ti_mo_n: there is one problem though. Free market simply doesn't work (at least not for public, maybe it works for those 20 top guys). There HAS to be some regulation over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
blogpost from 8. december here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/

Look at countries which had unregulated market historically. Usually they got into crisis, and had to start some market regulation. One of such regulation is to prevent companies from gaining and abusing their monopoly.

Posted on 2007-12-15 08:05:00 by vid

ti_mo_n: there is one problem though. Free market simply doesn't work (at least not for public,
Looks like it works pretty good.
Posted on 2007-12-15 09:59:43 by drhowarddrfine
There is always the excuse communication is limited, but MS's was present during the formation of these standards and their greater market share gives them a greater responsibility to insure the standards are met, imho. In fact their browser should be a model of standard compliance!

To be a party to standard formation and the intents that that implies - conformity for the mutual benefit/detriment of the group - and then to deviate from the standard is just evil (considering the market share). It would be another thing if MS wanted to change the standard through the original party - with an amendment or something.

The deviations should be examined to better understand why these decisions were required - some internal problem is always a possibility. This doesn't seem likely given the time involved and on-going deviations.

(I have not looked into the nitty-gritty details.)
Posted on 2007-12-15 10:12:09 by bitRAKE
Well,

The crux of this is that MS does not adhere to a voluntary standard, note the qualifier "voluntary" here. Anybody has every right to follow the standards or not, there is no legal obligation to do so. I can write my own markup language and a jit compiler for Windows and create a website using only that, of course odds are that I will be the only one ever able to view it.

When MS adds a non-compliant component to "it's standard" anyone with IE can view it, this is similar to when I run into a page using quicktime or some other proprietary format, I cannot view the content without the correct software. I do not see the difference here.

In my experience before you can sue somebody you must demonstrate harm, physical or financial. I can see no harm here and the axiom in civil suits is "no harm no foul". If Microsoft wants to set it's own standards and make them available to only it's software that to me is no different than my flash plugin not being able to play quicktime movies. If 70% of the market uses a standard different than the official standard, the new one becomes the de-facto standard whether the other 30% like it or not.

Yet another stupid lawsuit against Microsoft that will allow others to steal a bit more of their money in the settlement phase. For myself I do not use IE, not because of any standards but because there is better software out there and I prefer it to the Microsoft variety. Though I am currently thinking about suing Adobe/Macromedia because Flash 6 movies cannot be played using Quicktime even though Flash 5 could, or wait, does Apple have more money maybe sue them instead.

Donkey
Posted on 2007-12-15 12:02:56 by donkey


ti_mo_n: there is one problem though. Free market simply doesn't work (at least not for public,
Looks like it works pretty good.

Which of thoe countries doesn't have regulated market?
Posted on 2007-12-15 13:43:13 by vid

In my experience before you can sue somebody you must demonstrate harm, physical or financial.


No. You must demonstrate it violated laws. Harm itself without violating laws is hardly "sueable", but violating laws without harm is. In this case, i believe that Opera says MS violated anti-monopoly laws.
Posted on 2007-12-15 13:46:20 by vid
donkey: the problem isn't the extensions Microsoft are adding, they can do that for all I cared - the problem is not handling standards-compliant HTML/XML/CSS/PNG/JavaScript etc. properly, which means you have to resort to various (sometimes nasty) hacks to support IE.

And when people write pages that depend on hacky mis-rendering of IE, things break for other (standards-compliant) browsers.
Posted on 2007-12-15 13:58:06 by f0dder
A couple of points to reiterate.
1) This is not a lawsuit but a complaint attached to an investigation by the European Union into monopoly tactics by Microsoft.  (I may not have that technically correct but it is the nature of it).  The whole of the complaint is brought by the EU and not Opera or any one company.  The title for this thread, therefore, is incorrect.
2) Because Microsoft is the dominating operating system, other software will not run on it unless you use Microsoft products, and this is a monopoly issue, again.

Posted on 2007-12-15 15:30:46 by drhowarddrfine
Let me restate the issue:

Microsoft has a complaint filed against them because their software has bugs.

Think about it. Bugs!

The EU courts have been head over heals in love with stealing from Microsoft and will use any and all excuses, such as the existance of bugs, to do so.

At least the complaint that MS bundled IE with Windows had a shred of legitimacy.. but this new stuff is just over the top and completely irrational.

I am an Opera user. Have been for quite some time, but MS isnt to blame here. If Opera wants to emulate the bugs in IE, they are free to do so.
Posted on 2007-12-26 12:37:05 by Rockoon
It's not about having bugs, it's about (probably intentionally) violating the HTML specs, even though they are part of the committee, and doing more or less nothing about fixing the issue. And we're not talking about postponing a bug for a few weeks or months, but several years. And clearly, they've been doing it for their own advantage, not because they don't have the manpower to do something about it. That is plain wrong.

Things might be looking brighter in the future, though.
Posted on 2007-12-26 19:45:43 by f0dder

It's not about having bugs, it's about (probably intentionally) violating the HTML specs


An html viewer that doesnt fully live up to the specs is buggy. Its that simple. You can call it "violating" all you want, but that is just a word you chose to use.

An example of greater provinence to us is the C++ specification. I know of no C++ compiler that lives up to the full specification: They all have bugs.


And we're not talking about postponing a bug for a few weeks or months, but several years. And clearly, they've been doing it for their own advantage, not because they don't have the manpower to do something about it. That is plain wrong.


For your arguement to have merit, it must be demonstrated that it is not only possible to produce a fully compliant browser, but that it is indeed trivial to do so as you suggest.

So now I ask you to demonstrate that it is indeed possible to produce a fully compliant browser.

Which existing browser is that? (Hint: Its not Opera, Firefox, or Safari)

All of these browsers now pass the ACID2 test, including IE8, but that only demonstrates so much.
Posted on 2007-12-27 03:39:13 by Rockoon


It's not about having bugs, it's about (probably intentionally) violating the HTML specs


An html viewer that doesnt fully live up to the specs is buggy. Its that simple. You can call it "violating" all you want, but that is just a word you chose to use.

An example of greater provinence to us is the C++ specification. I know of no C++ compiler that lives up to the full specification: They all have bugs.

The C++ compiler writers strive to meet the C++ ISO standard, though. Full template support is an exception, but that is pretty hard to do correctly, and the 'export' directive for templates is deprecated afaik anyway.

Embedded compilers is a different story, but C is still king there, anyway.



And we're not talking about postponing a bug for a few weeks or months, but several years. And clearly, they've been doing it for their own advantage, not because they don't have the manpower to do something about it. That is plain wrong.


For your arguement to have merit, it must be demonstrated that it is not only possible to produce a fully compliant browser, but that it is indeed trivial to do so as you suggest.

So now I ask you to demonstrate that it is indeed possible to produce a fully compliant browser.

Which existing browser is that? (Hint: Its not Opera, Firefox, or Safari)

All of these browsers now pass the ACID2 test, including IE8, but that only demonstrates so much.

I'm not saying it's a trivial thing to do, the HTML spec (especially when including all the related stuff like CSS, XML, XPATH etc.) is complex. But bugs is one thing, horrid bugs that haven't even been attempted to be fixed is another.

Posted on 2007-12-27 06:18:59 by f0dder


It's not about having bugs, it's about (probably intentionally) violating the HTML specs


An html viewer that doesnt fully live up to the specs is buggy. Its that simple. You can call it "violating" all you want, but that is just a word you chose to use.


Well, the majority of programmers/developers might find your definition of "buggy" a little off-color.

Just because something doesn't meet specs, does not make it buggy... it is called non-compliance. It is further called a "violation" if it was supposed to comply in the first place and yet failed to.

"Buggy" is if something doesn't work the way it was designed, uncontrollable crashes and what-not. Evidentially, IE is working exactly the way it was designed, in a proprietary manner ;)
Posted on 2007-12-27 09:01:47 by SpooK
fodder and Spook are correct in their posts.  IE6, for example, had no corrections or updates to its implementation of elements and attributes in five years.  In the meantime, Opera went up several version levels, Firefox was introduced and went from version 0.0 to at least 1.5 (maybe 2.0?) and both are 10 years ahead of the current IE7.

IE7 itself only added two new elements and fixed 12 non-compliance items.

While everyone is making a big 'ado' about IE8 passing Acid2, they forget several things.  One is that Acid2 only tests whether a browser handles invalid markup correctly.  In no way does it insure that it handles valid markup correctly.  You can pass Acid2 yet handle much of the standard incorrectly.  In fact, it's been known that browser vendors can tweak their code to make it pass Acid2.

The version of IE8 that passed was an internal build.  The question is whether this version will make it to the final release.

Now my son just interrupted me, making me forget my other points.
Posted on 2007-12-27 10:10:35 by drhowarddrfine
They are only correct under specific assumptions.

I ask again, and deserve an answer considering that the arguement against Microsoft is that they have not provided one:

Which browser is compliant?

Remember also that Microsoft isnt making any money on IE.. its a free product.. it would be irresponsible of them to throw lots of many hours at the project (they have responsibilities to their share holders.)
Posted on 2007-12-27 20:38:21 by Rockoon

Which browser is compliant?
All browsers are in a chase, of sorts, to catch up to the specification as published by the W3C.  You cannot complete the race because the finish line is constantly moving forward.  All browsers are reasonably close to the finish line while IE7 is 10 years behind. 

Remember also that Microsoft isnt making any money on IE.. its a free product..
As is Firefox but Firefox is 10 years ahead of IE in standards support.  Indirectly, IE does make money off IE because it is through IE, or at least its components, that much of their software interacts with the web.
it would be irresponsible of them to throw lots of many hours at the project (they have responsibilities to their share holders.)
The web is becoming the OS.  They should have thrown a ton of money at it but instead they ignored the web until recently.  Ignoring the web has hurt MS.  Look how Google is taking over.  So far, Web 2.0, if you are aware of that term, does not include Microsoft.
Posted on 2007-12-27 21:32:52 by drhowarddrfine


Which browser is compliant?
All browsers are in a chase, of sorts, to catch up to the specification as published by the W3C.


I know this as it is the point. All the arguements against MS on this issue stem from IE not being compliant. Nobody is compliant, ergo the complaint is biggotry and thievery in disguise. The folks making the complaint certainly arent compliant. I know, I use their browser! (its the best browser available.. )


  You cannot complete the race because the finish line is constantly moving forward.  All browsers are reasonably close to the finish line while IE7 is 10 years behind. 


"reasonably close" is subjective. FireFox is nowhere near Opera and Safari yet you lump it into the same boat as them. Surely a complaint should also be filed against FireFox?

Firefox is unusable on low memory systems (leaks memory like it has Alzheimer.) What a great luxury it is to be optional.

M.S. must provide a browser that continues to work.

---

Opera is selling their browser (Adobe, Palm..)
Apple is selling their browser (iPhone..)

Firefox isnt.
Microsoft isnt.

Is it any wonder that Opera and Safari are better than the others?


Remember also that Microsoft isnt making any money on IE.. its a free product..
As is Firefox but Firefox is 10 years ahead of IE in standards support. 


The arguement is that a company like Microsoft can surely comply with the standards in short order and at a trivial expense (surely the arguement isnt that Microsoft has to spend tons of money or else face the thieving wrath of the E.U. again?)

So what is this "10 years ahead" business?

(and why should anyone else be determining their development cycle times anyways?)


Indirectly, IE does make money off IE because it is through IE, or at least its components, that much of their software interacts with the web.


You do seem to almost get it.

Many things rely on IE the way it was in version 6, which at the time was one of the best browsers out there. Surely M.S. isn't going to break all those things just to make the folks at Opera happy. Instead M.S. should only fix the things that do not break so many others (and cost M.S. lots of money in the progress), and that is precisely IE7.

M.S. doesnt have the luxuries these others have. M.S. has responsibilities to its major clients because M.S. has legal responsibilities to its share holders. (It is against the law for M.S. to knowingly send good money after bad)


The web is becoming the OS. 


huh?

Posted on 2007-12-28 05:36:40 by Rockoon

I know this as it is the point. All the arguements against MS on this issue stem from IE not being compliant.
You are forgetting the most important Part2 of the complaint.  A monopoly on a public access channel not allowed access.  This is illegal in most countries including the EU.  They were also sued in the US Justice Department over this same thing but the browser makers were not the ones who brought the suit.  Microsoft made changes to the OS and paid millions in retribution.

"reasonably close" is subjective. FireFox is nowhere near Opera and Safari yet you lump it into the same boat as them. Surely a complaint should also be filed against FireFox?
I consider myself to be knowledgeable in this area.  Do not argue with me about this.  If you wish to learn more yourself, visit www.webdevout.com.  Firefox, Opera and Safari and "neck and neck".
Firefox is unusable on low memory systems (leaks memory like it has Alzheimer.)
This is a myth. Again you show what you don't know.  Firefox leaks memory no more than IE does.  What you are hearing are the problems with 3rd party add-ons that are not supplied by Firefox/Mozilla.
What a great luxury it is to be optional.
Yes it is.  Especially when Window advocates call IE a cancer on the web and security experts say "Don't use IE".

Is it any wonder that Opera and Safari are better than the others?
Opera and Safari are not better than the others though it can be argued Opera is marginally better.  I don't get where you are saying Safari is sold for the iPhone.  Apple makes the iPhone so how are they selling it to themselves?  I am not aware of Apple selling Safari to anyone.

The arguement is that a company like Microsoft can surely comply with the standards in short order and at a trivial expense (surely the arguement isnt that Microsoft has to spend tons of money or else face the thieving wrath of the E.U. again?)
If so, why did Bill Gates and Dean Hachamovitch, general manager of IE, and Chris Wilson, lead developer of IE, all say IE8 "Won't have everything web developers want us to have"?

So what is this "10 years ahead" business?

Check your browser support for the DOM
Poor CSS support from 1998
No support for XHTML which every other browser supports and neither will IE8.
No support for SVG graphics which every other browser supports and neither will IE8.
Poor Javascript support and IE8 will be no better.

Surely M.S. isn't going to break all those things just to make the folks at Opera happy.
Who cares about Opera.  Read the comments from web developers.  Then see who would be happy. 
Instead M.S. should only fix the things that do not break so many others (and cost M.S. lots of money in the progress), and that is precisely IE7.

IE7 is only marginally better than IE6 and that's not saying anything.  Why should Microsoft be forgiven for holding back and breaking the web?  Firefox, Opera and Safari are far ahead of IE is compliance yet we should look with pity at Microsoft?
M.S. doesnt have the luxuries these others have. M.S. has responsibilities to its major clients
Poor babies.  Maybe they should have done it right in the first place.  But, don't they have a ton of people and a ton of money?  Much more than anyone else?  But they can't fix their browser?  If fixing their browser is a bad thing, why are they claiming to be fixing their browser? 
...because M.S. has legal responsibilities to its share holders. (It is against the law for M.S. to knowingly send good money after bad)
It is not against the law.  It's bad business.  Any company can make bad investments and not break any laws.


The web is becoming the OS. 


huh?
Again you show you don't know the web.  Are you aware you can edit documents and spreadsheets online through Google?  You can edit photos online with much of functionality of Photoshop?  You can make long distance phone calls online?  Major corporations do much of their supplying, ordering, etc. with online applications that are not running on the desktop?  This is Web2.0 (and if you Google for it, Web2.0 has nothing to do with pretty graphics on a web page which some have come to believe).

Your next OS will be Google through an open source browser like Firefox.
Posted on 2007-12-28 08:09:57 by drhowarddrfine


I know this as it is the point. All the arguements against MS on this issue stem from IE not being compliant.
You are forgetting the most important Part2 of the complaint.


Am I?


  A monopoly on a public access channel not allowed access. 


Ah the tired old monopoly thing.


Microsoft made changes to the OS and paid millions in retribution.


You are bringing up old, resolved, issues. This is pertinent to the current issue because...?

(...you dont like microsoft?)


I consider myself to be knowledgeable in this area. 


???


Do not argue with me about this. 


..oh thats why you mentioned that. I don't get to argue with you about it..


Firefox is unusable on low memory systems (leaks memory like it has Alzheimer.)
This is a myth. Again you show what you don't know.


Is this some new version of the word "myth" that I wasn't previously aware of?

This "myth" is supported by their own bug reports and change logs.


What you are hearing are the problems with 3rd party add-ons that are not supplied by Firefox/Mozilla.


Yes, many of them leak too.


What a great luxury it is to be optional.
Yes it is.  Especially when Window advocates call IE a cancer on the web and security experts say "Don't use IE".


This is called a Straw Man in the Logical Fallacies world.

psst: Nobody here is saying that it doesnt suck.


Is it any wonder that Opera and Safari are better than the others?
Opera and Safari are not better than the others though it can be argued Opera is marginally better.  I don't get where you are saying Safari is sold for the iPhone.


I didnt say it was sold FOR the iPhone. It is however the entire point of the iPhone.

No Safari = No iPhone.

Apple is selling iPhones therefore Apple is selling Safari.


The arguement is that a company like Microsoft can surely comply with the standards in short order and at a trivial expense (surely the arguement isnt that Microsoft has to spend tons of money or else face the thieving wrath of the E.U. again?)
If so, why did Bill Gates and Dean Hachamovitch, general manager of IE, and Chris Wilson, lead developer of IE, all say IE8 "Won't have everything web developers want us to have"?


Perhaps because they wont.

Do you have a point?



So what is this "10 years ahead" business?

Check your browser support for the DOM
Poor CSS support from 1998
No support for XHTML which every other browser supports and neither will IE8.
No support for SVG graphics which every other browser supports and neither will IE8.
Poor Javascript support and IE8 will be no better.


Do you have a point? Seriously.

Remember, the arguement is that these features are trivialy implimented and by definition that is not "10 years ahead"


Surely M.S. isn't going to break all those things just to make the folks at Opera happy.
Who cares about Opera.  Read the comments from web developers.  Then see who would be happy. 


Microsoft doesnt have a responsibility to "web developers." They have a responsibility to THEIR SHARE HOLDERS.

If you have a point which addresses this responsibility, I would be more than happy to entertain a rational discussion about it. Hand waving is not the foundation of a logical arguement.


Instead M.S. should only fix the things that do not break so many others (and cost M.S. lots of money in the progress), and that is precisely IE7.

IE7 is only marginally better than IE6 and that's not saying anything.  Why should Microsoft be forgiven for holding back and breaking the web? 


More hand waving.


Firefox, Opera and Safari are far ahead of IE is compliance yet we should look with pity at Microsoft?


Who said anything at all about having pity on Microsoft?

This is the Straw Man logical fallacy, which you then try to take down:


M.S. doesnt have the luxuries these others have. M.S. has responsibilities to its major clients
Poor babies.  Maybe they should have done it right in the first place.


Should have done it right in the first place?? Who exactly was doing it right? Who exactly IS doing it right?

I have asked this question more than once. Who exactly is compliant?


  But, don't they have a ton of people and a ton of money?  Much more than anyone else? 


..and a legal responsibility to their share holders to not simply waste it. Have you ever managed a publicly traded company in America?

You dont get to blow through money willy-nilly. Every decision like this must be approved by the board of directors, who have a responsibility to make decisions that guide the company towards maximum near term profits. This cannot be rationalized any other way. If the board knows that decision (A) is less profitable than decision (B), then they cannot legally pick (A). Period.

By "legally" I am not talking about contract law or any other civil torts. It is a criminal felony (an SEC violation) to knowingly and willfully tank the company.

Don't wave your hands about how much money or manpower Microsoft has. It isnt the point and you know it.

Address the issue exactly as Microsoft must address it, as a financial decision.


But they can't fix their browser?  If fixing their browser is a bad thing, why are they claiming to be fixing their browser? 


They are updating their browser because their paying customers want an updated browser, not because Opera wants it.

You already stated (and even willingly sited a quote) to the effect that they simply will not give web developers everything they want.

I assure you that many incompatabilities will be intentionally propogated to the new IE because that is the best decision that they can make considering all the existing software, some of it theirs, that relies on them. Spending money to fix these incompatabilities also requires spending money on all the things which rely on them, which for all intents and purposes currently work. Breaking them on purpose could endanger many highly lucrative contracts that are the bread and butter of the companies revenue stream.


...because M.S. has legal responsibilities to its share holders. (It is against the law for M.S. to knowingly send good money after bad)
It is not against the law.  It's bad business.  Any company can make bad investments and not break any laws.


The boards of publicly traded companies cannot knowingly make bad decisions without breaking the law.

This isnt debatable.

They are even prevented from making many good decisions because they are too long term (a certain short term profits win out over uncertain long term profit, legally)



The web is becoming the OS. 


huh?
Again you show you don't know the web.  Are you aware you can edit documents and spreadsheets online through Google? 


..are you aware that Microsofts biggest clients would never ever do that?

I have come to the conclusion that you have absolutely no idea how publicly traded companies must, by law, do business.
Posted on 2007-12-29 04:57:05 by Rockoon

Ah the tired old monopoly thing.
It is what it is.

You are bringing up old, resolved, issues. This is pertinent to the current issue because...?
EU's verse.  Same as the first.

(...you dont like microsoft?)
I don't like bad software.  It's funny when anyone disses Microsoft's methods or software, people are automatically labeled anti-Microsoft everything.  It's usually their parting blow as they run away.

I consider myself to be knowledgeable in this area. 


???
I am a web developer.  I mod a web developer forum.  The lead developer for IE, Chris Wilson, and I have had online conversations and many leading web developers know me.  Chris Wells, from Opera, and I email each other regularly.  Boris Z., from Mozilla, asked me to become a developer on Firefox.

This "myth" is supported by their own bug reports and change logs.
If you follow them closely enough, then you know that any memory leaks still existing on FF2 and greater will not likely affect you.

No Safari = No iPhone.
I disagree with that connection though a browser is an important selling point here.

Remember, the arguement is that these features are trivialy implimented and by definition that is not "10 years ahead"
No.  Microsoft does not meet DOM1 from 1998 while all other browsers do.  Microsoft is far, far behind all other browsers in CSS1 implementation set in 1998.  Other browsers are working on CSS3 right now.  XHTML was completed in 2000 and all browsers implement it except IE.  SVG was completed before 2002 but IE does not implement it while others do.  PNG alpha channels were not implemented until IE7 came out.

More hand waving.
I don't understand what you mean by this.  Being a monopoly changes everything.  If you want to use public access channels, you have to play well with others.


Firefox, Opera and Safari are far ahead of IE is compliance yet we should look with pity at Microsoft?


This is the Straw Man logical fallacy
This "Straw Man" thing has to go down as the phrase of the year 2007.  The reply to everything.

Should have done it right in the first place?? Who exactly was doing it right? Who exactly IS doing it right?
Every browser vendor is 10 years ahead of IE.  I think you read that here somewhere.

Who exactly is compliant?
I answered this question already, too.

..and a legal responsibility to their share holders to not simply waste it. Have you ever managed a publicly traded company in America?
I buy/sell stocks on my own.  If there was no legal responsibility outside of their stockholders, the US and the EU would not be suing them over this.

It is a criminal felony (an SEC violation) to knowingly and willfully tank the company.
I don't think so.  Hiding it is the problem.  I don't think doing it  is illegal. 
Address the issue exactly as Microsoft must address it, as a financial decision.
You are changing the point.  The point is Microsoft is performing illegal activities as a monopoly.  This is the basis of the US and EU lawsuits/complaints.

They are updating their browser because their paying customers want an updated browser, not because Opera wants it.
Why did they wait five years to update to IE7?  People complained long before that.  And IE7 was only trivially updated.  It is still 10 years behind.
Spending money to fix these incompatabilities also requires spending money on all the things which rely on them, which for all intents and purposes currently work.
These are the sort of early decisions that sink many companies.  Other companies then come around and overtake them due to their inability to change.


The boards of publicly traded companies cannot knowingly make bad decisions without breaking the law.
Bad decisions are not illegal.

They are even prevented from making many good decisions because they are too long term (a certain short term profits win out over uncertain long term profit, legally)
Not at all true.  The value of a stock may rise and fall based on good/bad decisions but none of these things you mention are illegal.

I have come to the conclusion that you have absolutely no idea how publicly traded companies must, by law, do business.
I have been buying/selling stocks for 10 years and own my own company that does $2 million in sales right now.  I know how it works; maybe more than you.
Posted on 2007-12-30 09:38:21 by drhowarddrfine