GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
The shareholders may possibly not find that funny. Basically this says that Microsoft either doesn't want to obey to the rules or that they are not able to properly test their software.
Both is damaging Microsoft's image (even more).
This is not about stupid. It is about using the OS monopoly to try to enforce a browser monopoly. Seems to me that we simply have stricter anti-trust laws here than the US of A has. Not a bad thing in my opinion.
Better question is, how stupid is Microsoft to "forget" a complete program in a Service Pack?
Looking at cold geeky facts, I think they simply made it difficult to use other browsers
To indulge in a little ancient history, if I recall correctly, at the time, Netscape cost money. By bundling IE and--this is the deceptive part--claiming that it was (and engineering it into) an integral part of the OS, MS destroyed Netscape's business and Netscape along with it.
Requiring the "browser selection screen" was perhaps a bit silly to folks like us who know that there are alternatives, but, given the history of MS's conduct, it has a certain logic to it.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, Slackware Current AMD64, various VMs
Nowadays most people know that other browsers exist but go back 10 years and most people thought the blue E was "the internet" and thanks to that Mozilla's market share was low and why when Opera came along nobody knew what it was.
The silly thing about the decision to enforce a choice screen is that it's too late to make much difference since the judgement went on so long. However, it still causes Microsoft problems so it still stands as a punishment.
Microsoft is finding it harder to buy off EU officials than it did US ones. This also has a useful (to the EU) side effect that Microsoft may end up having to pay the EU more money, which could pay a couple of week's worth of interest for EU debt.
I was sure it was a commercial product that I only saw for some fee. I never had the $29 or so to waste on it since IE was free.
"However, within 2 months of that press release, Netscape apparently reversed its policy on who could freely obtain and use version 1.0 by only mentioning that educational and non-profit institutions could use version 1.0 at no charge"