StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/0 ... w_breaker/

Finally...

Post the goddamned article.

EU says Microsoft violated law with IE on Windows

US anti-trust ruling no good here

By Gavin Clarke in San Francisco

Posted in Software & Security, 17th January 2009 01:32 GMT

Microsoft has violated European competition law by including Internet Explorer with Windows, according to the European Commission.

The Commission said other browsers are prevented from competing with IE because Windows includes Microsoft's own browser.

Furthermore, the remedies put in place under the US government's landmark 2002 antitrust settlement does not make IE's inclusion with Windows lawful under European law.

Under that ruling, Microsoft agreed to separate IE from Windows and allow users to de-select IE as their chosen browser. The idea was that users didn't get IE as a default from start up.

The ruling came in a Statement of Objections from the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission and was issued after browser specialist Opera filed a complaint with the Commission a year ago. Opera alleged Microsoft was continuing to abuse its dominant position by tying its browser to Windows and by not following web protocols.

Microsoft now has two months to issue a written response to the directorate general and can request a hearing.

The company said in a statement that it's studying the statement of objections and is committed to conducting its business in full compliance with European law. Microsoft has included IE with Windows since 1996.

If it's illegal to bundle a web browser with Windows, what other programs shouldn't be bundled with Windows?

When you first buy windows... say OEM... if IE isn't included, how am I supposed to download the browser of my choice?

Presumably the EU judges intend for there to be a separate box on the shelf for IE, or that Microsoft should offer two versions of Windows, one with and one without IE.

If it's illegal to bundle a web browser with Windows, what other programs shouldn't be bundled with Windows?

To elaborate, the problem isn't that IE (and other non-essential apps) are bundled with Windows. The problem is how IE (and other non-essential apps) are bundled with Windows. Namely, Microsoft removed the ability for to not install IE during setup or uninstall it after setup. For Windows 95, this made no sense, and a minor modification of the 95 setup files easily yielded a trouble-free IE-free install. So Microsoft made an excuse for IE's unremovability by claiming it was "intergrated". Even then, it was still proven that Internet Explorer removal was possible, with programs like 98lite and nLite, along with Fred Vorck's IE-removal tutorial. Of course, this "intergration" had an unfortunate side-affect of introducing new security exploits and bugs that would never have possible under an IE-free Windows. So for Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft made it clear that it was no longer integrated with Windows, which is more-or-less true. Except Vista still doesn't allow IE-removal, while XP actually used more resources after IE7 installation in order to compensate for that fact IE7 no longer shared common resources with Windows and thus had to have its own special ones loaded at startup in order to compensate.

So, to put it simply. Microsoft doesn't have to unbundle IE from Windows. It just has to give the user the option to not install it at setup or uninstall it later. Simple as that.

This is why Ubuntu and other operating systems don't have the same criticisms even though they also "bundle" apps. Ubuntu allows you to remove the apps you don't want.

When you first buy windows... say OEM... if IE isn't included, how am I supposed to download the browser of my choice?

Well, the OEM could simple include the browser of its choice, an option OEMs had lost due to overly restricted Microsoft licensing.

Post the goddamned article.

Sorry. I'll remember that for the future.

Ambassador wrote: To elaborate, the problem isn't that IE (and other non-essential apps) are bundled with Windows. The problem is how IE (and other non-essential apps) are bundled with Windows. Namely, Microsoft removed the ability for to not install IE during setup or uninstall it after setup. For Windows 95, this made no sense, and a minor modification of the 95 setup files easily yielded a trouble-free IE-free install. So Microsoft made an excuse for IE's unremovability by claiming it was "intergrated". Even then, it was still proven that Internet Explorer removal was possible, with programs like 98lite and nLite, along with Fred Vorck's IE-removal tutorial. Of course, this "intergration" had an unfortunate side-affect of introducing new security exploits and bugs that would never have possible under an IE-free Windows. So for Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft made it clear that it was no longer integrated with Windows, which is more-or-less true. Except Vista still doesn't allow IE-removal, while XP actually used more resources after IE7 installation in order to compensate for that fact IE7 no longer shared common resources with Windows and thus had to have its own special ones loaded at startup in order to compensate.

An internet browser is a non essential app? Really? Precisely what definition of "essential" are you using?

General Zod wrote:An internet browser is a non essential app? Really? Precisely what definition of "essential" are you using?

Essential meaning "Your operating system does not work without this".

A computer can happily work with no internet connection at all. A web browser is completely non-essential.

Essential meaning "Your operating system does not work without this".

A computer can happily work with no internet connection at all. A web browser is completely non-essential.

Yes, that is indeed what I meant. I don't mean non-essential in relation to a person's need. For some, Photoshop is an essential component.

Imagine if Windows was in fact 100% on Internet Explorer to run properly. The person in charge of programming would be totally incompetent or be driven by a hidden agenda.

Vendetta wrote: Essential meaning "Your operating system does not work without this".

A computer can happily work with no internet connection at all. A web browser is completely non-essential.

So why does it seem that every version of Linux comes prepackaged with a browser of some sort? How come there haven't been any lawsuits against them? Even OSX comes prepackaged with a browser, afaik.

Because Microsoft is just that much bigger than Apple et al in the OS / internet browser market, and is using its size to crowd out competitors. Personally I don't see a problem, but then I'm computer literate enough to know how to find and download (or order) an alternative to IE if I want, unlike most of my relatives .

So why does it seem that every version of Linux comes prepackaged with a browser of some sort? How come there haven't been any lawsuits against them? Even OSX comes prepackaged with a browser, afaik.

Because in those cases, the browser is uninstallable.

As I said in a previous post:

the problem isn't that IE (and other non-essential apps) are bundled with Windows. The problem is how IE (and other non-essential apps) are bundled with Windows. Namely, Microsoft removed the ability for to not install IE during setup or uninstall it after setup.

Why is it important that IE must be uninstallable?


EDIT: Maybe I'm just a big heartless monopolist but I just don't see the point when just about any web browser is free to use these days anyway.

Vendetta wrote:Essential meaning "Your operating system does not work without this".

A computer can happily work with no internet connection at all. A web browser is completely non-essential.

Yeah, and a computer can happily work with no GUI, no protected memory, or any number of things for that matter. This isn't 1980, a web browser is essential for any consumer operating system these days.

Teleros wrote:Presumably the EU judges intend for there to be a separate box on the shelf for IE, or that Microsoft should offer two versions of Windows, one with and one without IE.

They did that for Windows Media Player and produced the "N"-series of operating systems. Predictably, nobody bought them.

Uraniun235 wrote:Why is it important that IE must be uninstallable?

It isn't. Permitting OEM/VARs to bundle their browser of choice and make it the default browser is good enough - not that anyone will.

Why is it important that IE must be uninstallable?


EDIT: Maybe I'm just a big heartless monopolist but I just don't see the point when just about any web browser is free to use these days anyway.

Because there is no reason why it shouldn't be uninstallable. It should be the user, not Microsoft, who decides what web browser(s) are to be on his/her computer. I would in a minute uninstall IE6 from XP because I never use it and all it does is take up space.

Furthermore, many applications in Windows automatically use IE to open a web page even if you set another as the default. If IE wasn't present, this wouldn't occur at all.

And forcing IE upon the user gives MS the ability to do this crap:

Yeah, and a computer can happily work with no GUI, no protected memory, or any number of things for that matter. This isn't 1980, a web browser is essential for any consumer operating system these days.

You are not understanding what I mean by essential. Microsoft actually tried to convince people that without Internet Explorer, Windows would not work at all, no matter how idiotic this sounded. Again the problem isn't the bundling, it is how it is bundled. Shall I say this 50 more times? Rundll32.exe is an essential application. The Explorer Shell is an essential application. MS Paint is not an essential application. Internet Explorer is not an essential application. Get it?

They did that for Windows Media Player and produced the "N"-series of operating systems. Predictably, nobody bought them.

Fair enough, that was a stupid decision on EU's part. They should have made Windows Media Player optional instead.

It isn't. Permitting OEM/VARs to bundle their browser of choice and make it the default browser is good enough - not that anyone will.

No no no. It's the user's rights to uninstall software that isn't essential to the operation or functioning of Windows. I don't want Internet Explorer on my computer and the same goes for many users. And I like your "not that anyone will" comment. OEM would and have done so the past; the problem was Microsoft revised their lisensing agreements to prevent them to.

IE is critical now because other programs have a dependency on the IE rendering engine to render HTML. Random example, the help engine. The best you can do is to remove the executable, but you can't remove the DLLs that perform most of the work.

Ambassador wrote:Because there is no reason why it shouldn't be uninstallable. It should be the user, not Microsoft, who decides what web browser(s) are to be on his/her computer. I would in a minute uninstall IE6 from XP because I never use it and all it does is take up space.

Furthermore, many applications in Windows automatically use IE to open a web page even if you set another as the default. If IE wasn't present, this wouldn't occur at all.

If IE wasn't present, do you think the applications would magically launch them in Firefox or Opera or whatever browser you've chosen to install? Hint: the problem isn't the existence of IE.

You are not understanding what I mean by essential. Microsoft actually tried to convince people that without Internet Explorer, Windows would not work at all, no matter how idiotic this sounded. Again the problem isn't the bundling, it is how it is bundled. Shall I say this 50 more times? Rundll32.exe is an essential application. The Explorer Shell is an essential application. MS Paint is not an essential application. Internet Explorer is not an essential application. Get it?

First of all, define "essential." If you mean "required for the OS to boot" - the explorer shell wouldn't even be essential! And by the time of Windows 98 (which IIRC is when Microsoft was making the bundling argument), IE's engine was indeed integrated tightly with various components of Windows - like the shell, and the help system. Now, I suppose you could argue that you'd want the frontend browser removed, but what would be the point? The guts of the thing remains in the system. Removing the guts removes important functionality from not a few sections of the OS.

No no no. It's the user's rights to uninstall software that isn't essential to the operation or functioning of Windows. I don't want Internet Explorer on my computer and the same goes for many users. And I like your "not that anyone will" comment. OEM would and have done so the past; the problem was Microsoft revised their lisensing agreements to prevent them to.

In the past, yes, OEM/VARs may have (perhaps in the days of Netscape 3-4). Nowadays? I doubt it: it costs no extra, a large proportion of the web requires IE, and it'll only confuse customers. And yes, a small proportion wastes time trying to remove IE and going through all sorts of nonsense to do so: they're not the market.

IE is critical now because other programs have a dependency on the IE rendering engine to render HTML. Random example, the help engine. The best you can do is to remove the executable, but you can't remove the DLLs that perform most of the work.

First of all, there are many ways that "require" IE that don't render HTML. These can easily be modified or accomadated for.

Secondly, for the apps that use Internet Explorer to implement HTML, there are ways to alternately implement HTML. Case in point: WINE and ReactOS can accomdate these applications without IE. As for the Windows Help system, well it can made to also not use IE to implement HTML. Case in point, the CHM reader for Firefox. Considering that the very simlar style of help using as far back as Windows 3.x didn't require IE, this isn't an issue and therefore an excuse to call Internet Explorer required.

Speaking of DLLs as you mentioned, if you looked into some of these DLLs you would be scared about the amount of useless crap you can find that has no purpose but clogging up space. I hope Microsoft finally corrects this with 7, because frankly it's disgusting.

Ambassador wrote:First of all, there are many ways that "require" IE that don't render HTML. These can easily be modified or accomadated for.

Secondly, for the apps that use Internet Explorer to implement HTML, there are ways to alternately implement HTML. Case in point: WINE and ReactOS can accomdate these applications without IE. As for the Windows Help system, well it can made to also not use IE to implement HTML. Case in point, the CHM reader for Firefox. Considering that the very simlar style of help using as far back as Windows 3.x didn't require IE, this isn't an issue and therefore an excuse to call Internet Explorer required.

Accommodation is insufficient. Any third-party reimplementation will needs to mirror what MSHTML.DLL precisely and accurately. As far as the old help system: it's completely different in design, even if the front-end interface looks similar. It is not an excuse, but a legitimate reason.

Speaking of DLLs as you mentioned, if you looked into some of these DLLs you would be scared about the amount of useless crap you can find that has no purpose but clogging up space. I hope Microsoft finally corrects this with 7, because frankly it's disgusting.

No, they do have a purpose, and it's called backwards compatibility. Somewhere some ancient program is using those calls. Now, Microsoft has plenty of problems with library versioning and API design, but "big libraries" is hardly a problem.

Accommodation is insufficient. Any third-party reimplementation will needs to mirror what MSHTML.DLL precisely and accurately.

Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that since WINE, being a non-Microsoft supported, open source project is able to duplicate the help system sufficiently enough, as well as support stupid IE-requiring applications, I don't think it will be much of a problem for for Microsoft themselves to modify their own product. And about "mirroring" MSHTML.DLL perfectly, well no, that isn't true. There are always different solutions for those problem (like linking to OpenGL for DirectX apps, and that works decently).

As far as the old help system: it's completely different in design, even if the front-end interface looks similar.

Again, that wasn't my point. My point was that if MS could create a perfectly suitable help system that didn't require Internet Explorer for no reason, there isn't any reason why they couldn't do it again.

It is not an excuse, but a legitimate reason.

It isn't legimate that Internet Explorer in its entirety has to be mandatory for something one DLL file can implement.

This problem hasn't just been constrained to Internet Explorer, by the way. Windows Media Player (as mentioned above) is also similarly uninstallable for no reason in XP and Vista, along with Outlook Express and Windows Messenger. The latter two have been rectified for 7 though.

Ambassador wrote:Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that since WINE, being a non-Microsoft supported, open source project is able to duplicate the help system sufficiently enough, as well as support stupid IE-requiring applications, I don't think it will be much of a problem for for Microsoft themselves to modify their own product. And about "mirroring" MSHTML.DLL perfectly, well no, that isn't true. There are always different solutions for those problem (like linking to OpenGL for DirectX apps, and that works decently).

You "don't think it will be much of a problem"? WINE and ReactOS have the luxury of being able to cut corners, do a "good enough" job! Microsoft had enough trouble when Vista came out and applications broke, and now you're arguing they should go ahead and hope that third-party reimplementations of it will work "well enough?" And those OGL <-> D3D bridges never really work that well, for that matter.

Again, that wasn't my point. My point was that if MS could create a perfectly suitable help system that didn't require Internet Explorer for no reason, there isn't any reason why they couldn't do it again.

Yes, and potentially break everyone else's help content that relies on it? Or spend the time to modify their own vast amounts of documentation for the new system?

It isn't legimate that Internet Explorer in its entirety has to be mandatory for something one DLL file can implement.

Then what's the point if you remove just the shell? The guts of IE are still there, as I mentioned earlier.

This problem hasn't just been constrained to Internet Explorer, by the way. Windows Media Player (as mentioned above) is also similarly uninstallable for no reason in XP and Vista, along with Outlook Express and Windows Messenger. The latter two have been rectified for 7 though.

WMP - at least older versions - was pretty much just a lightweight frontend around the Windows media framework. That said, is there really such a big deal that they can't be uninstalled? HD space is cheap, and if you don't use it nothing happens.

phongn wrote:That said, is there really such a big deal that they can't be uninstalled? HD space is cheap, and if you don't use it nothing happens.

Doesn't matter: Microsoft is a Big Evil Monopoly© using this policy to drive competitors out of the market, presumably because the consumers are too lazy & stupid to go buy (or, just as likely these days, to download for free) alternatives like OpenOffice, Firefox, WinAmp and so on .

Microsoft has done plenty of anticompetitive things, I agree. But half-ass stunts like this aren't going to help break their monopoly position.

Of course not - I imagine people just won't buy the IE-less versions - and Microsoft will make damn sure they're tucked away at the back of the top shelf too, just to be safe. The whole thing just comes across as more Microsoft-bashing for the sake of it - I'm sure there are better ways to make things more competitive than this.

Ambassador wrote:Well, the OEM could simple include the browser of its choice, an option OEMs had lost due to overly restricted Microsoft licensing.

Microsoft has more or less loosened the licensing restrictions. In fact, last I checked, users still don't have much say, with Google even paying Dell at one point of time to install their software on Dell computers. In fact, installation of "free" software on computers is in fact a revenue generator for computer makers.