Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
Quote: Dotzler was clearer in describing how Mozilla sees Microsoft hindering
browser rivals.
"On ARM chips, Microsoft gives IE access [to] special APIs absolutely
necessary for building a modern browser that it won't give to other browsers, so
there's no way another browser can possibly compete with IE in terms of features
or performance," said Dotzler.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
That's going to cause M$ some wallet ache, I'd suggest. Unlike the US, those
guys don't hesitate to use their somewhat sharper teeth.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
So, has the good behaviour time run out from that old anti-trust case?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
<a
href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1372482?uid=3739520&uid=212
9&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698989343147">
;DG versus Digidyne</a> is my mantra when it comes to issues like this,
and, someday, I think games like the ones MS is playing are gonna wake up the
authorities. Furthermore, the DOJ did rule that tying browser to OS was
illegal, which was a good step in ruling OS and applications as separate
markets. Sadly, someone lost the requisite pair on the way to enforcement.
However, I hope for someday seeing hardware, software, and applications ruled as
discrete markets with tying formally declared illegal. Only in tech is our
governmental enforcement so lost or clueless. For nontech, you can't do what
some companies get away with every day, at least not without risking very
intense scrutiny.
Ford tried it and got slapped down over their auto parts. IBM got caught with
punch cards, and DG lost on RDOS.
Although I want and anticipate this for selfish reasons, to guarantee that I can
keep getting my whitebox computers, it is just good, competitive economics. I
know what I have read even from comments here, which is that companies work hard
to tie one layer to another, but that is no different from Oracle's 'API's are
hard work' argument. I have no doubt that Ford worked hard at making their
'Ford Genuine' parts and Mazda no doubt put a lot of work into their engine oil
formulation when they (illegally) tried to tell me that my warranty would be
void if I used another SAE equivalent.
If we want a healthy, competitive ecosystem, performance has to be a driving
factor, rather than anticompetitive tying.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
The public has already figured out that M$ is an also-ran in this race, this is
just another round in the foot cannon.
The more M$ constricts options, the less they will appeal to increasingly savvy
users. Marketing suicide.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
I suspect it's an oversight given how dumb the restrictions are, but we'll see.
There's ugly workarounds for no CreateProcess(), but there's no way around being
able to (un)set noexecute I think.
This impacts much more than just browsers - anything that does JIT compilation
or dynamic code execution won't work.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|