server.

Using an open-source version of Linux probably wasn't the best example though. Replace it with a closed-source version or any OS where you don't have the ability to change the memory manager and my example will probably be clearer.

And nicely points out a huge advantage to open source software.

Then don't use it.

If you use Windows you don't have a choice, explorer uses it all over the place and WU requires it.

I don't like the memory manager in MacOS 9 - can I tell the DOJ to launch an anti-trust case against Apple to force them remove it?

OS 9 doesn't have a memory manager =)

Because we all know that Linux has absolutely zero exploits.

I've seen people cleaning up after a lot more Windows problems than Linux ones recently and I doubt that'll change any time soon.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: 50
Hey, I've noticed, its been about 2 or more years since IE 6 came out. Why hasn't Microsoft developed any newer versions or anything? It is still FAR from PERFECT.

the thread has degenerated a bit, anyway, IE 6.05 is supposed to come out with XP SP2 next summer. Will include some new features (pop-up blocker is the only one i remember)

 

[DannyBoy]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: 50
Hey, I've noticed, its been about 2 or more years since IE 6 came out. Why hasn't Microsoft developed any newer versions or anything? It is still FAR from PERFECT.

the thread has degenerated a bit, anyway, IE 6.05 is supposed to come out with XP SP2 next summer. Will include some new features (pop-up blocker is the only one i remember)

Any news on tabbed browsing? Skins? anything firebird similar?

Also, is Outlook Express getting any improvements?

Cheers,
Dan

 

[Nothinman]

Also, is Outlook Express getting any improvements?

MS has already said that OE is done, except for security patches but those are usually IE problems anyway.

 

[gflores]

Originally posted by: DannyBoy

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: 50
Hey, I've noticed, its been about 2 or more years since IE 6 came out. Why hasn't Microsoft developed any newer versions or anything? It is still FAR from PERFECT.

the thread has degenerated a bit, anyway, IE 6.05 is supposed to come out with XP SP2 next summer. Will include some new features (pop-up blocker is the only one i remember)

Any news on tabbed browsing? Skins? anything firebird similar?

Also, is Outlook Express getting any improvements?

Cheers,
Dan

I doubt the new IE will be any better than MyIE2, let alone Firebird. Both have tons of options and features that you can configure, and both come out with new extensions/plug-ins regularly.

 

[straubs]

Originally posted by: fisher


i tried mozilla and firebird for a month. ran into problems, tanked both. back to IE, no problems now. i'll stick with IE.

I tried IE for a few years. I ran into problems--I couldn't handle closing a popup (or 5) on every page, and having to keep clicking "open in new window" and then losing my place in what I was reading. Then the spyware, drive-by downloads, browser helper objects that install w/o asking, and security vulnerabilites on a weekly basis made me think to try something new.

I tried Firebird. I think I'll stick with Firebird.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: straubs

Originally posted by: fisher


i tried mozilla and firebird for a month. ran into problems, tanked both. back to IE, no problems now. i'll stick with IE.

I tried IE for a few years. I ran into problems--I couldn't handle closing a popup (or 5) on every page, and having to keep clicking "open in new window" and then losing my place in what I was reading. Then the spyware, drive-by downloads, browser helper objects that install w/o asking, and security vulnerabilites on a weekly basis made me think to try something new.

I tried Firebird. I think I'll stick with Firebird.

seems like a lot of people object to installing google toolbar (popups), and actually using Ie's features, like security zones, privacy zones, Shift-clicking to open in new window, etc... apparently using mozilla clones is just sexier these days...

 

[BFG10K]

Noone said Apple was better but Apple competes in a much larger PC desktop market that they have nowhere near a monopoly in.

Apple does not compete in the PC desktop market which is why they're a monopoly. They are a niche market that relies on customer loyalty to stay afloat.

If an x86 OEM vendor started pulling the same stunts and pricing as Apple did they'd be out of business within a week. Yet Apple can survive because they're in a different market.

Atleast I can ask McDonald's to remove the pickles and they will, I ask MS to remove IE and they laugh.

And ask Red Hat to remove their memory manager and they will laugh as well. Tell me, why do you think it's OK for Red Hat to dictate what is part of their OS but it isn't OK for Microsoft to do the same?

Name 1 product that's being forcibly included with Windows.

There were two lawsuits filed that I know of, one by Sun to force Microsoft to include Sun's version of Java and another by the European Union which demanded that certain competitors' applications (especially multimedia ones) be included with the Windows installation.

And nothing, if you can't understand why a memory manager is required and an HTML renderer isn't you shouldn't be making those judgements.

If you remove the HTNML renderer from Windows it won't work, therefore it is required.

I'm afraid I can't explain it any more simpler than that.

How about you show me instructions on how to install a 3rd party SMB file server.

I don't have the knowledge to answer your question.

And nicely points out a huge advantage to open source software.

How does someone make money by giving away their software for free and letting everyone view their trade secrets?

If you use Windows you don't have a choice,

explorer uses it all over the place and WU requires it.

Uses what? The HTML renderer? Of course it does. Remember, this is the same HTML renderer you're claiming is not required by Windows and then at the same time you turn around and start listing the scenarios where it's needed.

OS 9 doesn't have a memory manager =)

Heh. 🙂

You get my point though.

I've seen people cleaning up after a lot more Windows problems than Linux ones recently and I doubt that'll change any time soon.

How lovely for you. The doesn't change the fact that a large number of competent Windows admins have stated that Linux and Windows can be equally secure if they're both setup right.

 

[Nothinman]

Apple does not compete in the PC desktop market which is why they're a monopoly. They are a niche market that relies on customer loyalty to stay afloat.

Yes they do, the software choices are more limited and different but they do the exact same things.

And ask Red Hat to remove their memory manager and they will laugh as well. Tell me, why do you think it's OK for Red Hat to dictate what is part of their OS but it isn't OK for Microsoft to do the same?

If I asked them to put the Andrea Arcangeli VM in their they might not laugh even though I doubt they'd do it because I doubt they'd want to support both VMs but atleast I do have a choice and could do it myself if I wanted to.

one by Sun to force Microsoft to include Sun's version of Java

Which wouldn't have happened if MS would have made their implementation of Java actually follow the Java standard.

If you remove the HTNML renderer from Windows it won't work, therefore it is required.

But it will work. I may not be able to read the help files or use a few control panels, but the OS itself will work just fine.

How does someone make money by giving away their software for free and letting everyone view their trade secrets?

I'm not concerned with that, I just want the best software available and that's, in most cases, open source software.

How lovely for you. The doesn't change the fact that a large number of competent Windows admins have stated that Linux and Windows can be equally secure if they're both setup right.

I wouldn't say otherwise, but either

A) Windows admins are genereally incompetent and can't keep up with patches
or
B) Windows is too complicated to keep patched in large installations.

What's great is the place I work has never gotten hit with one of those worms and we have a lot of Windows servers and workstations and multiple clients of ours have expressed surpise that we don't have those problems, several of them after we had notified them that they were infected.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

How lovely for you. The doesn't change the fact that a large number of competent Windows admins have stated that Linux and Windows can be equally secure if they're both setup right.

I wouldn't say otherwise, but either

A) Windows admins are genereally incompetent and can't keep up with patches
or
B) Windows is too complicated to keep patched in large installations.

forgot C) worms target the most populous platform...

let's not forget the first documented worm (edit: the Great Worm), i think it took out the internet for some hours in the 80's , and it targeted unixes, no?