Comments:EU, Microsoft agree on browser ballot

If only there was an Operating System ballot as well... --76.179.102.203 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is. It's called "You want Linux, get Linux". Works well for other OSes, too. The only problem is, the ballot doesn't work if you can't be bothered to cast it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.63.153 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that if you buy a PC off-the-shelf then you're paying for the Windows license on that machine, whether you wanted it or not. If you want Firefox/Chrome/Opera/other then you can get those, yourself, too; but the average person is unaware of the choices available to them, or that there's even a choice at all (especially regarding operating systems). --67.174.131.145 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dur, dont want Windows, dont use it. People complain so much about Windows but I dont see anyone inventing anything better. Linux is just plain user unfriendly and terrible to game on, not to mention coming in more flavors than the average consumer can handle, plus is feature lacking. OS X is cheap, but is a joke and wont run on anything but a Mac, which are the height of proprietary and are very overpriced. Windows is easy to use and just plain works.--68.10.228.187 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't address that I'm paying for Windows or Mac, regardless of whether or not I wanted it in the first place. And when dealing with low-end machines, there's no cost benefit (but many more risks) involved in assembling it myself. When building a high-end computer, yes, the $500 to $600 I save on parts offsets the $200 cost of the operating system. But a budget system that's just going to be used for office productivity and web-browsing (things that a majority of Linux distros can do well out-of-the-box) is, by definition, chosen because it's cheap. Dell and HP include plenty of junk that can be removed during customization, allowing the customer to lower the cost, and there's no reason Windows can't be one of those options. Sure, leave Windows as the default, but show that you can go with a different (or no) OS for less. Most people would choose Windows; many people will still choose IE for their browser. Many people would still choose IE6, if they could, because that's what they know. But the important thing is to stop making a secret of the fact that consumers have choices, and that these choices aren't as limited as IE v. Netscape or Windows v. Mac. An informed consumer might find something better than your product, but if your product is good and people with the experience and knowledge to make an informed decision choose it then they can defend it with more than fanboyism or the tired familiarity argument. For what it's worth, I use Windows in my daily life. I used to use Macs on a regular basis, and I used various Linux distributions for special projects. I know the pros and cons of each OS. Every time I install Windows I know why I chose it; the same goes for those odd occasions when I install Ubuntu. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this may the right oppurtunity for the people working on the net to know at least the merits of other effective browsers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.61.251 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Broswer Ballot
When and how will this ballot take place?

Also, has there been any progress made on the issue of net neutrality?

-PiousBias (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Figures.
Figures... That Opera Software would be complaining.