Opinion: Opera responds to Microsoft blunder

I recently downloaded the first beta of Opera 7.0 for Linux and gave it a whirl. I'm going to briefly recount my installation and usage experience with the beta, but this is in no way a review of the Opera browser, beta or otherwise. I'm simply using the beta as an icebreaker, an excuse to voice my opinions on recent happenings in the latest episodes of the Browser Wars. In blunt language, I'll launch into a rant against the latest machinations of the malignant monopoly.

The Linux version of Opera 7.0 lags behind the release of the Windows version of the popular multi-platform browser, but not by much. The final version of Opera 7.0 for Windows was released at the end of January. The first beta for Linux followed approximately two weeks later, on Valentine's Day. The Linux beta comes before a 7.0 beta for any of the other platforms supported by Opera. That includes the Macintosh, OS/2, Solaris, FreeBSD, and others.

I selected the static RPM version of the beta for download. A document is provided on the FTP site to help you select the correct version for your environment. I immediately ran into problems in the installation. The beta insisted on me having lib.Xm.so.2 installed. I tried to fool it with a symbolic link to lib.Xm.so.3, but it wasn't buying my lie. I got around the problem by installing openmotif21-2.1.30-7, which thoughtfully provides the needed library.

At first blush, Opera 7.0 seems to be just as quick to display pages as previous versions, but there are worrisome signs that it will soon lose its lean-and-mean, quick-and-nimble nature. I hope I'm wrong about that. However, the big news with the latest version for Linux is that it's not just for browsing anymore; this version for Linux contains a mail client/newsreader called M2.

I verified that both the mail client and newsreader functions worked, but I didn't spend much time with either. It's not just that I'm no fan of "Swiss Army knife" browsers; the fonts were so small as to make the message text almost unreadable for my tired old eyes. I will say that I am impressed with the listed functionality of M2. It can do many of the things that I love about Evolution and more. M2's "Access points" sound very much like Evolution's virtual folders, and it has a magic way of maintaining contacts without the use of a separate address book. If you're looking for a new e-mail client or newsreader, you definitely will want to look at Opera.

This first beta for Linux is admittedly a little rough around the edges, especially in the area of new features. However, the final version of Opera 7.0 for Windows is winning rave reviews. One review of the 7.0 release had this to say:

"We'll probably go back and forth a few times trying to figure out if we like Opera 7 better than Mozilla. And if you're wondering where eWeek Labs would rate market leader Internet Explorer from Microsoft Corp., that Web browser dinosaur would probably do no better than sixth place."

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee

Perhaps Ballmer or Gates already knew that Opera was better than IE and didn't relish the thought of finishing dead last in a six-horse browser race. Perhaps the IE project manager or programming lead resented Opera for being so much better. After all, the battle is for a space where they've already slain the competition by "cutting off their air supply." Whatever the reasons, Microsoft has responded to Opera in a petty style: Microsoft began to sabotage the Opera browser when Microsoft discovered it being used to visit the MSN Web site.

As has been documented on the Opera site and elsewhere on the Internet, Microsoft began to send Opera browsers -- and Opera browsers alone -- instructions to shift the text display 30 pixels to the left for portions of its pages. The intended result was to create the impression that Opera wasn't displaying the pages correctly.

Perhaps this is a matter of programmer incompetence at MSN. However, as Opera points out on its site, this isn't the first time Microsoft sabotaged customers using Opera. In 2001, Microsoft blocked Opera from MSN entirely. Opera (and Opera users, of course) protested loudly, and eventually MSN allowed the browser to access their site.

Microsoft initially denied the Opera charge. Then they lied about it -- not a direct lie, but a classic Microsoft lie. In response to questions about the incident, they "honestly" answered a completely different question, saying "We have different style sheets and different code for various browsers." Bob Visse, director of marketing for MSN, was quoted as saying, "That's something we do to try optimize the experience for our users."

Opera's Web site surgically dissects how MSN was responding to page requests from various browsers and makes it clear Opera was singled out. Whether through incompetence or deliberate sabotage, there is no excuse for this kind of thing, and certainly not one as lame as what Microsoft would have use believe: it was done "to try to optimize the experience." If optimization was Microsoft's intent, it's clear its programmers failed to test the results of their changes. It's a stunning blunder either way you look at it.

Would you like meatballs with that crow?

Opera responded to this latest burst of incredible pettiness by Microsoft with a little humor, a lot of PR and a blow to the solar plexus. The humor came in the form of a "Bork edition" of the Windows version of Opera. When you visit MSN running the "Bork edition," it renders the page in the language of "the famous Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show: Bork, Bork, Bork!"

A press release announcing the "Bork edition" underscores the seriousness of the situation behind the smile. Mary Lambert, manager of desktop software at Opera, is quoted as saying, "The real point here is that the success of the Web depends on software and Web site developers behaving well and rising above corporate rivalry."

I agree with that, but I think it is also very clear that the odds against Microsoft "behaving well and rising above corporate rivalry" are more than a trillion to one. Microsoft is exactly what is indicated by its behavior. Petty is as petty does. Duplicity and complete disregard for any common good are the hallmark traits of Bill Gates' firm. That was true in the early '90s, when Gates directed Microsoft's best and brightest to plant phony warning messages in Windows if it was detected to be running on DrDOS. It is still true today.

A much better answer than a smile -- although I heartily concur with the notion that the PR message behind that smile is more likely to be heard than if it were delivered with a shout -- is the blow to the solar plexus I mentioned above. That would be the Linux version of Opera 7.0, which is destined to become one of the most-popular commercial apps available for Linux. Even worse is that, from the Redmonian worldview, it is a bridge application. In other words, there is now one less thing a Windows user would have to learn when migrating to Linux.

Microsoft isn't striking out at Opera alone when it acts like an Internet terrorist and sabotages its own customers for using a competitor's browser. It is striking out at competition, at cross-platform development and at Linux. Just as it no longer denies the Opera charges, Microsoft no longer hides the fact that it is concerned about Linux moving onto its monopoly turf.

I learned recently from an anonymous intern that, in 2000, Gates told a group of interns that suggested to him that Microsoft might be stifling innovation and creativity -- this at the same time Microsoft was arguing in court that it furthers competition -- that "the market is not about innovation; just look at the Beta vs. VHS situation."

Of course, Gates realized that monopoly muscle, not innovation, maintained his dynasty. However, that didn't keep him from whining on an almost-weekly basis that the government was preventing him from innovating.

In that same meeting, he referred to Red Hat as a "f---ing parasite on open source," and dismissed Linux as not being innovative, but simply another variant of Unix.

I am a long-time critic of Microsoft, so hearing me accuse Gates and company of being dishonest and petty is not exactly headline news. Nevertheless, I'm not the only one singing that song. Dave Stutz, the very recently departed head of Microsoft's "shared source" campaign, points this out very succinctly in the "sanitized" public version of his resignation letter. "Recovering from current external perceptions of Microsoft as a paranoid, untrustworthy, greedy, petty, and politically inept organization will take years," Stutz wrote. Personally, I think he misspelled "forever."

IDC is now predicting that Microsoft's share of server market has peaked and will begin to decline this year. As the Evil Empire implodes upon itself in the End Days, there won't be a lot of people mourning its passing. Victims of Microsoft's arrogance, duplicity and treachery over the years -- whether they be customers, partners or competitors -- will probably feel nothing at all. Except relief.