OSNews

No, they're absolutely right. They DO support a wide range of web standards. The range just isn't as wide as the rest of us would like.

It's all dependent on what you call an 'accepted web standard'; Opera's definition or Microsoft's definition.

I think the only important definition is the web developers definition.

And nearly all of them would agree with Opera, Microsoft's standards support is lacking.

>It's all dependent on what you call an 'accepted web
>standard'; Opera's definition or Microsoft's
>definition.

not Opera's definition. International Web Standards definition (CSS, DOM, JS, etc...)

Web developers have to do all the work twice: once for all web browsers around there and once (with hard hacking to get the stuff working) for IE (and then some more work to get it working on IE6 and also on IE7)

That's only true if you accept that "support" can mean "implement incorrectly."

I appreciate your sense of diplomacy, but in my experience, IE (6 and to a lesser extent, 7) unfortunately implement relatively few standards, poorly. Standards support means little if the implementation is almost unusably buggy.

I've seen too many brave web developers driven back to tables by IE's "standards support"...

Prequisite reply about the EU are all communists, that it's shocking that anyone should think that the web should be open to all, insert irrelevant nonsense about market shares and Windows Update, all covered in a crispy coating of Stockholm Syndrome.

Seriously, network carriers suggest they should be able to choose whose traffic they carry and everyone's up in arms - someone suggests that perhaps the web shouldn't be controlled by a corporate behemoth that makes up its own rules and *suddenly* capitalism is aaalright. Hypocritical, no?

Corporates want more money, users want more flexibility and freedom (in terms of functionality and "do whatever I want").

This is the ultimate clash today because software becomes more powerful everyday and it's not that expensive ($9.95 softwares and F/OSS) as it was before. So, corporates limit users and re-sell "enablements" to extort more money from the market.

Everybody wants for theirselves and it's *just* natural.

I'm not sure I totally understood what you were saying, but I have opinions too, so I figured I'd share. :-)

Network Carriers shaping network traffic is a problem in the same way GE owning most of the roads, and shaping traffic (mostly though tolls I'd imagine) would be a problem for roads, and the economy that runs on them. It would stifle commerce, not enable it.

In fact, any company in an overly dominant position has the capability to stifle commerce, to bring capitalism to a halt. That's why we need rules, and oversight to make sure those very large companies follow them.

It's odd that there are some free market fundamentalists that can't understand that basic fact. Laissez faire doesn't work for stable and fair economies, and it never has. I wish we could move past all the name calling, and figure out how to provide the best rules, and oversight for the rules for our economy. As long as far right economic theorists are continuing to hold the line on any form of even slight oversight, constantly jumping straight across the vast middle ground to the label "communism", I guess that's not going to happen.

Finally, to be clear, Microsoft being allowed to dominate the Web Platform, and the Operating System platform (etc.) for their own profit at the expense of everyone else, is just as bad as network providers shaping traffic for their own profit, at the expense of everyone else. It's the same problem - the problem of monopolies, a problem for which the "free market" provides no solution.

I don't know how you got marked up to +10, while I got marked down to -5, when we're talking about the same thing.

And I'll have to reply here since your previous post can't be replied to.

You forgot to mention the prequisite argument saying that Microsoft is a "Convicted Monopoly"... come on. I don't really like MS and hate IE (really, it is the only piece of software from MS that I truly HATE), but these nonsense attacks people usually make are becoming boring. Please give us more facts so we can all hate microsoft based on truth!

PS: Although it may look (and I'm taking a hard time to understand this...) I'm not bashing Almafeta, I actually (Oh God...) agree with him this time.

I run Linux here at my house and I have to say you hit that nail on the head. MS is not going to admit they did something wrong it doesn't benefit them in the least.

Why does you running Linux have any relevance at all to this topic ?

Perhaps because as a Linux user, he feels the impact of IE-only sites most strongly?

'natural' doesn't mean 'correct'

The sky is also blue, does stating the obvious make you feel good?

Did I ever say 'natural' did not mean 'correct'?

yes

"I expected Microsoft would ditch IE and ship Opera instead "

I'm not sure why the mod down. Its not unreasonable that Microsoft would buy a third-party browser and label it their own, as they do most of their software. Hey hold on isn't that what they did with Internet Explorer.

To be fair though. In the ways IE7 is a poor product. Is one of the reasons why Microsoft will keep IE7. IE7 from a *user* perspective not a bad browser. Web developers *work around* the problems with Microsoft products...but sadly not for Opera.

Now if the codebase for IE7 is really broken, as it could well be, buying Opera must seem an attractive choice legal problems of doing so aside assuming Opera's codebase isn't broken too. Although really all anyone can so is speculate as its all proprietary.

The origins of IE in this sense is irrelevant, as it's been since rewritten as a complete in-house Microsoft product.

I mean, it makes sense from a business perspective. Why spend the research and development to create a product, when you can purchase and enhance it for half the cost?

They've done the same I believe with .NET, and the purchasing of SysInternals, etc..

I don't think it's a bad way to go about doing things at all, do you think so? I'm not sure what stance you're taking here.

I do think there is a fair amount of negligence on the side of the IE team for not adhering to ready standards, and it's something they need to come forward and fix.

I mean, their strategy makes sense from a business perspective but it's the kind of cut throat tactics which gets them into the kind of trouble they're in now.

Not that I agree much with Opera's stance on the Antitrust case, but I'm talking more historically.

Is that compliment or criticism ?

It could be installed by an OEM, or a computer-competent relative that would handle your computer.

So, basically, a browser would come with the os. Sort of like now, only instead of ms picking the browser, an oem does it. How's that any better?

Or is every browser in the world going to be installed? So that no one thinks their browser is being side-stepped? What if I don't want my oem's choice of browser? Are they going to ask people to select from a list? I guess then we'd see how many people care about browsers by how man opt for ie. I doubt many people would bother picking anything else.

If you find it is causing harm, or is a security hole, or an inlet for ads, you can uninstall it.

This is the critical bit ... you can uninstall it.

You can. You get to say. YOU. The machine owner. Your say as to what software your machine ends up running.

Get it?

Are we getting it yet?

no

Set the default browser to whatever YOU want. Won't see IE any more. That's what I do.

Only exception is when an application is hard-coded to open up IE which is by no way Microsoft's fault. That is also one of the reasons why IE should come with Windows.

Moreover, there are apps which need a rendering engine, IE always being there guarantees that my app will work.

Forcing Microsoft to conform to Web standards (at least as much as Firefox if not Opera) is the best way to go.

Edited 2007-12-18 17:55

Microsoft could include this stand-alone program to optionally install:

http://home.pacific.net.sg/~kennethkwok/lynx/
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~kennethkwok/lynx/scrshot.gif

... or this one:

http://filezilla-project.org/
http://filezilla-project.org/client_screenshots.php

... or this one:

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/
http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/features.htm

... and they would also need to include the source code of those download programs, and a README file on were to download IE, Firefox or Opera from.

Once you had downloaded a decent browser of your choice, you could optionally then uninstall the original means you used to download it.

Edited 2007-12-18 08:18

Do you really think people would want to use lynx? Your living in a dream world

It is way more secure than IE.

Lynx is after all a better option than a raw command-line ftp program.

But primarily I mention it because it does answer the question posed posed by the OP ... how to download another browser without IE installed.

It turns out that there are multiple answers to that question. Lynx is one were people can at least "see" what is happening.

Freedownloadmanager is better from a GUI point of view ... but you need to know a URL to download from. Lynx + google will at least let you find such a link.

http://www.vordweb.co.uk/accessible_website.htm
(link above has a small screenshot of lynx displaying the google page).

Edited 2007-12-18 09:32

Wouldn't a better approach, and one that could be understood and actually completed by the average user, be to link to Windows Market Place browser section? Or a special web page setup by ms for people to select a browser. Could be reached by a special application.

No offence, but the idea that the average user could use lynx is laughable

Edited 2007-12-18 13:34

You STILL do not get it. It is not about Microsoft including Internet Explorer, it is the fact that Internet Explorer is so intricately linked into the operating system that it cannot be uninstalled.

Have you just landed from the Moon? THAT is the problem, that's what the whole thing is about. As long as it's there and cannot be removed, people are going to find it in there and won't use anything else. They'll never find out there are better browsers out there.

It's an evil tactic coming from a monopoly. Microsoft sells Windows, which is an OS. They have no business trying to shove other kinds of software down people's throats. Especially if it's obvious that they're bundling IE in an attempt to subvert Web standards to their own twisted purposes. Especially if there's absolutely no need to tie Explorer to the system -- for updates and help you can just bundle the core libraries, not the whole browser.

As long as it's there and cannot be removed, people are going to find it in there and won't use anything else.

Actually, it can be hidden pretty well ... but it's not easy. For my friends/Romans/countrymen, I usually download Firefox, re-label the shortcut as "Internet" and delete the IE icons from the desktop/toolbar/program files menu.

After that, the user just clicks the FIrefox icon 99% of the time ...

But what about, say, the embedded MSHTML engine? Sure, it's also not very good, but it provides an easy way for developers to embed rich HTML views without a whole lot of extra coding. I think the real problem isn't that Microsoft's bundling IE, I think the problem is that IE just isn't very good.

I would argue that any modern GUI based operating system worth its salt should provide an embedded HTML viewer component; Gnome, KDE and Mac OS X all provide such a thing as well.

I'd agree with you if IE were removable. The fact that it's not is the problem IMHO

That thing didn't go as well as it should have. As you can see, Microsoft is still up to some of its old tricks even today. Opera didn't have the money it has today back then -- it takes a lot of it to sue Microsoft. And frankly, the US courts are a lost cause.

That's why they're doing it only today, in Europe.

With Mac OS X you have to fire up Safari to get Camino or any other browser. Sure you could delete the Safari binary afterwards, but you can delete iexplore.exe, too. You can't delete WebKit on OS X because many applications use it. You can't delete mshtml.dll for the same reason. So, really, what's the difference? Must Apple also comply, and provide Firefox, Camino, Opera, and whatever other browser exists as well, on their OS X DVDs?

Exactly what I was thinking. Or for that matter, a lot of Linux distros use FireFox as their default browser. Shouldn't they be suing Apple and other OS makers too?

Did you even make an effort to read the posts; someone else has already pointed out here, even after downloading and setting up the new browser as default, the likes of Windows Live Messenger still loads Internet Explorer by default.

That is the issue people are getting at - and strange enough, it never happens on Mac OS X; install Firefox, and even through the MSN Messenger on Mac, it loads up with the correct default browser - same goes for Linux.

You change the default browser on any of the other major operating systems, they respect the choice, the default selection of the end user - under Windows, no way; Microsoft knows better than you, ignores your settings and still loads up Internet Explorer.

Oh, and don't blame the software vendor; Microsoft wrote both the operating system, the browser and messenger; it either says one of two things, they're grossly incompetent or simply that they are going to fight tooth and nail at every opportunity when it comes to consumer choices.

Oh, and a side issue; the original law suit which started off the investigation by the DOJ years ago was over the fact that Microsoft disallowed OEM's from loading competing browsers on the computer and replacing the IE logo on the desktop with the installed browser. That is the issue. They restricted choice at the supply end.

Edited 2007-12-18 06:56

"Monopoly" is a special case. If you don't have a monopoly share of the market then you are more free in how you can compete. Once you gain the monopoly share, laws are suposed to restrict you to explicitly fair competition.

Apple is every bit as restrictive as Microsoft. If they where 90% of the measurable consumer market then antitrust law would be applicable.

And that just illustrates how screwed up our legal systems are where different laws apply to different groups of people.

At least here in the U.S. there is **supposed** to be some notion of equal justice under the law.

Law applies differently to different groups of people everywhere*, namely the group formed by those who break it and the group of those who don't.

Abusing a monopoly to take over other markets puts you on the former group.


*Not really, but let's not get into bribes and stuff.

Edited 2007-12-19 14:08

'A) Bundle all 3 major competing browsers on the install CD and give the user the option at install time...@?

You mean IE, Firefox and Safari right?

No.

First of all, I'd like to refer to your comment's title:

"Opera doesn't have a leg to stand on"

Sadly, this seems to be correct, but it is not determined by the quality of their product, but to their marketing, or at least to the marketing of MICROS~1 that makes the users "know" that there's nothing else existing than "Internet Explorer", or, much worse, that "the 'Internet Explorer' is the Internet".

Allow me to go into detail:

"Opera is just pissed because nobody is using their browser, [...]"

I'm using their browser, so you have been proven wrong by antiexample over an negative-allquantified statement. :-)

"[...] and the reason why nobody is using their browser has nothing to do with a lack of choice. It's because Opera is a user-unfriendly P.O.S. and an all around pain in the ass."

Hmm... this conflicts very much with the feedback from the users that have explored Opera as a viable alternative to "Internet Explorer". Please note that this is my own individual opinion and my individual experience that makes me say this. Especially the good integration of services (www, mail, chat etc.) into one application pleases many users. On the other hand, I sometimes think that the preferences setting mechanism of Opera could be easier to use.

Sadly, you experienced many problems with Opera.

"1. When I was trying to figure out how to move the panel buttons to the top instead of having them on the left (just one of about 100 bone-headed defaults in Opera), common sense told me to look in the Panels tab on the Customize screen. But no, that option is actually on the Toolbars tab. I actually had to go and look that one up."

Exactly, that's what I did mention, too: Configuration could be more obvious in some points.

"2. On voice preferences, to control the speed of the text-to-speech reader, your options are 'Very low' to 'Very high' ... um, shouldn't that be very slow to very fast?"

No. Speaking from technical terminology and semantics, the option keywords are to describe the speed: low speed = slow, high speed = fast. Excuse me, English is not my native language, but do you say things like "the price is expensive" or "the temperature is hot"? Just mind what an expression is refering to: if "the price is high", then "the product is expensive".

"3. Trying to make the browser more 'SDI' like Firefox, I finally succeeded. But now every time I double click on an html file on my hard drive, I get 2 tabs open in Opera - one with the file I opened, and one with an error message."

What does this error message mean?

"There are literally dozens of things like this in Opera that annoy the hell out of me, and the *only* reason I use it is because it has the best text-to-speech engine I've ever heard."

Furthermore, I like Opera's concept of using the mouse, and its keyboard support is excellent.

"I have installed both Opera and Firefox for other people as alternatives to IE, and I haven't ran across anybody so far that preferred to use Oepra."

Maybe my obervations are different because I did take the time to configure Opera into a more usable and convenient form. That's something you can't expect from the default settings, I think.

"As for IE not supporting web standards, it may not support all of them, but it supports enough."

I think you should differ between "supports in basics" and "supports completely". The quality of support is more important that the pure amount of standards that are claimed to be supported.

And hey, if you're making the standards, you can excuse any malfunctioning support by claiming that the standard has just changed. :-)

As another writer had explained, web developers usually end up developing things twice: One version for all the standard compliant browsers, and one for "Internet Explorer". From my personal experiences, this is true. I finally gave up and didn't support "Internet Explorer" any more.

Today, it's usually the other way round. Dumb web developers code JS stuff into their pages that implement such kind of functionality that only a certain version of "Internet Explorer" can be used, sometimes another test against Mozilla follows, along with a warning advice to change to "Internet Explorer", and the failsafe setting is just to display a message like "Your browser sucks, go buy 'Windows'!".

"And if you can't make a decent website with the stuff that currently works in all major browsers, you should probably go the f**k home."

If you're a web developer, you'll have to admit that it's not as easy as it might seem. "All major browsers", surely, if you code correctly and usually by hand, you won't encounter problems, unless you use some W3C standardized features that the "Internet Explorer" cannot handle, while all other browsers can. But you lose control over the correctness of your HTML files when you leave development up to an automated program. Especially if it's sold by MICROS~1, your web pages will cause problems in all major browsers that are not "Internet Explorer".

"Likewise, some people made better websites in the 90's before tables were even a reality, then some of what is being done now with all the fancy CSS and DHTML crap available now, and people are still bitching that it's not enough."

Because the web today is about interaction, streaming, multimedia and such stuff, you need to put everything together in one single concept. In the 90s, you could do the same things using HTML, but today, you need plugins for this and that, and blind users are kept off many web pages because they don't see anything. What do I want to say with this? Of course it's okay to use CSS, DHTML and even "Flash", but please, use it correctly. That's the only way everyone can benefit from it, no matter which browser you're using. Just imagine how the web would be if you needed to download and install a special browser for each web page, depending on its content... huh... frightening... erm, that's what some plugins (and their limited availability) are used for today, isn't it? :-)

Well implemented web pages can still be viewed with lany and translated onto braille and voice outputs for blind users. And they look great in standard web browsers, you can even apply a custom CSS.

So standards are about openness, availability, completeness and quality, not about oh joy oh market share. And when it's up to HTML and XHTML, W3C's specifications rule.

I agree with a lot of what you say WorknMan, I and just about everyone I know professionally that I have worked with over the years are all familiar with Opera. Almost all have downloaded and installed Opera at one point. And yet every single one uses Firefox as their primary browser. So as much as I could say this is just my personal preference that Firefox is better, it is now hard to argue otherwise when the closer world around me agrees.

At the heart of the issue is the OEMs, not Microsoft. If Opera can not get it's browser as the default pre-installed that is their business to do so. For all those that seem to live their lives obsessing about Microsoft I ask you this. Replace Microsoft in this equation with Apple, or even Ubuntu. What is the primary default browser you see with Ubuntu? But, you say, Opera can be installed through a repo! Yes, and it can also be installed in Windows by downloading the same. What is vastly important before people make idiotic claims and hyperbolic statements is to find out exactly what the OEM's response has been to Opera when they asked to have their browser pre-installed.

It is up to Opera now to show cause, otherwise they just need to go away. I have to admit if this was Firefox we were talking about I would be highly interested. But as this is Opera, well I have no sympathy for them. They make a bad product and wish to use external force and pressure to gain market share. That is just not the way to do business (unless you are Rambus of course).

It apparently works for Microsoft with Vista.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140583-page,5-c,techindustrytrend...

(Actually, I disagree with PC World here on a minor point. Vista IS awful.)

Edited 2007-12-18 09:45

I think that Opera is not as much concerned with the fact that MS ships IE with Windows (it is their product after all, although I agree that them being a monopoly should somehow face some regulation in this regard) as they are with the fact that IE is a lousy piece of crap, that can't render proper CSS to save its life and since IE is used by the majority of web users around the world, web developers have to adapt to its quirks, rendering standards-compliant web browsers completely unusable.

It would be one thing if the buggy way that IE renders stuff could be summarized in a pattern of sorts that could then be reproduced by 3rd party developers so that they could at least have an option to use their standard renderer or choose the "broken" one at runtime. That at least would level the play field and Microsoft would have its defacto standard all over again, pissing over universally agreed standards as they always do.

But I think that IE-apologists in this site have NEVER developed one website in their lives. If they did, then they would understand all the hate and anger towards IE. But I am tired of trying to explain these things to some people: I can understand the layman not understanding what is at stake here, but not the so-called power users. With things like Silverlight further down the road and people believing Miguel de Icaza that they will be able to make an open implementation with Mono and things like SVG being dropped, I really am looking forward to one day with a web completely Microsoft-ish just to be able to tell these retards "I told you so!"...