Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

blogs.computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#201

Post by muuh-gnu »

rbanffy wrote: post #136
kprobst wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you must realize that this is the same argument people have been making for close to 15 years, and not much has changed. So that should answer your question about the OPs point.

The main reason most people use Windows is that Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer and Toshiba make it incredibly hard to buy a computer without it. Go to HP's site now and see if you can get a notebook with Linux preinstalled. Most people would be perfectly happy with a Linux machine (I can tell you my mother is) and had hardware manufacturers given even some slight support (instead of building dozens of models seemingly design…

> never managed to interest Microsoft's 5 most important clients (the aforementioned PC makers) on the full-featured, rock-solid, fast and stable desktop

Because it is neither rock-solid nor stable. It changes too much, too often, in an irregluar, unpredictable pattern, so major software makers refuse to target it. Without software, you dont get users, and without users, hardware makers wont bother to preinstall, etc.

Linux will be able to win big when they start putting a stronger emphases on backward compatibility and start supporting releases for 10 years, like Microsoft does, so that users dont have to reinstall distros every 6 months just to be able to install a new version of s single app.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#202

Post by fpgeek »

lmkg wrote: post #95
CountSessine wrote: post #56

I'm going to put this question out here for everyone who's had some experience building a JIT engine of some kind: what exactly is the danger of compiling code, even unknown code like from downloaded javascript, when the process' operating environment is supposed to be hardened anyways? Is it just that the only way to do this is with VirtualAlloc()/mmap()? Could a 'safe' executable page allocator be created for just…

First three rules of security: Layers, Layers , LAYERS . To your point, in theory you could accomplish security by totally securing the JIT, or by totally securing the OS, and then exec's JITed code would be ok. However, totally secured JITers and OSs are as mythical as sufficiently smart compilers.

Totally secure, sure. Nothing nontrivial is totally secure, but...

One reasonable option would be requiring any JIT to be via a typed assembly language. You should be able to get a good compromise with close to the performance of native code and the security of verified bytecode from that.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#203

Post by muyuu »

mbq wrote: post #127

Meh, it is just time to accept that Android, iOS and Windows RT are not a serious OSes but an unobtrusive, eye-candy cloud clients for masses. The step ahead is either to waste money on VPSes or just demand the right to have full control of the software on hardware we buy -- say Angstrom will always run Firefox without any doubt.

You're totally right there, but sadly group dynamics will make it extremely hard for Angstrom to achieve critical mass as a phone OS and have a significant amount of businesses working in its ecosystem.

I'm totally for it but it's not cost effective for me to get a machine capable of running Armstrong, then hack away until I can get it into a workable state (I'm older and busier now...) over just getting an Android, root it, make a throwaway google account so Google cannot pry on my data, and use that instead. It's still some work and some cost but nowhere as much.

If there's a community effort to make it into a click-and-install Android-wiping mobile phone OS, I'd love to help with that in my spare time. Last time I looked into it (waited for years for my OpenPandora until I gave up) Angstrom was stuck in amateur PDA land, things have moved on and we now have cheap smartphones and tables that are basically overpowered PDAs with extra features and they are available for relatively very cheap. To compete with that a massive re-focus would be necessary. Obviously there is no substitute for freedom, so the niche is there.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#204

Post by digamber_kamat »

Apple has been consistent in it's policies. It has always been a closed castle. That is one reason why I haven't spent any bucks buying Apple products. One good thing about their consistency is that their browsers and other software is pretty good. Safari is much decent browser than crappy IE.

Microsoft on other hand has always grown with partners. They are not a closed castle. So when they try to gag a great software like Firefox I am upset.

This comes at a time when Linux based OS like Ubuntu are perhaps as good as Windows 7. MS is hurting itself.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#206

Post by azakai »

cooldeal wrote: post #153
azakai wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Care to link to them? For example, here is criticism from a top Mozilla dev on iOS's closedness, http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_f... > Bonus points if they've alluded to antitrust law. How can criticism of Apple be related to antitrust law? What monopoly do they have?

I fail to see how a random post by a dev on Usenet is remotely close to an official statement by the General Counsel of Mozilla on the company blog.

The general counsel explains the difference here

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9227080/Mozilla...

and meanwhile Google has joined Mozilla in its criticism,

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431475-92/google-agrees-w...

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#207

Post by Tloewald »

snupples wrote: post #178
Tloewald wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but ie + other browsers is guaranteed to be less secure than just IE.

Not if you don't use IE

IE will be used as a browser widget at API level by third party apps, so using it will be almost unavoidable.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#208

Post by TimGebhardt »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #70
TimGebhardt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not banning it. They're just not allowing access to critical API functions for a JIT engine to Windows Marketplace apps. Only IE has access to it. Without these APIs then Firefox will run like a dog because it'll undue all the years that people have been working on optimizing Javascript engines.

Right. So... I don't ban anyone from my swimming pool... everyone is welcome. But if you're not family, you have to wear this 100lb ankle weight. Dive right in everybody! lol

I think there is a big difference between banning it outright (like Apple) and hampering it. From the end-users point of view both suck, but at least if I use Firefox to sync my bookmarks and passwords I'm able to on a Windows tablet. Nothing I can do on an iPad.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#209

Post by virmundi »

Too wrote: post #198
virmundi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about adoption in start ups is that Visual Studio 2010 Pro is so expensive. If Microsoft really wants to stay relevant they have to release Pro for free. They have to compete on price with the Eclipse or VIM/command line world. Until then, they will slowly die off. (The express versions are a joke, don't even get me started).

May i ask what's a joke about VS Express? IMO they are very much capable. At least for windows forms and web-applications, never tried the c++ version. In fact it beats any other IDE i've tried anyway. Only thing i really miss from pro is plugins, version control-integration and code contracts, the last being a thing that probably justifies a price tag anyway.

You can't unit test with them out of the box. To get unit test integration is a rather large effort. If you want to carve a project into a web layer and into the business assembly, you have to jump between editors (web and C#). These two make the tools rather worthless for anything complex and web based.

Now their WinForms ability might be great, but there are few start ups out there at are actually doing anything with desktop development.

Re: It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

#210

Post by rbanffy »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #201
rbanffy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason most people use Windows is that Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer and Toshiba make it incredibly hard to buy a computer without it. Go to HP's site now and see if you can get a notebook with Linux preinstalled. Most people would be perfectly happy with a Linux machine (I can tell you my mother is) and had hardware manufacturers given even some slight support (instead of building dozens of models seemingly design…

> never managed to interest Microsoft's 5 most important clients (the aforementioned PC makers) on the full-featured, rock-solid, fast and stable desktop Because it is neither rock-solid nor stable. It changes too much, too often, in an irregluar, unpredictable pattern, so major software makers refuse to target it. Without software, you dont get users, and without users, hardware makers wont bother to preinstall, etc…

> Because it is neither rock-solid nor stable.

Tell that to Amazon, Google, Facebook, IBM, HP...

> It changes too much, too often

I said "stable", not "stale". If you want unchanging, bundle with Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS (or ink a deal with Red Hat).

> Without software, you dont get users, and without users, hardware makers wont bother to preinstall

Apart from games, I don't see this dearth of software. While I agree some users have very specific needs, most users would be perfectly happy with a browser.

> users dont have to reinstall distros every 6 months just to be able to install a new version of s single app.

Unless you live in the dark ages, keeping a Linux machine up to date across major OS releases is, usually, a breeze. I'd not be surprised if, in a couple major kernel revisions, not even a reboot is needed during the process.

Post reply on HN