^ Pretty much wot @app103
I was going to say something similar, because I thought the whole idea smacked of bigotry and Fascism - punishment and excommunication for non-conformance.
The reason I didn't
say it was that when faced by bigots, I try to put contrary ideas across in as positive a framework as possible, to allow the idea to have at least a decent half-life in their minds before being rejected by the bigots. Sometimes, against all odds, such ideas can germinate in what might otherwise appear to be hopelessly barren ground.
The original LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) browser tool was (I think) Mosaic(?). Then Netscape picked up the ball and ran with it, against Microsoft - who got all proprietary over the idea of "open systems" and started to force IE down our throats as a vital component of the bundle with the OS, until they got smacked down for anti-trust activity. MS were trying to create "lock-in" for IE.
The MS IE silliness continues though, as they still bundle stuff into IE (QED: the superb MS Office and Sharepoint integration), but are now smart enough to stay just
on the right side of the law. (Come to think of it, does anyone else notice how smooooth IE9 is with Outlook.com, or is it just me?)
Mozilla came to fill the gap left by Netscape's inexplicable(?) decline, and the latest incarnation (Firefox) seems to perform a sterling job - an open browser with an easy plugin/add-on development path - things which we should probably all
be grateful for.
Not only that, but also, for a while there, it rather looked as though Google were giving us even more
freedom of choice and open systems with Chrome, but no, they have apparently withdrawn their support of Mozilla development and seem to have embarked on a path of building in proprietary functionality (lock-in) to chrome for some of the Google services. Deja vu.
Probably in imitation of MS' aforementioned antics with IE - "Learn from the masters", etc.