Microsoft developer blames Google for the switch to Chromium engine in the next version of Windows 10

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What are you on about?

All I was pointing out is that:

1) DOC was only opened up once a new standard had been released. Back when it was actually being used and relevant, it was very much a closed de facto standard.

2) Even after it was released under the Open Specification Promise, it was not fully open because it still put restrictions and did not offer ensured protection if someone were to implement support for it.

3) As a side note I threw in that the DOCX's standardization process was very questionable, and the version Microsoft have been using is not the actual open standard (traditional rather than strict).

 

You asked me, so I answered.

Pointing out that for example Microsoft only opened up the DOC format after a replacement had been released is hardly "shitting on them", especially not when you were the one who asked me.

A promise made 12 years ago and they haven't sued yet,  how long do we have to wait before you accept they are good on their promise?  

 

What I asked was how a standard that carries no cost or barrier be worse?  Just because it came form MS that makes it worse?  I don't care what forum members think,  Redhat's lawyers says it's good enough and a lawyer/lecturer at Stanford Law school says its fully compatible with GPL and MS hasn't sued anyone for it (and it has been widely implemented over the last 12 years), you say open standards are never bad because they are free and anyone can use it them.  Doc is free and anyone can use it.   The Open promise is to anyone, not just specific people.

 

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

A promise made 12 years ago and they haven't sued yet,  how long do we have to wait before you accept they are good on their promise?  

We have accepted that they made good on that promise as long as developers follow the guidelines Microsoft laid out. For example LibreOffice supports .doc files.

 

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What I asked was how a standard that carries no cost or barrier be worse?

If it has absolutely no costs associated with it and no barriers, it is free to use for whatever purpose by anyone without needing for example approval from some entity? Then it isn't bad.

DOC was not like that though, which is why I mentioned it as one of the bad standards.

That has changed though (at least to some degree, not too familiar with the underlying functions of doc). However, that change only came about after it had been replaced.

 

When I mentioned doc being a bad de facto standard I was referring to it in the past tense. Today doc isn't the de facto standard but back when it was the de facto standard it was bad. It was not included in the Microsoft Open Specification Promise. It got added to that 2 years after DOCX had been released.

 

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Just because it came form MS that makes it worse?

Nope. I don't think that.

I do believe in proper licensing though, and I think it is a subject that is far more complicated than a lot of people believe. It's not as simple as just going "Oh this is open and you can use it".

 

48 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Doc is free and anyone can use it.

I haven't actually looked too carefully into it. Is DOC really, completely and fully free? I know that DOCX isn't, because it relies on binary blobs for some functions.

Anyway, I was referring to it when it was a de facto standard, and at that time it was not free.

[Linus_torvalds]

On 12/18/2018 at 1:17 PM, J.b091 said:

Let's admit everyone Microsoft was always poor with browsers. First their IE, which was disaster, now they tried to improve and replace it with Edge, but still it's behind especially when comparing it to such big browsers like Chrome or even FF. I prefer any day browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Opera to that Edge. Microsoft is only good with making OS. In other fields they suck in my opinion.

LOOOL. They made vista and 10 THE WORST OS OF ALL TIME. They even make updates for windows 10 that delete users files, break copy (overwrite) functions and so on and on. They even rolled back upgrade 1809 remember? Then released again with even more BUGs. And you tell us that this company is good at making OS?

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, mate_mate91 said:

LOOOL. They made vista and 10 THE WORST OS OF ALL TIME. They even make updates for windows 10 that delete users files, break copy (overwrite) functions and so on and on. They even rolled back upgrade 1809 remember? Then released again with even more BUGs. And you tell us that this company is good at making OS?

Well they are a company like the others I guess, they are doing this based on their questionable business model, other OS like Mac and Linux follow a completely different path based on "an os is just an os and not a service" lol their approach is hard to maintain at this current state 

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Anyway, I was referring to it when it was a de facto standard, and at that time it was not free.

Yes they are free.  I never said they were always free, my point was that they made it free when it became the standard.

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes they are free.  I never said they were always free, my point was that they made it free when it became the standard.

No, they didn't "make it free when it became the standard".

It was the de facto standard since 1997, and it became open under the OSP in 2008. 11 years after it was introduced, and 2 years after it got replaced.

 

Like I said before, during the time when it was a de facto standard, before 2006 when it got replaced by DOCX, it was NOT open or free.

That's why I gave it as an example of a bad de facto standard. It doesn't really matter that it's open now, because I was talking about when it was a de facto standard and back then it was not open.

 

Hope I made myself a bit more clear and explained my reasoning for saying it was a bad de facto standard.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

No, they didn't "make it free when it became the standard".

It was the de facto standard since 1997, and it became open under the OSP in 2008. 11 years after it was introduced, and 2 years after it got replaced.

 

Like I said before, during the time when it was a de facto standard, before 2006 when it got replaced by DOCX, it was NOT open or free.

That's why I gave it as an example of a bad de facto standard. It doesn't really matter that it's open now, because I was talking about when it was a de facto standard and back then it was not open.

 

Hope I made myself a bit more clear and explained my reasoning for saying it was a bad de facto standard.

 

Basically all I am hearing is even when MS do something nice for the community by essentially giving up rights to what is arguably a key standard in business/education software they are still bad and evil.  

 

You are trying to argue a timeline as if that means something (at one point it wasn't even a de-facto standard, at one point it was still proprietary and no one could use it, but now the fact is simply they have promised not to sue for people using it, it has been 12 years since they made that promise.

[Trik'Stari]

Not sure if it will run better or worse.

 

I can already say that in using both Chrome and Edge on a large number of laptops (as in, a lot of different laptops that are all the same model, due to my work), Chrome is by far superior. Edge is so very slow by comparison. Also buggy at times. I know PC gamer's ad's cause havoc when scrolling. At least on these machines.

 

I only use edge when I want to look busy but I'm actually looking at gaming news or something, because for some reason the customer who owns the machines only locked down Chrome.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Basically all I am hearing is even when MS do something nice for the community by essentially giving up rights to what is arguably a key standard in business/education software they are still bad and evil.  

 

You are trying to argue a timeline as if that means something (at one point it wasn't even a de-facto standard, at one point it was still proprietary and no one could use it, but now the fact is simply they have promised not to sue for people using it, it has been 12 years since they made that promise.

I will try to put this as kindly as I possibly can, because right now you're quite frankly being... less than smart.

 

Do you know what a de facto standard is? Because judging by your posts I don't think you do.

A de facto standard is something which has "achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market force", without it being a law. Windows is the de facto operating system on PCs.

 

DOC used to be a de facto standard. It is not a de facto standard anymore because it has been replaced.

When I said DOC was a bad de facto standard, I specifically talked about the time period when it was in fact a de facto standard. That means the period roughly around 1997 to 2006. Any time before or after that is not relevant because it was not the de facto standard. Do you understand?

Something can't be a bad de facto standard when it's not even a de facto standard to begin with.

 

When DOC was the de facto standard, it was not free or open. That happened when it had already been replaced and lost the de facto standard position for DOCX.

 

That's why it does not matter that Microsoft made it open in 2008. Because when I said that it was a bad de facto standard it automatically excludes any time period after it was replaced.

 

Is DOC open now? Yes, from what I know (just because it is in the OSP does not mean it is truly free). Is it a bad de facto standard now? No, because it is not a de facto standard, period. It's been replaced by DOCX.

 

 

And no, please fuck off with that "you just hate Microsoft". I like Microsoft when they do good things, which is sadly quite rarely. And when I say good I mean actually good, not just some PR move like open sourcing parts of Minecraft which is an unreadable mess and keeping the rest closed source (good luck reading this function), or them stop being assholes (like when they stopped suing Android OEMs, or started taking W3C standards seriously with IE9).

I mean good things like joining OIN, co-founding AOMedia, suing the US government for using gag-orders (although I think they dropped the lawsuit a bit too quickly, something good still came out of it). Not to mention the tools which they have made open source like PowerShell. These are all things which can have a major impact on consumers and the industry as a whole, for the better.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I will try to put this as kindly as I possibly can, because right now you're quite frankly being... less than smart.

 

Do you know what a de facto standard is? Because judging by your posts I don't think you do.

A de facto standard is something which has "achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market force", without it being a law. Windows is the de facto operating system on PCs.

Yes, but what has that to do with what I said?

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

DOC used to be a de facto standard. It is not a de facto standard anymore because it has been replaced.

When I said DOC was a bad de facto standard, I specifically talked about the time period when it was in fact a de facto standard. That means the period roughly around 1997 to 2006. Any time before or after that is not relevant because it was not the de facto standard. Do you understand?

Something can't be a bad de facto standard when it's not even a de facto standard to begin with.

Again you are trying to judge an activity (in this case MS giving away the doc and docx standard) by only talking about before they gave it away.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

When DOC was the de facto standard, it was not free or open. That happened when it had already been replaced and lost the de facto standard position for DOCX.

Before they made the OSP of course it wasn't free or open, what's your point?

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

That's why it does not matter that Microsoft made it open in 2008. Because when I said that it was a bad de facto standard it automatically excludes any time period after it was replaced.

So is it bad standard now?   If it meets all the criteria to be a free and open standard now then what it was before is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Is DOC open now? Yes, from what I know (just because it is in the OSP does not mean it is truly free). Is it a bad de facto standard now? No, because it is not a de facto standard, period. It's been replaced by DOCX.

Thank you, not sure why you had to say all the above though, it makes no difference to what I said.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

 

And no, please fuck off with that "you just hate Microsoft". I like Microsoft when they do good things, which is sadly quite rarely. And when I say good I mean actually good, not just some PR move like open sourcing parts of Minecraft which is an unreadable mess and keeping the rest closed source (good luck reading this function), or them stop being assholes (like when they stopped suing Android OEMs, or started taking W3C standards seriously with IE9).

I mean good things like joining OIN, co-founding AOMedia, suing the US government for using gag-orders (although I think they dropped the lawsuit a bit too quickly, something good still came out of it). Not to mention the tools which they have made open source like PowerShell. These are all things which can have a major impact on consumers and the industry as a whole, for the better.

 

I can't think of another logical reason why you would ignore the whole process to concentrate on one period of time just to sad bad things about MS.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Again you are trying to judge an activity (in this case MS giving away the doc and docx standard) by only talking about before they gave it away.

Yes? That is exactly what I did. I never meant for my post to be interpreted in any other way.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Again you are trying to judge an activity (in this case MS giving away the doc and docx standard) by only talking about before they gave it away.

Yes. That is what I am doing. I am judging DOC as a de facto standard, while it was the de facto standard, which was before they gave it away.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Before they made the OSP of course it wasn't free or open, what's your point?

Well, that is exactly my point. It wasn't free nor open. That's why I said it was bad. That has changed now, but I was talking about how it was before.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So is it bad standard now?   If it meets all the criteria to be a free and open standard now then what it was before is irrelevant.

I can not say it's a bad de facto standard today, because it is not a de facto standard. I think that's where I lose you in this conversation. DOC is not a de facto anymore, and when I said it was a bad de facto standard I was specifically referring to the time it was. DOC can't be a bad de facto standard when it isn't a de facto standard.

 

From an open-ness standpoint I guess it's alright. Again, I haven't looked into the technical implementation details of the format but my guess is that it's at the very least decent. From a technical standpoint of the protocol format it's really outdated though, and I can't see any reason to use it over DOCX which has a far better structure.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I can't think of another logical reason why you would ignore the whole process to concentrate on one period of time just to sad bad things about MS.

Because I wanted to bring up some examples of bad DE FACTO STANDARDS, and at the time DOC was a de facto standard it was not an open format, and therefore bad in my eyes.

That has since changed. It is no longer a de facto standard and it is open.

 

 

Let me give you an analogy. This is purely a hypothetical scenario. This is just to make you understand what I said in my previous posts because it feels to me like you don't understand what I was saying.

 

If I said that Ronald Reagan was a bad president, I obviously talk about him during the time period between 1981 and 1989. You can't go "well in 1991 he donated to charity so I don't understand how you can say he was a bad president".

When I say DOC was a bad de facto standard, I talk about the time period when it was a de facto standard. That was roughly around the time it was first launched (apparently 1983, so older than I thought) to when it got replaced by DOCX (2006). What happened before or after the time period when DOC was the de facto standard is kind of irrelevant because I was strictly talking about it as a de facto standard. It's the same as if I said Ronald Reagan was a bad president (just a side note, I do not know or care how Reagan was as a president, I am just using him as an example). If I say he was a bad president I am not talking about the time before or after he was president. I am strictly talking about him during the specific years he was a president.

 

And no, I did not bring up DOC specifically because I wanted to hate on Microsoft. Stop being so defensive. I also brought up MP3 and Adobe. I was just throwing examples out there. One of them happened to be a Microsoft format because they have historically been behind a lot of de facto standards (such as Windows, and hopefully AV1 in the future).

 

I hope I have elaborated on what I meant and explained myself.

[Mihle]

On 12/20/2018 at 11:25 AM, mate_mate91 said:

LOOOL. They made vista and 10 THE WORST OS OF ALL TIME. They even make updates for windows 10 that delete users files, break copy (overwrite) functions and so on and on. They even rolled back upgrade 1809 remember? Then released again with even more BUGs. And you tell us that this company is good at making OS?

From my understanding, want it actually intel that didn't update some drivers that was the problem?

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, Mihle said:

From my understanding, want it actually intel that didn't update some drivers that was the problem?

Manufacturers in general needed to do significant re-writes.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes? That is exactly what I did. I never meant for my post to be interpreted in any other way.

 

Yes. That is what I am doing. I am judging DOC as a de facto standard, while it was the de facto standard, which was before they gave it away.

 

Well, that is exactly my point. It wasn't free nor open.

 

SNIP

 

So you are purposely being duplicitous to what I said.

 

I don't care to read the rest of your post when you understand perfectly well what I meant and actually agree with it,  but then try to carry on as if it is important people know your opinions of standards for a very specific time period.  All of which only amounts to your opinion.

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you are purposely being duplicitous to what I said. 

It was genuinely not my intention to be misleading in any way.

I thought my choice of words would have made it as obvious as saying "I don't think Reagan was a good president" but I guess I was wrong, judging by your reaction.

 

I assumed that saying something was a bad de facto standard would imply that I was merely talking about the time period when it was actually a de facto standard, but I guess not. I also did not purposefully pick a bad de facto standard from Microsoft. Again, it just so happens that they have had a lot of de facto standards over the years, mainly because of their size and influence in the computer world.

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't care to read the rest of your post when you understand perfectly well what I meant and actually agree with it,  but then try to carry on as if it is important people know your opinions of standards for a very specific time period.  All of which only amounts to your opinion.

I have genuinely tried to explain this to you all through the thread. Go back and read my posts again if you don't believe me.

My first reply to your "how can a de facto standard like doc be bad?" post was "DOC only became open after it had been replaced". I'm sorry, but to me it seems extremely difficult to not understand that I have been talking about a specific time period all throughout this thread.

Anyway, now that I have elaborated on what I meant I hope you can understand my posts a bit better.

 

This thread has become really off topic by the way. Anyone wanna get back on topic? Google has responded to the accusations.

Quote from the article:

Quote

Google disputes Bakita’s claims, and says the YouTube blank div was merely a bug that was fixed after it was reported. “YouTube does not add code designed to defeat optimizations in other browsers, and works quickly to fix bugs when they’re discovered,” says a YouTube spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We regularly engage with other browser vendors through standards bodies, the Web Platform Tests project, the open-source Chromium project and more to improve browser interoperability.”

 

Also, the Verge article once again brings up that "Youtube is 5x slower in Firefox" tweet from Chris.

Maybe it's about time that Chris posts an update regarding that tweet? Because you know, he was completely and utterly incorrect in his assumptions as for why Youtube was slower in Firefox than in Chrome. The reason is because Mozilla decided that they would not implement native support for HTML Import, not because Youtube used Shadow DOM v0 (it doesn't).

 

That being said, I don't like that Google has this much influence over web browsers. I really hope Firefox gains a lot more traction. Hell, I'd be way happier if it was Mozilla that had 70% market share.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Mihle said:

From my understanding, want it actually intel that didn't update some drivers that was the problem? 

It's hard to say who was in the wrong with that.

Intel's driver worked just fine until Microsoft made changes to the OS.

 

Let's say instead of Windows, it was a game, and instead of Intel it was AMD. Imagine if a game worked just fine on AMD GPUs, but then after an update to the game no AMD user could play it anymore. Then, AMD analyses the issue, release an updated driver after a few days and everything works again.

Whose fault was it that the game stopped working? Was it the game developer's fault or AMD's fault? AMD were the ones who fixed the issue with the updated driver, but it was the changes the game developer made which caused the game to break on AMD GPUs to begin with.

[Dabombinable]

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's hard to say who was in the wrong with that.

Intel's driver worked just fine until Microsoft made changes to the OS.

 

Let's say instead of Windows, it was a game, and instead of Intel it was AMD. Imagine if a game worked just fine on AMD GPUs, but then after an update to the game no AMD user could play it anymore. Then, AMD analyses the issue, release an updated driver after a few days and everything works again.

Whose fault was it that the game stopped working? Was it the game developer's fault or AMD's fault? AMD were the ones who fixed the issue with the updated driver, but it was the changes the game developer made which caused the game to break on AMD GPUs to begin with.

Which is why there has been problems under Windows 10 with some drivers. MS once again changed part of the OS (removed something from what I understand) and some hardware+driver configs no longer work. With previous W10 versions for example, it was removal of the basic framework that allowed those who had laptops with Ati/AMD GPU and Intel iGPU to switch between the GPU. Resulting in computers no longer being capable of logging in if the dGPU was enabled.

Honestly, most of the time there is a sudden issue with some part of Windows, the party responsible for the issue nearly all of the time is Microsoft.

[Delicieuxz]

15 hours ago, Mihle said:

From my understanding, want it actually intel that didn't update some drivers that was the problem?

I think that was just a case of Microsoft trying to get ahead of the negative PR for yet another issue when they had already just had a completely disastrous month filled with negative PR over Windows updates, and so Microsoft tried to offload the responsibility for this issue onto Intel ahead of the media and public making their own independent reports on the issue.

 

But it was still Microsoft who broke the functionality with a Windows update.

 

I guess that's sort of like saying that Microsoft was lying and blaming someone else to try to save their own skin.

[Linus_torvalds]

15 hours ago, Mihle said:

From my understanding, want it actually intel that didn't update some drivers that was the problem?

So windows update deleting user files is intels drivers fault right?

Broken file overwrite function on copy, cut is intels drivers fault?

reseting settings,reinstalling windows junk and so on.....

I do not know even what to think about your question. Do you have written even one line of code?

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, mate_mate91 said:

I do not know even what to think about your question.

It's not that complicated, two people have already answered it.

It can either be answered with a yes or no, or you could provide some reasoning as to why it isn't so cut and dry.