Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[mrmomoman]

If Opera is looking for a handout to save their sorry butts then they should just ask instead of hiding behind the all mighty and knowing EU to fight their battles.

Create the better mousetrap and catch more mice Opera! You can't expect to use the ole trap without any cheese and expect to catch any mice.

For Lechio talking about scenario's that are RARE what is your point that you are trying to drive home? That upon loading Windows 7 we are infected and the system is compromised immediately and we should move out of our home, destroy our computer and never use the internet again?

MS has the right to support what they feel is the majority and spend their monies in the right places to make sure the "larger" target audience gets the attention they want. Opera is just a blip on the market and yet they want the same treatment as Firefox? Firefox did it through continued improvements in the UI and Security. Maybe they should learn to do that before pressing someone else to fight their battles.

[Lechio]

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

And those people just click on the blue "E" that stands for Enternet. :rofl:

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

No, it's absolutely the opposite of imposing. The user should have alternative choices, it's about that.

In this case, browsers have to follow a certain criteria to be listed in the OS itself. IE8 already comes installed with Windows, the user is just presented with an alternative that he can just ignore.

Why do you say the GPL license is "crap"?

And no... That's not the way it works for Free Software.

[BajiRav]

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?

Except for the fact that update.microsoft.com is no longer needed for installing Windows updates (since Vista). There is a control panel applet for that. And arguing against ActiveX control is pointless. It's like complaining that I need to use proprietary Adobe plugin to watch youtube.

[Lechio]

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.

Escalate how? If you have a virus running on your system it only takes a couple of lines of code on that same virus to download the Internet to your computer.

[Kyang]

And those people just click on the blue "E" that stands for Enternet. :rofl:

I've encountered that myself. I let these two people use my computer for a moment to check a site, and despite Firefox being the first item in the start menu, with the word "Internet" in bold letters next to it, they still scanned the menu for a moment, then asked me, "Where's the internet?" I pointed out Firefox, and replied, "Oh, right, Firefox." :D .

But of course, that's only part of the point. You asked why would they install third-party software. Obviously because there's now this ballot thing.

Having opened IE, they'll just see that MS recommended these things, and associate it with MS, probably thinking they're other MS products. Now when patches are given out through an MS provided platform, and that patch happens to break something, all they're going to see is MS delivering something that fails, and blame MS for the problem. :( .

I support the idea of a central place for all my updates, I really wouldn't mind. There still really needs to be some more clarification from Opera as to how they'd like to see something like this third-party updates through MS thing actually happen.

[argonite]

Escalate how? If you have a virus running on your system it only takes a couple of lines of code on that same virus to download the Internet to your computer.

At that point, the problem is still containable, the virus can be stopped and quarantined.

Except if it utilizes a trusted service such as Windows Update, which is almost never stopped and is not expected to be a communications platform for a piece of malware. It just leaves a persistent request there and your computer will happily offer "Security Update KXXXXXXX for Windows" every time something is missing.

[Lechio]

At that point, the problem is still containable, the virus can be stopped and quarantined.

Except if it utilizes a trusted service such as Windows Update, which is almost never stopped and is not expected to be a communications platform for a piece of malware. It just leaves a persistent request there and your computer will happily offer "Security Update KXXXXXXX for Windows" every time something is missing.

So, there aren't any viruses out there that currently affect and use Windows components?

[argonite]

So, there aren't any viruses out there that currently affect and use Windows components?

There aren't any viruses out there that use a trusted Microsoft platform like Windows Update in order to download copies of itself

[RAID 0]

I don't know if this has been said... but what happens if the update breaks something? It's going to be Microsoft's fault.

Stupid Opera.

[argonite]

I don't know if this has been said... but what happens if the update breaks something? It's going to be Microsoft's fault.

Stupid Opera.

It has been said multiple times. It's still true.

[tom01]

It's not bad for a 5th place browser to be honest. Still, I'll never install it outside of a virtual machine.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

i feel they should just have the browser check for updates automatically

Firefox can do it, so can Opera

[RAID 0]

It has been said multiple times. It's still true.

I didn't feel like reading 5 pages. :)

[Eric Veteran]

And those people just click on the blue "E" that stands for Enternet. :rofl:

No, it's absolutely the opposite of imposing. The user should have alternative choices, it's about that.

In this case, browsers have to follow a certain criteria to be listed in the OS itself. IE8 already comes installed with Windows, the user is just presented with an alternative that he can just ignore.

Why do you say the GPL license is "crap"?

And no... That's not the way it works for Free Software.

Users already have a choice. All major browsers already check their own updates, all browsers will install and run on Windows. Any user can choose to have Opera check for updates manually via its help menu, and all users can already download their own 3rd-party software update managers or even write their own. And again, Opera is free to innovate by creating the "Opera Software Updater" that fills the holes you feel there are in Windows Update. Windows is not "free software" and Microsoft is under no obligation to support others' software.

[argonite]

I didn't feel like reading 5 pages. :)

It's alright, I don't think ANY post in ANY opera thread is original thought anymore.

[petrossa]

If Microsoft wants to sell their products in the EU market they'll have to jolly well follow the EU directives. And unfair or not, if one of those directives is to support others software they can:

a) Oblige and sell to a 500 million plus market

b) Not do so, and loose the greater part of their revenues.

What do you think their shareholders want MS to do?

[Lechio]

Users already have a choice. All major browsers already check their own updates, all browsers will install and run on Windows. Any user can choose to have Opera check for updates manually via its help menu, and all users can already download their own 3rd-party software update managers or even write their own. And again, Opera is free to innovate by creating the "Opera Software Updater" that fills the holes you feel there are in Windows Update. Windows is not "free software" and Microsoft is under no obligation to support others' software.

Cut to the point and be honest in your reply.

Do you believe that the current alternative of having each application checking for updates on application startup or having that same application install an "updater" that just sits there doing nothing but checking for new application versions (and doing just that?) taking system resources is a better solution than the centralized software updater?

Do you believe that using a (possibly compromised) Web browser to search for and download applications is a better solution than using a package manager?

[pzykotic]

While I'm against Microsoft having a monopoly on life, liberty and the pursuit of Internet Pornography and viruses. I'm real against this sort of thing too. Opera is not a very good browser, it statistically rates lower in downloads, reviews and everything else when compared with Internet Explorer, Safari and FireFox. I just don't get it really. I understand the EU hates Microsoft but this is getting really insane now. At some point, Microsoft should just pull out of Europe and say "**** off ya pikeys!" and be done with them.

[petrossa]

maybe MS giving the EU the finger in 2004 was not the smartest thing to do in retrospect :innocent:

Edited August 14, 2009 by petrossa

[Pallab]

Wow! 12 page already. And that too over something which nothing but a misrepresentation. I am quoting myself again.

OK. I don't think Opera was talking about distributing updates through Windows Updates. I asked someone at Opera and was told to focus on this statement by Jon:

"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."

He is merely concerned that giving a ballot would be of no use if it breaks essential Windows Services. He merely wants the system to function properly even without IE i.e. all services that require the use of web browser (IE) should be cross-browser compatible.

That sounds fair enough.

[jmc777]

You're wasting your time Pallab! The anti-Opera crowd are too busy foaming at the mouth to notice.

[Lechio]

Wow! 12 page already. And that too over something which nothing but a misrepresentation. I am quoting myself again.

Which people debated and added other points of interest related to that.

You're wasting your time Pallab! The anti-Opera crowd are too busy foaming at the mouth to notice.

You've noticed it too? :)

[BajiRav]

Wow! 12 page already. And that too over something which nothing but a misrepresentation. I am quoting myself again.

Which of the Microsoft IE only websites prevents you to use Windows or "keep it secure and updated"? Opera is spreading FUD and nothing more.

And this sentence can mean that they want Win/MS update to push Opera updates.

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.

OneCare doesn't count. It is not bundled with Windows and is an obsolete product.

Repeating my post: Windows (Vista onwards) does not use a browser for updates. So what he talking about is either 1)wrong or 2) he wants win/MS update to push Opera etc. patches.

Sidenote: MS update is not included in Windows. You have to explicitly install it.

[d_ralphie]

As you know, Norwegian Opera Software got the support of EU Commission for Windows 7 without IE integration.

Blatant lie. It was Microsoft who wanted to unbundle IE. The EC said no.

They managed to block IE to be the default browser without getting permission from Microsoft.

Another blatant lie. Opera can't do anything. It's the EC which makes the decisions.

Opera software has a new suggestion to EU Commission. Opera wants the updates of browsers to be integrated with Windows Update and distributed by Microsoft.

Yet another blatant lie.

Will the paid Microsoft shills ever stop lying?

Probably not.

Lies, lies, lies. All the paid Microsoft shills are engaging in.

[d_ralphie]

If Opera is looking for a handout to save their sorry butts

Opera Software more than doubled its profits compared to the same quarter last year. The overall revenue growth was something like 60%. Opera Software does not need handouts. However, dishonest Microsoft shills will always misreprestent Opera's position because that's what they do.

Microsoft has fooled a lot of ignorant children. They have apparently also paid a lot of people to spread lies on their behalf. Quite pathetic, really.

Opera is not a very good browser, it statistically rates lower in downloads, reviews and everything else when compared with Internet Explorer, Safari and FireFox.

Yet another blatant lie from a paid Microsoft shill.

It's not bad for a 5th place browser to be honest. Still, I'll never install it outside of a virtual machine.

And yet another lie from a paid Microsoft shill. The fact is that Opera is the #3 browser worldwide. In Europe Opera is not only the #3 browser, but its market share is higher than Safari and Chrome combined.

Either these people are paid Microsoft shills, or they are insanely ignorant.