[Ilgaz]

Apple doesn't do ANYTHING which can remotely compare to MS and IE.

1) Apple provides a standards compliant, even passing ACID tests framework which is also Open Source, so open that even GNU-Gnome considers adopting it as part of standard base.

2) Apple also codes Safari, which is a SHELL for Webkit and add couple of GUI features that would be convenient for their users.

It has nothing to do with market share. Once Apple codes "software update" in a way that it won't work without Safari, we can speak about similarity.

Apple may get 99% of market share and US courts would have nothing to say about it if they keep it this way, open and standards compliant, removable.

[Ilgaz]

Did you know that it is also part of court order? Putting a menu for "default web browser" in easily reachable way and reflect changes immediately on start menu?

There are people here who got guts to compare MS IE to Apple Safari so, I thought I better remind it to show what kind of business practice they attempt to defend as "fact of life". It is not a fact of life, if a USA/EU court orders them you will see how easy to code that "windows update" as a Netscape plugin so it will work in ANY browser including Safari.

Of course we need official guys who aren't afraid of Microsoft here and as even President thing was aired in exclusive MS Silverlight, I better say don't be too hopeful.

[Steve_S]

Ilgaz said:

Apple doesn't do ANYTHING which can remotely compare to MS and IE.

Really? Let's see...

Quote

1) Apple provides a standards compliant, even passing ACID tests framework which is also Open Source, so open that even GNU-Gnome considers adopting it as part of standard base.

So, what are you talking about here, quality of code or business practices. Firefox is standards based but doesn't yet pass the latest ACID tests. Is Mozilla guilty of illegal business practices because of that? That argument would be absurd. Is there a requirement to open source your browser engine? Where is this requirement and why should it be?

Quote

2) Apple also codes Safari, which is a SHELL for Webkit and add couple of GUI features that would be convenient for their users.

Microsoft codes IE, which is a SHELL for Trident and add a couple of GUI features that would be convenient for their users. You do know that there are other third party PC products that use the Trident engine even though it isn't open sourced, right?

Quote

It has nothing to do with market share. Once Apple codes "software update" in a way that it won't work without Safari, we can speak about similarity.

Huh? Apple makes products which are dependent upon WebCore being installed.

Quote

Apple may get 99% of market share and US courts would have nothing to say about it if they keep it this way, open and standards compliant, removable.

Considering the fact that you have to go into Safari's preferences in order to set your default browser to another product, it would be pretty hard to remove Safari, now wouldn't it. Have you removed Safari from you Mac system? No? Why not?

The bottom line is that I don't like IE or Microsoft's dominance better than anyone else. However, playing the devils advocate exposes quite a bit of hypocrisy with some of the "extremists" within the Macintosh community.

[Ilgaz]

Unless you are one of the persons who are in $300M payroll of MS advertising, you should understand the difference between an open source, standards compliant framework and closed source and buggy on purpose html engine from a convicted monopolist.

I spent enough time on this thread, have a nice day.

[ssauble]

I know you kids don't remember the beginning of the browser "wars." Microsoft was also fined here in the U.S. In fact, as far as I can recall, they were fined several times. Can any seniors list the cases?

The only problem here is that IE is integrated within the OS. Opera is just demanding it not be.

[ssauble]

Sorry, late in the discussion.