OSNews

As a friend said:
"it can be exploited via tcp/ip
so it's clearly a tcp/ip vulnerability
via a linux server
it's clearly a linux vulnerability then
but the network card let it happen
so it's clearly a hardware vulnerability!"

The point of IE7 (which was stated from the get-go), was to update the UI, to fix the rendering bugs in IE6, and add support for a few new things.
They never, ever said that any different.

However, they also said that they would be releasing updates to IE itself frequently. So, we shall see about that.

From the get go, Firefox was more secure then IE and included more features then IE had, and THAT is the reason why it was so "religiously" promoted.

From the get go, Firefox was more secure then IE and included more features then IE had, and THAT is the reason why it was so "religiously" promoted.

And yet it was much less secure, much less stable, must less sleek, much less usable, and much less featureful than other browsers.

But OSNews/Slashdot zealots will continue in their fanatical devotion, modding up any pro-Firefox/Linux post (no matter how erroneous and off-topic) and modding down any "anti"-Firefox/Linux post (no matter how factual and on-topic).

Well, apart from you being factually wrong...

FF 1.x is more secure than IE 6.x. Much more secure. It's not 100% secure, but it is much more secure. Opera seems to be even better, but the userbase is so small, it's difficult to say, since nobody cares about attacking it. But it does seem to be the safest around.

FF 1.X have more features than Opera and IE, especially if you count in extensions. So you're factually wrong again, eMagius.

Does FF/Mozilla have stability issues, memory issues and security issues. Yes. Should we be worried? No.

If IE weren't shipped in windows, nobody would use it due to their inferior rendering technology and the fact that in the last 5 years they've been always the last on including cool features

Then why do so many pages not render properly in Firefox? Because they were written for IE.

Why were they written for IE? Because it was by far the best browser available for years and years while Netscape committed product suicide.

IF (and its a big IF) every time some new "standard" came out every website in the world immediately started using that new standard then that would be a reason to use a newer browser.

Instead, there are millions of webpages coded for IE.

So whats the best browser for most pages on the web - IE.

IE7 is a great browser.

And for those that say Firefox is more secure - 64 vulnerabilities and half of those "own the PC" vulnerabilities in 2006 alone says otherwise.

(Yes, I know I'll get modded down for that... but I'll just repost it)

Why were they written for IE? Because it was by far the best browser available for years and years while Netscape committed product suicide.

Are you so sure? - did you ask all those people if that's why they used IE?

I suspect the reason so many people used IE is because it came with their computers, and worked out of the box. No additional software required. The reason so many websites are written for IE is because so many people are/were using it.

Granted, Netscape wasn't exactly "great software" in it's day (and still isn't) - but your logic is still flawed nonetheless.

Edited 2006-10-20 19:18

Are you so sure? - did you ask all those people if that's why they used IE?

Were you around in those days? I was.

I used Mosaic when it came out.

I download used Netscape 1,2,3 and 4. (Which were all free by the way no matter what anyone says)

I downloaded and used IE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

IE 3 and Netscape 3 were close enough that it wouldn't make you switch. IE 4 was way better than Netscape 4 and then the Netscape 5 project blew up and 5 never really came out. Then IE 5 cameout and there was no question which was better.

Were you around in those days? I was.

toot toot...

Of course I was around in those days... I used Mosaic, and I did use IE exclusively on Windows until Phoenix appeared. I also messed with the Mozilla suite, but it just wasn't for me. I never seriously used Netscape other than installing it to see how different it was.

So, you seriously missed my point... most people did not even know there was such a thing as a "browser" - or that they had a choice. I can't tell you how many people consider the "blue E" on their desktop to be synonymous with "internet". There's nothing wrong with this notion, but you still seem to turn a blind-eye to the fact that IE gained popularity due to its market-share, not the other way around.

But, let me spin this a different way for you: Why would web designers feel the need to design for a specific browser in the first place? That's why standards are created is it not? If IE had been standards-compliant from the start, I can't see how anyone would be sitting around today saying: "People should use IE because websites are built for IE". Now, to give you something, I'll admit that Netscape did this first with their initial "non-standard" extensions to the HTML spec...

Finally, you seem to be dead-set on trolling and generating flamebait - so you'll have to get used to being mod'd down as a result. Facts cannot be presented in that form if you want to be taken seriously.

Edit: added a point I missed.

Edited 2006-10-20 22:16

Are you sure? Have you asked all the IE users if they just use IE because it came with their computers? I use IE because it's fast, you can edit bookmarks in Explorer and yes, because it came with my computer. It's just a browser. It does everything I need, I'm not interested in other browsers. I've tried them all and never found any reason to switch.

'it came with their computers, and worked out of the box.'

I assume you also try and pursade Linux users who find their OS comes with pre-installed with FireFox to install another browser too? Or are you just biased against MS?

Linux users try different browsers all the time, in the past IE was the only way of doing certain things. Firefox only comes with distros because it's the browser of choice not because mozilla say so.

I assume you also try and pursade Linux users who find their OS comes with pre-installed with FireFox to install another browser too? Or are you just biased against MS?

Where do all you guys come from? -- it's like you're all in this combative, anti-anti-MS mode. If someone uses a fact to further their previous statements, you get all huffy and obnoxious.

My statements were not pro-FF or anti-IE - but for some reason the assumption is that they were. I was merely trying to point out that IE's marketshare was not necessarily because it was great. It was because it was there, and most computer users that buy a computer do not know how to change their browser. If Firefox was installed on every machine sold in the last 10 years, I would be using the EXACT SAME LOGIC.

Please don't take facts and statistics and try to prove they are wrong simply because you don't believe them.

Well, you cannot look at the number of vulnerabilities alone.

You need to consider how much damage can the vulnerability result in, and how likely it is that the vulnerability can or will be used. Most FF vulnerabilities are non-issues and several of them are from the same code flaw, and therefore should only be counted as one vulnerability.

The close integration between IE and Windows makes for a much easier attack vector.

*LOL*

You have to read the description of the bugs much closer.

Critical bugs are NOT bugs that can be used to run attacker code and install software. Critical bugs are bugs that Mozilla PRESUME can be used to run attacker code and install software.

They PRESUME. They don't know for sure. There's a heck of a difference here.

Several of these flaws have turned out to be most theoritical. Fact is that the Mozilla devs have a very strict view on whether something is critical or not. Several of the "critical" vulnerabilities are rated as "low risk" by security companies.

The close integration between IE and Windows makes for a much easier attack vector.

It seems there are 31 refutations of that statement in 2006 alone.

LOL. Did you even read what you were replying to? He never said Mozilla's security was perfect, he just said it was better than IE's. If there were 31 critical Mozilla vulnerabilities, you need to prove that there were fewer than 31 IE vulnerabilities of a similar severity. Then on top of that you would need to show that they had a smaller chance of being abused. 31 vulnerabilities open for 1 week a piece are going to be much safer than a single vulnerability that goes unfixed for a year.

Edited 2006-10-20 23:05

Why were they written for IE? Because it was by far the best browser available for years and years while Netscape committed product suicide.

That one is going to get you modded down, I'm almost positive. It's so offensive to pragmatic persons you're bound to be modded down. Or perhaps people will consider it so funny, they'll mod you up.

Microsoft killed Netscape through illegal means, and most people use IE because it is shipped with Windows, and because they are completely clueless, and because they are scared of the technology. The technology controls them instead of opposite. They are afraid of learning new things.

(Yes, I know I'll get modded down for that... but I'll just repost it)

Now - THAT would be VERY offensive. If you repost it, I'm positive it will be modded down. No matter how factually correct the post may or may not be. By reposting it you'd be challenging good ethical behaviour on the net. I cannot recommend doing that.

EDIT: Yes, IE7 is a good browser. After a little tweaking it's pretty good. I still prefer K-Meleon, but at least IE is no longer laughing stock.

Edited 2006-10-20 19:28

Microsoft killed Netscape through illegal means

Netscape gave away every version of their browser to home users for free.

So did Microsoft.

Why would you claim giving software away for free is a crime? Isn't that what OSS is all about?

I wasn't talking about the price. The price is irrelevant. I'm talking about Microsoft hiding information from Netscape despite agreements between Netscape and Microsoft, and internal emails from Microsoft stating that tying IE close to Windows was necessary to destroy Netscape.

And that was despite an earlier ruling that Microsoft could not bundle other applications with Windows.

And Thom's getting support from Adam, I can see. Truth is that nobody can explain why the menubar had to placed beneath the addressbar - as the only application I've ever met on any platform.

One of the new "Features" of the Vista UI is that menus, by default, are hidden. Tapping the Alt key causes them to appear at the top of of the window frame, which in this case would be below the URL.

One of the new "Features" of the Vista UI is that menus, by default, are hidden. Tapping the Alt key causes them to appear at the top of of the window frame, which in this case would be below the URL.

Irrelevant. I am using Windows XP on my laptop, and I expect menubars to appear in the same place as they appear everywhere else in my operating system. I don't care about Vista when I'm using XP.

Irrelevant. I am using Windows XP on my laptop, and I expect menubars to appear in the same place as they appear everywhere else in my operating system. I don't care about Vista when I'm using XP.

Irrelevant or not, I'm guessing that's why they did it.

Having read the article, it's full of opinions, little facts, and basically "Hey, look at all these great features IE 7 has that the other browsers implemented years ago!".

If it's more secure than IE6, I'm happy. I'm still recommending firefox to people, though.

Yeah. Irrelevant, since IE7 is designed to run on several Windows versions. It may make sense on vista, but it doesn't make sense in XP or Win2K3. Personally I don't think hiding the menubar makes any sense at all in any DE.

Irrelevant or not, with this kind of attitude, we would be still clicking text-menus at the bottom of the screen as we did with Word 2.0 for DOS.

Just because you don't like the interface doesn't mean that no one likes the interface.

I really like it, personally.

The author recommends us all to upgrade to RC1 right now and would urge all his family to install it, yet he writes he will continue to use Firefox and Camino because IE7 is actually not that much of an improvement to make him drop them.

No, this is really an important step - if IE7 is any more secure than IE6, everyone should upgrade to it even if they're not using it... since it MUST exist on a windows machine anyway, you might as well make sure it's the most secure version available - to prevent possible abuse from malware that STILL may accidentally land on the machine one way or another.

EDIT: Updated a stupid typo.

Edited 2006-10-20 18:30

So I guess that means they are still better but he wants the rest of us to use an inferior product. Talking about double standards.

No, I'm recommending that the people who DON'T want to use FF, Opera, or Camino (because they prefer IE) use this instead. I'm still telling everyone to use a Gecko browser when they can.

EVERYONE on Windows, IMHO, should upgrade to IE7 whether they use it or not, simply because IE is used by so many components, and why would you want a less secure system?

By the way, IE7 is gold, not RC.

Ok, let's see...

1. IE7 is very controllable via Active Directory Group Policy. Opera is not. Firefox is not.
2. IE7 allows you to reset the browser to a safe state. For people who manage networks with Windows clients - which is EASILY most networks - this is GREAT news, since IE is often the entry point of malware. This is not so telling in and of itself, because IE is preinstalled on all machines.
3. IE7 supports alpha-channel PNGs and much CSS2.
4. IE7 requires more aggressive input to install ActiveX controls.

So, yes, if you understand networks and web design, this is a good thing. And if you still don't believe me, then I don't believe your priorities are in network management, network security, or web design and compatibility. I stand by my statement.

What's your point? that we should stick with the MS IE monopoly? That we should kill CSS3 because MS does not support it? That we should stick to IE optimized web sites. That ActiveX should stay for good? That we should be forced to buy Windows to use certain web sites and services even though the net itself was build with the idea of vendor neutrality and standards?

If peope managing windows client only networks have problems with network management, security, ActiveX and so on and are in a desperate need of the IE7 udpate they should probably ask themselfes if their choice of network and client technology was good in the first place!


So if your priorities are in network management, network security, or web design and compatibility you'd IMHO better wish for an end of the MS-only era and a failure of MS with IE7 (and Vista). This will speed up the process of replacing Windows-only stuff on the net and will in turn benefit users, security, (open) standards, our money bag, network engineers, web designers, etc.

-1. Anti-Microsoft fanboy.

I see you're running out of arguments..

"1. IE7 is very controllable via Active Directory Group Policy. Opera is not. Firefox is not."

While this can be usefull for corporations it's really not a "major plus" for people who "understands the internet and networks" in general.

"2. IE7 allows you to reset the browser to a safe state."
Nice but again it's mainly for controlling the corporate desktop.

"3. IE7 supports alpha-channel PNGs and much CSS2."
Nice but this benefits *everyone*.

"4. IE7 requires more aggressive input to install ActiveX controls."
Again, this benefits everyone, probably even more so people who *don't* understand "the internet and networks".

"then I don't believe your priorities are in network management, network security, or web design and compatibility"

Are my priorities in web design? no.
Are they in network management and network security? Very much and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Nice nitpick. Do you feel better now that you've contributed this valuable tidbit to the conversation? I like how you agree that all the points are benefits, but decide that my "who" is slightly off.

I can't wait for this thread to be closed.

Mozilla = "copy cat" too

Who cares?

"But you know, even when people were using non-Microsoft mail clients (like Eudora) they clicked on attachments they shouldn't have."

With outlook you didn't even have to click ... makes a big difference

As far as integrating a browser with the OS ... please don't insult us ... there was a time when you IE was not available in Add/Remove and it showed up only after the court process.

With outlook you didn't even have to click ... makes a big difference

But that was fixed in Outlook 2000 SP1. 5 years ago.

As far as integrating a browser with the OS ... please don't insult us ... there was a time when you IE was not available in Add/Remove and it showed up only after the court process.

But the point is that Netscape was giving aways its product. Firefox gives away is product. Mozilla gave aways it product.

Of course a browser is essential to an OS package. Why not Microsoft's since their main competitors always gave theirs away for free too ... and there was zero impediment to downloading alternative browsers.

In fact if IE wasn't bundled with Win98 how would you download Netscape if you wanted it?

So IE is catching up with Firefox. Then perhaps it's time to start thinking about how FF can take yet another step ahead of IE

By continuing to play catch-up to Opera, of course.