OSNews

The engine doesn't call into the application, it uses libraries.

You could still remove IE, yet leave the libs for those programs that really need it. (gameshadow.com relies on their system to xslt soap data...)

'nuff said.

So people like you should quit whining, delete iexplore.exe from both Program Files and the dllcache, and feel good that you have "rid" yourself of the evil that is IE.

Except you haven't. You've just deleted its shell wrapper.

Not to mention all the programs that tightly rely on IE. You cannot even use QuickBooks if you upgrade to IE7, so what are the chances QuickBooks isn't going to fail if you out right remove the thing. Same goes for many other programs, that have bad programmers relying on tools they shouldn't.

MSHTML engine -- it's used by more than just IE.

True, but not the ie application. I have programs on my pc that depend on gnome libraries, but that doesn't mean I need all of gnome installed, just the libraries.

MS would be able to allow removal of internet explorer without removing all the MSHTML/trident libs. Perhaps a better example is that firefox needs the netscape/mozilla gecko rendering engine, but that doesn't mean I need all of netscape/seamonkey installed for firefox to work

But there are plenty of apps out there that rely on IE, not the IE Component, so removing IE but not the IE libs would still be an compatibility desaster.

Sounds to me like either those are some very poorly written apps (embedding applications instead of libraries), or MS has done a piss-poor job of marketing/exposing the IE component causing people to write piss-poor applications that embed other apps instead of libaries/components.

MSHTML engine -- it's used by more than just IE.

Khtml is used by more than just Konqueror but you could replace it without a problem (in fact a project to embed Gecko in KDE has been started twice). The reason there is no real replacement is that Khtml isn't a huge source of security holes and millions of dollars in damages.

In addition the requirement iirc wasn't even about the engine for its inadequacy but about IE the all-in-one package. MS uses its html engine to thwart competitors by making it incompatible with standards but without its wrapping it can't be used as browser.

Except that it's probably the most heavily used application shipped with the OS as well... and Microsoft knows that their "flavor" of the internet is still in the majority, thus somewhat maintaining their OS marketshare with the circular dependency between must-have applications and the OS that they run on.

Face it - these days an OS without a browser is... n't even considered a viable OS

OTOH, I agree with you that it should definitely be more modularized with an option to remove it - or at least remove everything except the shared components. I simply remove the IE icon from my desktop and start menu after installing firefox - although that certainly doesn't prevent some ill-minded software from launching it indirectly (MSN messenger for example used to do this even if IE wasn't your default browser - maybe it still does - I wouldn't know)

although that certainly doesn't prevent some ill-minded software from launching it indirectly (MSN messenger for example used to do this even if IE wasn't your default browser - maybe it still does - I wouldn't know)

You're right about that one; no matter what I do, it still launches Internet Explorer, even though I have explicitly stated that I want Firefox to be used.

Not only must they do what you mentioned, but ensure that programmers, both Microsoft and third parties, actually make the correct function calls to the system rather than hard coding for Internet Explorer to be loaded, irrespective of the default settings.

Windows simply recreates iexplorer.exe

Nuke the entire thing from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

/slashdot

Beggar's Nest will never be the same.

/Gate Captain Ergus

I was here

/Kilroy

All is lost, Fenthik.

/Desther

"Windows simply recreates iexplorer.exe "

May I ask a question? It's because I really don't know. I've got no "Windows" so I can't have a look at it myself.

Is it IEXPLORER.EXE or IEXPLORE.EXE?

Seems that even since "Windows '95" the good (TM) 8.3 filenames are still in use - even in "Vista". Is it for backwards compatibility? :-)

xdevhost:~ # ls /windows/C/Program Files/Internet Explorer/*.exe
/windows/C/Program Files/Internet Explorer/iedw.exe
/windows/C/Program Files/Internet Explorer/iexplore.exe

yes it's iexplore.exe, my brains just copied the filename from the parent post

"yes it's iexplore.exe, my brains just copied the filename from the parent post"

Wow... DOS filenames to forever in "Windows"! :-)

It doesn't count actually.
iexplore executable is just "bootstrapper" for real IE.
To say, remove it, then type http:// URL in any "just Explorer" folder view in address bar - and you will be there, in real IE. It is just shell for windoze desktop system. If your system is slow enough, you can see even how IE buttons blinks (appear fo short moment) in that folder view pane:)

Well, windows update works from IE (and IE only!!) so I guess that Server 2k3 would have update issues.

Why that? IE6 is a part of Win2K3. It is just running with a very (obnoxious) high security level.

My Win2K3 has IE7 installed besides K-Meleon and Firefox.

Personally I think relying on one particular browser engine is a major mistake. What Microsoft _should've_ done from the very beginning is: A plugin architecture allowing for several browser engines side by side (this plugin architecture actually exists), with the option of removing any of them. The OS it self should not have any kind of hardcoded dependency on MS HTML (nor a dependency on _any_ browser engine), but none-the-less explorer.exe does have such a dependency (even with IE7).

Oh I agree with you, but your arguments don't sound good to Sharholders' ears. Why should microsoft destroy IE's main competitive advantage in the interests of interoperability?

microsoft.com uses a lot of ActiveX controls for their dynamic sites (Genuine Advantage, MS Update, Windows Update, Office Update, etc). As IE is the only browser that fully supports all of ActiveX, there are a lot of IE-only parts to their website (and unfortunately, to the www in general).

Contrary to what Groklaw says, the DOJ didn't order MS to allow users to remove IE from Windows, only access to it. SPAD is in Windows because of the DOJ ruling. The final judgement talks about removing access, not code.

H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months
after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall:
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start
menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation
kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons, short-
cuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a
Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu
entries for applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may
restrict the display of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for any product in any
list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows docu-
mentation as being limited to products that provide particular types of func-
tionality, provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to
non-Microsoft and Microsoft products; and (b) enabling or disabling automatic
invocations pursuant to Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that are used to
launch Non-Microsoft Middleware Products or Microsoft Middleware Pro-ducts. The mechanism shall offer the end user a separate and unbiased choice
with respect to enabling or removing access (as described in this subsection
III.H.1) and altering default invocations (as described in the following
subsection III.H.2) with regard to each such Microsoft Middleware Product or
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and may offer the end-user a separate and
unbiased choice of enabling or removing access and altering default configura-
tions as to all Microsoft Middleware Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft
Middleware Products as a group.
. Allow end users (via an unbiased mechanism readily available from the
desktop or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation kits), and
Non-Microsoft Middleware Products (via a mechanism which may, at
Microsoft's option, require confirmation from the end user in an unbiased
manner) to designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in
place of that Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice versa) in any case where
the Windows Operating System Product would otherwise launch the Microsoft
Middleware Product in a separate Top-Level Window and display either (i) all
of the user interface elements or (ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft
Middleware Product.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/3/2/53239546-efee-460c-a58...

There are articles online from when SPAD was being implemented discussing changes made at the request of the DOJ. Also IE was allowed to stay because the benefit to consumers outweighed any anti-competitive effects to the market.

If SPAD actually worked, it would be ok.

If SPAD actually worked, it would be ok.

How do you know it doesn't, and that his problems weren't the fault of the Netgear application developers? Just because SPAD removes access doesn't mean an app can't go against best practices and fiddle with the registry, call the app directly, etc.

If an application can do that in order to access IE then SPAD doesn't work.

Bingo.

It's not what's default that's the issue - it's not being able to remove it from the system.

In OS X you can drag Safari to the trash and it's gone.

In KDE, you should be able to remove Konqueror via Synaptic (correct me, I'm not a Linux user)

In Windows, you're out of luck.

Yes, you can completely remove Konqueror from KDE and use any other browser/file manager you like

If you would like to use them system package manager to remove konqueror you end up removing KDE kdebase (on all systems I know). That is the same as remove KDE on any practical sense.

Fact is, on any system, be it Windows, Linux, OSX or *BSD (that is pretty much what I have experience with), there is a certain level of granularity you should pick when building your system and creating your packages or you will get a huge list of options that will be a nightmare to manage and then would lose its usefulness.

So, if people insist to get this level of control they should be prepared to pay a price on it (on cost and manageability/usuability). For now could be just IE and MP on Windows, but as the system evolve what could happen? "Hey, I also would like to remove any file associated to Windows Firewall! And don't forget about those related to System Update! Also, no extra drivers should be kept on my main storage device!". If you have installed nay Linux/*BSD on detailed mode you already know what I'm talking about. I think you got the idea.

f you would like to use them system package manager to remove konqueror you end up removing KDE kdebase (on all systems I know). That is the same as remove KDE on any practical sense.

No, removing the meta package kdebase (e.g. as a result of removing one of its dependencies) does not even come close to removing KDE as a whole.

All other programs and libraries which are dependencies of kdebase will still remain installed.

Unless of course you are using a system with weird KDE packages, but then it is an artifical dependency problem

Depends on your system. The official packaging of KDE is in large packages: kdelibs, kdebase, kdenetwork, kdegraphics, kdeutils, etc.

Some OSes (like FreeBSD) use these packages as they are bundled by the KDE Project, so you can't remove individual apps.

Some OSes (like Debian) break these down into a bazillion little packages for (each individual) libraries and (each individual) application, with meta-packages to install everything in one easy shot.

Some like the first method, others prefer the second. But not everyone uses the same method for packaging mega-apps like KDE (or GNOME, or XFCE, etc).

You're just exaggerating!

A browser is a browser, everybody knows what a browser is and so everybody is able to choose his browser of choice.

That's different to system drivers, etc.


It could be true that KDE is built heavily around Konqueror, but you can install a full Gnome or XFCE desktop without having a browser.


Normally, the user shouldn't care about, if there is some unused tool more or less installed on his PC. But IE, ... well, IE is the biggest security hole ever invented for the PC..

Safari is still a "shell" around WebKit -- which you don't want to remove unless you want a non-working OS X system.

> Safari is still a "shell" around WebKit -- which you
> don't want to remove unless you want a non-working OS X
> system.

And what if I want to remove WebKit too and still want a usable system? Apple should stop bundling so much software with their OS and then even bolt it so deeply into the OS that everything stops working if I just want to remove it.

(sarcasm off now... just to show the level of argumentation when it comes to Windows and IE)

The problem is that the market isn't very competitive at all. Who owns 90%+ percent of the OS market? Who owns 80%+ of the browser market?

The problem is not whether you bundle stuff, the problem is that you bundle stuff that stifles competition when you are a monopoly.

That does not apply to Apple, Linux, BSD, or anybody else. Therefore, the target is absolutely correct.

Also, before everybody starts splitting hairs, I did not research my percentages at all, but the point is still valid AND there are multiple correct "targets" when it comes to Microsoft.

Edited 2007-01-11 22:32

Windows respects that? MSN certainly doesn't, and I'm certain there's many more MS apps that call iexplore directly instead of the shellOpen API (which would use the default browser). Even with an alternative default browser, IE still persists in popping up it's freakish head now and again.

Windows respects that? MSN certainly doesn't, and I'm certain there's many more MS apps that call iexplore directly instead of the shellOpen API (which would use the default browser). Even with an alternative default browser, IE still persists in popping up it's freakish head now and again.

Yes, and it annoys the living daylights out of me. I use MSN Messenger, and every time someone sens me an email to my Hotmail account and I click the mailbox icon on Messenger, the horrid interface of IE7 pops up. Why can;t it just load Firefox, darnit?

I don't care if IE is on my Vista install or not, but I do want it to respect my default settings.

It's why I use an alternative MSNs like: aMSN, Gaim or Miranda. They don't open a Internet Explorer but your default browser.

I went one better and switched to a Mac with Adium

OK that's your experience. I don't use MSN, nor do I open links from MS Office, etc. The only thing I use IE for is developing web sites (we sell to UK schools so IE compatibility is king, however much I'd like it to be otherwise) and Windows Update.

At home I use linux, which is an altogether happier experience :o)

On my work PC (Win 2k) I can set another browser to be the default and, hey, Windows respects that.

As others have said, this is not always the case.

The converse, and perhaps even worse problem is when websites require IE but launch the default browser. For example, if you click Check for updates in Microsoft Visual Studio, it launches Firefox (my default) and then immediately the website gives an error about not using IE. It's an instant redirect to an error page, so I can't even launch IE to get to the site because I don't know the URL! So there is two levels of idiocy here, one being the IE-only website, and the other being that they don't launch IE if they know they need it.

By the way, to set the default browser in KDE, go into the control panel, then go to "Components -> Components chooser -> Web browser" and check "The following browser", and type in "firefox".
I'm pretty sure you can remove konqueror entirely if your distribution packages it separately (like Debian does http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/konqueror )

Edited 2007-01-11 18:56

Web sites requiring IE is a pain in the hole, tis true. I've spent years banging the drum to get my company make our sites properly cross-browser/platform.

However, other than Microsoft's web sites, I'd call that the web site developers's problem, not Microsoft's.

Cheers for the KDE tip, I'll have a play with it.

"I can set another browser to be the default and, hey, Windows respects that."

Maybe in your limited use of Windows, but if you'd read the article it mentions a case where an application completely ignores the users' request.

As for DEs, I've got Gnome installed but not Epiphany.
I have Amaya, Konq., Firefox and Opera. (S'no point having two comparable GRE powered browsers to test with)

Wouldn't that suggest it's the programs fault? Not Windows.

Maybe in your limited use of Windows

You've hit the nail of the head, there. My use of Windows is as limited as possible :o)

Yes, you can install Gnome without Galeon, and without Epiphany - or for that matter without Firefox or Seamonkey or without whatever browzer you don't want.

"What about the other DEs out there? Can I remove Konquerer from KDE (I've not tried - Firefox is my default but Konq loads whenever I click to do a bug report from KDE - it's annoying but happens so rarely I can live with it)? Could I install Gnome without Galleon?"

No you can't. It is no different then IE in Windows in that respect. They are tied to the DE and must be installed for the DE to work.

Actually, I do believe that you can remove Konqueror from KDE, and Galeon from Gnome (or rather, Epiphany).

"Actually, I do believe that you can remove Konqueror from KDE, and Galeon from Gnome (or rather, Epiphany)."

I would love to know how. When I try this it removes kdebase making kde not useable. Epiphany removes gnomelibs making Gnome unuseable. At least it did this on Suse 10.2. I have not tried on other distros.

If I remember correctly, kdebase is a meta-package (on Ubuntu, anyway). Removing it has no effect on the actual installation - it is simply used to install all of the kdebase-* packages.

Checking things in Adept-Manager (the equivalent of Synaptic for Kubuntu), I see that if I remove Konqueror, all it removes are konq-related packages (konq-plugins, etc.) and a few meta-packages, but not the other packages that these meta-packages install. In other word, I can remove Konqueror and still keep a functioning KDE desktop (well, I'd have to install another file manager though, such as Krusader).

I also verified that I have libgnome2 installed, but I don't have Epiphany (nor Galeon) installed, so this is perhaps an issue with Suse, but it isn't for Ubuntu.

It is because Gnome and KDE has been compiled and configured that way on Suse 10.2

You could try to force an uninstallation of Konqueror or Epiphany without removing packages depending on Konqueror or Epiphany.

My gentoo system is running Gnome, and I don't have Epiphany (nor Galeon (e.g. Epiphany with extensions)) installed. I have Firefox, but not Epiphany.

When I used Fedora Core back in 2004 (and early 2005) I had the same experiences as you (which is why I ditched binary distributions - they suck). But this is a distribution issue and not a KDE or Gnome issue. AFAIK gnomelibs do not depend on Epiphany, but the latter does depend on the former.

Or try out nLite, which is free.

Why is it that no one sells PCs without windows, anyway?

Uh, plenty of companies sell PCs without Windows, including the largest of them all, Dell. You just don't save money by buying a PC without Windows (which makes sense--OEM licenses from Microsoft cost less than what Dell receives in kickbacks from installing all the malware on its PCs).

Have you actually tried to buy a computer with another OS pre-installed?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/06/dell_open_pc/

I already noted that you'll get a worse deal if you don't want Windows (see the "craplets" story for more on the rationale). It's still pretty easy to purchase Windows-free machines.

<off topic>

I've just been investigating on the dell site and came across this:

http://offsetdesign.co.uk/static/prod.gif

pretty funny.

</off topic>