Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[BoomyBoy]

Opera Software hasn't asked to have its browser distributed via Windows/Microsoft update. Well done guys/girls?9 pages of pointless rants!

It has asked... There are news bout it on websites...

[Lechio]

Oh yes it is. I would like to see you go create a modern, mainstream, consumer-oriented operating system that does not have a browser or media player and see if it sells well!

Even the default install of Ubuntu 9 Workstation has a browser and media player.

All modular. It you remove a browser/media player/whatever it still functions as it should. Those aren't hardcoded into the OS and can be easily replaced, using a... Package manager... It's a platform opened to everyone.

The problem is that your average end-user {i.e. not some who comes to Neowin} would not see the difference.

They would see "Microsoft Windows Update" installed something on my computer and now it gets a BSOD or can't get on the internet, cannot check email etc. and they will call and complain to Microsoft!

You have to anticipate the level of computer intelligence of someone like an 80 year old grandmother,

Tell you what, those people would just use Microsoft software only.

The same scenario: someone installs flash player, system gets a BSOD, does that person complain to Microsoft?

[DDStriker]

Lechio (not going to bother with a long one since you don't read them anyway)

If an operating system doesn't have a browser how do you intend on installing one? :D again this isn't linux

[jmc777]

It has asked... There are news bout it on websites...

Here's the relevant quote from The Register article you linked to...

But von Tetzchner noted that integration would be meaningless unless rival browsers also got equal access to online sites such as Windows Update and Microsoft Update for patches and fixes - or Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft's re-launched security service.

It's not yet clear whether the APIs Microsoft has offered would open up Windows so rival browsers could download and install things like security updates.

"I’m looking at the basics here, like being able to access the Microsoft network or the developer network, to access and get upgrades to the operating system," von Tetzchner told The Reg. "If they have sites and content out there you need to access to use the operating system in a meaningful way, and it's web based and that doesn’t work - that’s a problem."

[Eric Veteran]

All modular. It you remove a browser/media player/whatever it still functions as it should. Those aren't hardcoded into the OS and can be easily replaced, using a... Package manager... It's a platform opened to everyone.

Tell you what, those people would just use Microsoft software only.

The same scenario: someone installs flash player, system gets a BSOD, does that person complain to Microsoft?

By all means Opera should create a Windows package manager and form a consortium to allow other app developers to use it. It doesn't exist in Windows. WU is for updating components of Microsoft's products just like Apple Software Update is for updating Apple products. It's not a package manager.

[BoomyBoy]

Here's the relevant quote from The Register article you linked to...

So? It just explains what I'm saying... Opera wants to have an access for Windows Services...

[dead.cell]

Tell you what, those people would just use Microsoft software only.

The same scenario: someone installs flash player, system gets a BSOD, does that person complain to Microsoft?

<typical-user>"I don't know what's wrong with it! Hell, I let the Microsoft updater thing do its business like you told me, and now nothing works!"</typical-user>

Hell, I hear enough of it from those with Dell computers... Would be terrifying if every program updated through WU. I can already hear the bitching...

[Glen]

First of all, I think someone on the third or forth page of this thread confirmed with the people at Opera that all they wanted was to make sure that any Microsoft websites that provide content and services essential to the OS are cross-browser compatible. If this is true, then most of the continued arguments in this thread are moot and the original topic has been hijacked.

Now, to address the idea of a "unified" Windows Update where everyone in the world can list their software updates: This would be a HUGE change in current functionality and a major security consideration. As a software engineer, I would cringe if anyone in my organization suggested such a project in the current state of the economy and budget cuts. Yes, it would be lovely if there was a repository tool for Windows like Linux provides, but that wouldn't be Windows Update anyway.

As a user, I don't want everything I install on my computer to integrate so far into the OS that the OS handles the updates either. This created dependencies on certain OS components that could affectively break my applications when they are updated or disabled for some reason. Just not a good idea in my opinion. I use several applications that handle their own update status check one way or another, and I can disable that per application as needed, which is the way it should be.

[PrEzi]

I use Opera and at the beginning I'd agree with them (over the browser selection screen), but this is getting totally ridiculous now.

Opera has it's own browser-update distribution system integrated in all Opera versions 9.6+.

They need to calm down and stop this insanely childish requests.

[BajiRav]

Here's the relevant quote from The Register article you linked to...

Congrats for not understanding what you quoted!

[jmc777]

So? It just explains what I'm saying... Opera wants to have an access for Windows Services...

Your original post doesn't quite tally with that...

Opera wants the updates of browsers to be integrated with Windows Update and distributed by Microsoft. Opera thinks that if Microsoft doesn't distribute the security updates of rival browsers, it will cause some problems for users.

[BoomyBoy]

Your original post doesn't quite tally with that...

Yeah that means they want every browser to get updated from Windows Update... You should read what I wrote:) Check the last sentence:)

[jmc777]

Congrats for not understanding what you quoted!

Feel free to enlighten me.

[Lechio]

You just don't have an argument there. Just because they update through that mechanism doesn't give them any advantage at all. You've not giving any real reason why there is an advantage. In fact, I think you're arguing the point just for the hell of it...

Yes they do. IE is harcoded into the OS, it uses resources that are not available to others.

Freedom of choice for the user, openness, equal opportunities. Does that sound bad to you? Honestly, as a user can't you see the benefits if something like this is implemented?

Lechio (not going to bother with a long one since you don't read them anyway)

If an operating system doesn't have a browser how do you intend on installing one? :D again this isn't linux

I've read every post.

Using a package manager. It is not Linux, no-one is saying that it is.

I'll give you a practical example on how it is really a bad idea to rely on a Web browser to install software.

Travel to the future to about 6 months from now:

• User purchases a new copy of Windows 7 Ultimately Cool version;
  
• Installs a fresh copy on his shiny machine;
  
• Goes to the Web in search of the usual applications needed (flash player, pdf viewer, alternative IM client, (...) );
  
• 5min of Web browsing: System Pwned. Cause: nasty security exploit in IE.
  

[BajiRav]

Feel free to enlighten me.

But von Tetzchner noted that integration would be meaningless unless rival browsers also got equal access to online sites such as Windows Update and Microsoft Update for patches and fixes - or Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft's re-launched security service.

[Antaris Veteran]

but he warned of "problems" if rival browsers don't get equal access to crucial sites that help keep users' PCs secure and updated.

jmc77 is actually right, I'll be the first to put my hand up and say I hadn't read the article properly.

I'll stick to my arguments about a centralised/shared Windows Update platform though.

Yes they do. IE is harcoded into the OS, it uses resources that are not available to others.

Freedom of choice for the user, openness, equal opportunities. Does that sound bad to you? Honestly, as a user can't you see the benefits if something like this is implemented?

Wait wait, "uses resources not available to others"? Such as hidden WIN32 APIs? Thats nothing to do with the update system!

I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial, in fact if you read my first post in this thread, I say just the opposite, what I am arguing is that Microsoft shouldn't have to provide a tool.

• User purchases a new copy of Windows 7 Ultimately Cool version;
  
• Installs a fresh copy on his shiny machine;
  
• Goes to the Web in search of the usual applications needed (flash player, pdf viewer, alternative IM client, (...) );
  
• 5min of Web browsing: System Pwed. Cause: nasty security exploit in IE.
  

Hate Windows much?

[argonite]

A centralized package manager would be nice...

The main problem is that, unlike the Linux environment, a good portion of the third party software on Windows is full of junk/spyware/viruses/trojan horses or is masquerading as a legitimate piece of software (I'm looking at you, virus checkers!). It's easy to avoid, if you have computer smarts, but I've seen the average user take a new computer to a virus-ridden crawl, and i have little faith.

Opening up the WINDOWS update API, especially to external sources, is going to be the one decision that makes crapware writers happy. Yes, not only can you install their viruses accidentally, but you can now have them updated using software that looks like it's from Microsoft! What a PR disaster. If Microsoft tried to block them, they cry anti-competitive.

Windows Update has been the system administrators' trusted source for exactly that: Windows Updates. Need a patch, it'll come through WSUS and Windows Update. I wouldn't trust it anymore, if it started adding external sources. All it would take would be one rouge spyware to use the API then BAM, I have 100 new updates that all look like legitimate security patches for Windows!

[jmc777]

But von Tetzchner noted that integration would be meaningless unless rival browsers also got equal access to online sites such as Windows Update and Microsoft Update for patches and fixes - or Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft's re-launched security service.

Well I took that to mean allowing non-MS browsers to actually access, and use, the sites mentioned. You can't even access http://update.microsoft.com/ with Opera, and the OneCare site can't be used because it uses ActiveX.

If it was about allowing Opera to distribute its browser, then why the mention of the OneCare site?

[ViperAFK]

Yes they do. IE is harcoded into the OS, it uses resources that are not available to others.

Freedom of choice for the user, openness, equal opportunities. Does that sound bad to you? Honestly, as a user can't you see the benefits if something like this is implemented?

I've read every post.

Using a package manager. It is not Linux, no-one is saying that it is.

I'll give you a practical example on how it is really a bad idea to rely on a Web browser to install software.

Travel to the future to about 6 months from now:

• User purchases a new copy of Windows 7 Ultimately Cool version;
  
• Installs a fresh copy on his shiny machine;
  
• Goes to the Web in search of the usual applications needed (flash player, pdf viewer, alternative IM client, (...) );
  
• 5min of Web browsing: System Pwned. Cause: nasty security exploit in IE.
  

ie in vista and win7 is quite secure by default running in a low level sandbox with uac enabled, your scenario is doubtful

Even in windows xp with no active av I never had a virus, you have to go and find a virus to get infected in 5 mins.

and package managers aren't exactly perfect, what if the repositories were hacked?

[Lechio]

By all means Opera should create a Windows package manager and form a consortium to allow other app developers to use it. It doesn't exist in Windows. WU is for updating components of Microsoft's products just like Apple Software Update is for updating Apple products. It's not a package manager.

It's not up to Opera (or any other entity, besides Microsoft) to create something like that, they do not make the platform.

In that case Microsoft cannot use Windows Update to deliver updates to IE.

<typical-user>"I don't know what's wrong with it! Hell, I let the Microsoft updater thing do its business like you told me, and now nothing works!"</typical-user>

Hell, I hear enough of it from those with Dell computers... Would be terrifying if every program updated through WU. I can already hear the bitching...

Those users stick with MS software. If they cannot tell the difference between the Internet and Internet Explorer (result of many years of lock-down) they will not install third-party applications... Why would they?

By the way, has your system ever became ruined after installing something like Firefox, Thunderbird...? Must say I've never heard of anything like that.

ie in vista and win7 is quite secure by default running in a low level sandbox with uac enabled, your scenario is doubtful

Even in windows xp with no active av I never had a virus, you have to go and find a virus to get infected in 5 mins.

and package managers aren't exactly perfect, what if the repositories were hacked?

Right... IE is bullet proof. (Y)

What if the Adobe servers from where people download software were hacked?

[DDStriker]

Yes they do. IE is harcoded into the OS, it uses resources that are not available to others.

Freedom of choice for the user, openness, equal opportunities. Does that sound bad to you? Honestly, as a user can't you see the benefits if something like this is implemented?

I've read every post.

Using a package manager. It is not Linux, no-one is saying that it is.

I'll give you a practical example on how it is really a bad idea to rely on a Web browser to install software.

Travel to the future to about 6 months from now:

• User purchases a new copy of Windows 7 Ultimately Cool version;
  
• Installs a fresh copy on his shiny machine;
  
• Goes to the Web in search of the usual applications needed (flash player, pdf viewer, alternative IM client, (...) );
  
• 5min of Web browsing: System Pwned. Cause: nasty security exploit in IE.
  

doesn't quite answer my question also what makes you think the other browsers are going to be any better? you're basically imposing that users do not install IE8 in lieu of using other browsers which isn't fair to force upon microsoft

also its not fair for a regulated ballot box where every browser has to be approved (and an unregulated ballot box is just stupid)

what if i made an awesome browsers am i going to have the opportunity to add it to this ballot box thing? do us consumers have the right to not have a bunch of browsers on disk waiting to be installed? is Microsoft going to be forced to download any new browsers/updates straight into this ballot program so when i first install its going to use my bandwidth to populate the list?

on another note isn't firefox considered open source under that gpl licensing crap? if i'm not mistaken (actually can someone correct me on this as i'm not sure) to use a product under gpl within your own product you must either pay for a license or you're product must be open source? i read something vaguely on it so any clarity would be greatly appreciated on that

[Kyang]

If they cannot tell the difference between the Internet and Internet Explorer (result of many years of lock-down) they will not install third-party applications... Why would they?

Because there's now a ballot screen showing them third party software. In this case, a third party browser.

[Lechio]

A centralized package manager would be nice...

The main problem is that, unlike the Linux environment, a good portion of the third party software on Windows is full of junk/spyware/viruses/trojan horses or is masquerading as a legitimate piece of software (I'm looking at you, virus checkers!). It's easy to avoid, if you have computer smarts, but I've seen the average user take a new computer to a virus-ridden crawl, and i have little faith.

Opening up the WINDOWS update API, especially to external sources, is going to be the one decision that makes crapware writers happy. Yes, not only can you install their viruses accidentally, but you can now have them updated using software that looks like it's from Microsoft! What a PR disaster. If Microsoft tried to block them, they cry anti-competitive.

Windows Update has been the system administrators' trusted source for exactly that: Windows Updates. Need a patch, it'll come through WSUS and Windows Update. I wouldn't trust it anymore, if it started adding external sources. All it would take would be one rouge spyware to use the API then BAM, I have 100 new updates that all look like legitimate security patches for Windows!

If you already have spyware and viruses installed, your system is already compromised.

[zeke009]

Some members here really need to improve their reading comprehension. Opera isn't suggesting that Microsoft exclusively distribute their security updates with Windows Update. They're suggesting that Microsoft should distribute the security updates of browsers (notice the "s" at the end?) with Windows Update. I'm a huge fan of Firefox and I haven't used another browser for a very long time. I tried Opera every once in awhile but I always found myself going back. With that said, I think it's a decent idea. It'd be nice to use Windows Update to get updates for your browser. Especially since it's security-related.

This time, I agree with Opera. A move like this will benefit everyone.

It isn't a decent idea, because MS will be pushing the updates they will be fielding support calls for it. No matter how often you tell a user who to call/contact, they just won't get it right.

The readers here on Neowin have a certain technical understanding, so they can and will recognize that a Firefox update pushed by MS is actually supported by Mozilla and not Microsoft. The general user will not understand that and they'll contact MS for support.

MS would have to add staff to field the calls and staff to test the updates that are NOT theirs that they will be deploying via their mechanism. That means higher prices to cover the new staff. If you think they will blindly take an update for Joe Developer and push it, you are sorely mistaken.

In summary, it's a wonderful idea if you want to raise the price of Windows.

[argonite]

If you already have spyware and viruses installed, your system is already compromised.

And you are going to seriously escalate that if you allow them to plug into another API.

You seriously have to be looking at the worst case scenario here.