Why Microsoft's EU Ballot Screen Doesn't Measure Up 283
An anonymous reader writes "A lengthy interview on Groklaw discusses the EU's case against Microsoft. The case is supported by Opera, Google, Mozilla, ECIS, and the Free Software Foundation Europe. The EU has demanded that users be offered a 'ballot screen' to make it easier for users to select other browsers. Microsoft has responded by implementing the ballot screen as a web page inside IE. While this may nominally satisfy EU's demand, it is unlikely to satisfy users who prefer other browsers. In order to select another browser, users must be running IE. Also, users will be shown security warnings when choosing from the ballot. Microsoft's ability to charge patent fees in Europe is also discussed: why are they allowed to charge patent fees where software patents are not recognized?"
Re:I don't care about the screen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why MS can't conceive that people don't want a lot of that crap is beyond me.
I dont think "normal people" care that much though. They dont see the difference between IE being still installed but hidden and IE being completely removed from the system. They get to choose another browser tho.
Microsoft has responded by implementing the ballot screen as a web page inside IE.
I wonder how they've could had done it differently. If you provided the install exes along with OS setup, they would be outdated (bad bad thing in browsers). They could had made another protocol that tells the setup what browsers to show for the user and setup then downloads it, but whats the point. When it's an actual webpage, there's much more control in updating it, and it would had been pretty useless for MS to develop completely new rendering engine and browser just for that (and MS browser would still had been there). The security warnings are stupid however.
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
We would all be annoyed of course, but isn't that the ultimate goal of the "fairness" crowd?
Historically, most attempts by government (any government) to promote "fairness" almost always result in increased inequity.
Re:I don't care about the screen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We'll install Opera right after we install IE (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps they tailor their product to demand.
There is a demand for IE.
I use other browsers about 99% of the time, but I also need to have IE installed.
A home user might be able to get by with it, but I use a grip of different management tools, some of which require IE.
Some router config utils don't render properly in FF (and some don't render properly in certain versions of IE.)
I'd be pretty annoyed if I was doing a new office setup and couldn't install network devices because I needed to download a browser first. Not because it's a huge hassle, but because it an unnecessary one.
You can whine ad nauseum that it shouldn't be this way - but it is.
On my home pc's, IE is installed, but isn't the default, and the shortcuts are deleted.
The only way it runs is if it's started from command line or Start/Run.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like IE is being removed from Windows anyway. There's other things that use it no matter what your default browser is.
This is just whining for the sake of whining.
Re:We'll install Opera right after we install IE (Score:4, Insightful)
Opera and Google are freaking hypocrites (Score:1, Insightful)
Opera and Google are freaking hypocrites. Just look at Firefox and Opera browsers, they all use google search by default when you first install them. Opera doesn't even offer to switch to Bing. Unlike Microsoft which offers to switch to google right there on their first "select a search engine" page.
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that requires an internet connection. I know internet access is common, but can we really assume these days that *everybody* has it, and that it is correctly configured and connected right out of the box? Most home routers are administered via a web page, requiring a browser. Imagine if the ftp session fails to connect. Now what?
... "connection closed by remote host"
Customer talking to ISP tech support: I get an error when I select Opera as my browser
ISP tech: Hmmm. What is the error?
Customer: Something about "connection closed by remote host"
ISP tech: How about if you select a different browser?
Customer: I don't want to select a different one. I want Opera
ISP tech: Well, we can change it back later. Please select Firefox
Customer: OK
ISP tech: OK, well now we are stuck. You have no browser (thanks EU) so you can't connect to your router to check its settings. We'll have to send a technician to your home. There will be a $100 service charge. Is two weeks from next Wednesday between the hours of 8AM and 5PM convenient for you?
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd like a ballot screen for choosing the operating system.
Re:I'm more concerned about... (Score:2, Insightful)
I manage a lot of Windows computers at work and the last thing I want is an automatic update suddenly presenting my users with the invitation to choose a new browser
This only happens on new installs I do think your point about corporate enviroments is valid, however i think that is something MS worry about and unless you leave users with default windows installs i don't think having 1 extra command/config option/program to set it will be an excessive workload.
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:5, Insightful)
You, uh, are aware that there are better alternatives to the shitheap that is outlook express, right? Thunderbird, just to pick the popular one, doesn't have any hoops at all. Why would you jump through the MS hoops for a piece of low-grade quasi-free software?
Re:I don't care about the screen... (Score:2, Insightful)
I always use IE to download Opera. So it doesn't really matter if it is outdated. To me the ballot screen is a silly requirement - most people don't know enough to vote, and there is the risk of malware ridden browsers getting onto it. People who do know enough to vote can already download an alternative browser and use that instead.
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have any examples at all to back this absurd statement up?
Rich.
Re:Enough is enough (Score:1, Insightful)
You realise that you've just described a web browser right? An application that renders arbitrary text files loaded from the internet, with a nice GUI, and can link to other resources on the internet?
If it's a fuck off to the eu (Score:4, Insightful)
then it's oh-so-richly deserved.
I've seen more clueless crap emanate from the eu than any hick state in the US.
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like a ballot screen for choosing the operating system.
I saw one like that from HP's business line. Two problems:
1) Both were from MS (XP or Vista)
2) The notebook was summarily handed to an idiot with a major case of "Oooh, clicky!" syndrome who not only loaded Vista against his company's wishes, but then tried to get XP back by deleting everything he could find. Including Windows and the recovery files.
Somehow, this all wound up being my fault.
The problem with an OS chooser is that it's only useful to people who know what an OS is. A lot don't, and the ones that do and have a nonstandard preference should be at a point where they can install it themselves.
What is really happening (Score:2, Insightful)
The real problem is not that the IE8 is installed by default. The problem is that Microsoft does not want the Internet at all.
Why should they? Web-applications threaten their core business: OS and MS Office. And money talk.
So they use the Internet Explorer as, speaking figuratively, the Internet's tombstone.
It is slow, it is incompatible, its interface is extremely confusing. I spend a lot of time to find a command in its convoluted menus; what about less technical users then?
Microsoft is trying to win time, to make the web-applications and web-OSs experience as bad as legally and humanly possible for as many users as they can.
I do not blame them. They are to pay salaries to 100000 employees. In their shoes I would do probably the same.
Using the monopoly levers they do can bury the Internet. And as a result we will have rich office documents communicating from Windows silos via a MS-network.
Re:Enough is enough (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:4, Insightful)
That's in response to those asshat toolbars like "WebSearch" which fool less than computer literate people into installing them. They switch all your search preferences to their own spyware option automagically.
The Bing option you mention would require you to manually change it, so it can't get hijacked.
In other words, it's not a bad thing.
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, you don't need IE to get Windows Live (from whence you get Live Mail). Windows comes with a handy dandy little app that will go get it for you instead. It uses the same api's IE uses, but who the hell cares? Those are windows networking api's for the most part.
If for some reason you can't get it through the app (AV security restrictions, for one) then you can go to the windows live website - which is just a website that can be accessed from any browser.
Wow, look at all that lock-in required to get Live - oh wait, there isn't any.
As for the cruft, I hate that too. The only thing I like is the Windows Live client (best client I've ever used, though I can't say I've used them all), for the rest of the stuff I perform the incredible difficult task of... unchecking the boxes. Holy cow, that's difficult, I almost didn't manage!
Seriously man, quite whining. It looks bad. If you are really installing Live Messenger that often that downloading it is a nuisance, you can easilly get the full download off the Live website and put it on a thumb drive and keep it with you.
Outlook Express is a security nightmare, which is why Microsoft phased it out. Either use Microsoft's other free client (Live Mail), or use a different free client, or pay for a client. Seriously man, someone gives you something for free and all you can do is complain about it.
Jeeze.
Re:No more Outsuck Express (Score:3, Insightful)
Do people just make things up so they're complaints sound solid? I must be new here.
You must be, that's a hallmark of Slashdot argument. I'll show you how to make yourself sound like an expert on a subject in less than 5 minutes:
First, read the post you disagree with and look for any "fact" (facts are flexible here) that looks less than solid.
Fire up Google and search for a negation of that fact (such and such is not yadda yadda). Even if this yields nothing, you should now know enough about the jargon to start making shit up.
All you really need to do is make sure it is relatively logical, and then state it with absolute certainty. Don't use sissy terms like may, or might, or "scientists think", or any other such pansy talk. State it as if you did the hard research yourself and everyone else in the whole world is a moron.
A great way to fend off rebuttals for something you know is not well documented is to force a conditions for any potential rebuttal. Something along the lines of "Show me where X happened" when you know damn well nobody has been able to gather proof of such a thing. This lends credibility to your own position, regardless of whether or not there is any actual proof for your side either. The fact that your bullshit first and any rebuttals now must prove their side right means you win.
Statistics are fantastic, everybody knows they are unreliable when taken out of context, yet they will still believe an obvious bullshit statistic over just stating an opinion. For example, some statistics on the Healthcare debate (these aren't exact, as I don't feel like looking them up, but they are ballpark): 60% of Americans want a public option, but 65% of Americans don't trust the government to manage healthcare. WTF? It doesn't make much sense, but it is true (roughly). Without any context, you can make those two statistics fit just about any argument you want for any side of the issue. And of course, since you don't know what they actually mean yourself, it's all bullshit anyway.
Don't bother attacking the poster, people just scream "Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem!" and your BS gets overlooked. You need to be more subtle. One of the most effective forms of argument is to re-state the oposing position and adress all of their concerns. The same is true for BS arguments - the better your straw man (incorrectly restating the oposing position and then addressing THOSE concerns), the better your bullshit. An easy to spot straw man just gets you modded down, but a well crafted one can leave oponents furious complaining about what appear to be cosmetic differences between what you stated and their actual position. This technique takes practice.
If you've BS'd well, the only people who will be able to refute you are people who worked harder at their bullshit, or real live experts on the subject.
I have personally started to move away from these tactics, because after a while a decent human being starts to feel dirty, but I imagine if you looked through my posts you'd be hard pressed to tell which ones I actually knew what I was talking about and which ones are utter bullshit in a subject I know nothing about.
Cheers!