Re: convicted monopolist"
"If you use something other than IE and it never touches the 'net, why the hell do you make such a big deal about uninstalling it? Are those 3MB so crucial to you?"
Well, for starters baking it deeply into the OS in such a manner that it can't be removed was deemed to be abuse of a monopoly position which led to MS becoming a convicted monopolist.
Secondly, despite not ever wanting to use IE it keeps popping up. Want to open an XML file? Oh look, there's fucking IE. One used to be able to deal with that relatively quickly by altering the file associations, which is a bloody PITA on Windows 7.
And thirdly, it is much bigger than 3mb. So why should I keep code for an application I don't want hanging around as a security risk? Oh, I have to because some wing-nut decided to integrate said security risk deeply into the OS.
"You're a linux evangelist anyway so you couldn't use IE if you tried, you hypocrite."
I don't think you understand you meaning of the word "hypocrite", so I'll help you with some basic comprehension again. hypocrite, adjective: Person portraying false virtue; or Person who acts in contradiction to their own statements. So I'd only really be a hypocrite if I said "Don't use IE" whilst in fact using it. So I can't be a hypocrite on my GNU/Linux systems as they don't run IE (IE6 could be run in WINE I guess). I could be a hypocrite on my Windows system, but I've gone to great pains to avoid IE altogether because is it so bloody god-awful.
As for being a "linux evangelist" (which would be quite a compliment if it came from someone with any clue as to what they were talking about), if attempting in some small way to defend freedom and foster competition is offensive to you, then I strongly advise to reassess your values; defending oppression does seem like a nice lifestyle. Or maybe you have Stockholm Syndrome, there are people who can help with that.