Slashdot Mirror
IE6 SP1 Will Be Last Standalone Version
mokiejovis writes "Program manager Brian Countryman stated that "as part of the OS, IE will continue to evolve, but there will be no future standalone installations. IE6 SP1 is the final standalone installation." See the Microsoft TechNet article." Several of the people submitting this story have come up with elaborate theories about why: killing competition, etc. etc. I think the truth is just that Microsoft intends to integrate DRM very tightly with their OS and browser, and they're aren't going to try to backport that to, say, Win98, so they just aren't going to release new versions of their browser for old, DRM-less operating systems. In the future server-side browser detection may be more about detecting whether the browser supports the DRM your "web service" uses than what version of Javascript or CSS the browser supports.
In the future server-side browser detection may be more about detecting whether the browser supports the DRM your "web service" uses than what version of Javascript or CSS the browser supports.
Browser detection has always been about identifying what capabilities the browser supports, or what bugs need to be worked around. Otherwise you wind up with sites that don't work in some browsers, and everybody bitches at you for not supporting them. The key is to not redirect to a page recommending that the user download IE or Netscape, since that really pisses people off.
I don't plan on producing DRM-protected content, so I don't plan on detecting browser support for it.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"Several people came up with conspiracy theories but these dont belong in the article. So I decided to give you my own theory."
Fleur de Sel
on a previous story
AC comments get piped to
> IE6 SP1 is the final standalone installation.
That's a pretty funny statement. The service packs are bug releases, hence they contain required changes that were not originally planned. How can Microsoft claim this is the last one that will be needed? Does this mean Microsoft will just abandon all of their users still running older versions of Windows?
I suggest this is just laying the groundwork for FUD to force users to pay Microsoft to "upgrade" their OS in order to replace the latest IE security vulnerability with a whole new set of problems, vulnerabilities, incompatibilities and restrictions.
I think the truth is just that...
I don't remember the role of the editor including giving personal opinions over and above those stated in linked articles. Why don't editors submit the story with a summary of other people's reasons, then post their own comment?
I do agree with Michael though, it seems fairly pluasible. All the same, it obviously has a competition-killing aspect to it, since Microsoft will tightly control their DRM technology, meaning that DRM-only web sites will probably be IE only, or at the very best IE plus other browsers whose licenses allow embedded proprietary code.
Is it me or is this exactally the thing the DOJ had them in court for so long to prevent? And finally won?
Tying a browser to hardware can be really bad for us mozilla men. Online Banking will jump on it real fast. Secure communication will later require IE for authentication. This would put us at a huge disadvantage. I had a thought: Would it be possible to run a "Virtual Palladium" (software driven)? It'd involve running parts of the software in a virtualization machine like bochs. Microsoft patented the hardware not any software.
IE will continue to evolve, ...
... etc. ...
As far as I can tell, development of IE's features was iced around 5 years ago. Compare and contrast with Opera, Mozilla, Phoenix
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
What I am expecting will happen is that IE will be absorbed into the integrated office environment, in the same way the Word/Excel et al are being drawn into just one package.
By bundling everything in together (probably with a mail client), M$ no longer have to worry about the opposition packages. It also would no surprise me to see integrated OS and Office package bundles/licenses, to keep out the competition.
As for the lack of support for DRM in Win98 being a motivation for no longer producing a standalone version, remember that M$ officially no longer supports Win98 installations.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
It's the beginning of the end for private personal computing as we know it!
Anyone got some champagne?
I for one, don't care. I haven't seen anything I would call a "feature" since ... well... a while. IE6's media integration and image handling are more of an annoyance than a feature, and I CERTAINLY don't concider DRM support a feature.
When DRM comes around, I'm moving to something else.
no comment
Is this the same microsoft that was told it couldnt bundle the browser with its OS?
No, it means that the new features will be implemented the same way Windows Update does it for integrated aspects of the OS now: it will be downloaded and installed onto the system. What this means is that you will not be able to JUST get IE, but instead only get it through Windows.
"Stumble before you crawl"
I think that Microsoft's grand plan to move the world over to Trusted Computing will end up cornering them into a one-dimensional business plan. Anything outside that market will end up thriving. Robust alternatives like linux and Mac OS will become the dominant platform because they will not corner themselves into discreet markets, but rather, will continue to expand.
If this is the last stand-alone version of IE they are betting that their operating system and plan is the *only* operating system and plan. If they make too many mistakes in their Trusted Computing movement they may fail entirely as a company in the near future.
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
1. Microsoft ships their browser for free with the OS, fairly tightly integrated, thus marginalizing Netscape and any other browser on Windows.
2. Netscape et. al. convinces Gov't to sue MS for monopolistic, anticompetitive practices.
3. MS is found guilty of monopolistic, anticompetitive practices.
4. MS is slapped on the wrist by the Gov't and promises to play nice, ships OS update to remove the IE icon from the desktop.
5. {six months pass}
6. MS announces even tighter integration of IE into the OS.
Pity they weren't broken up.
Bottom line, if this ultimately makes the Internet a more secure place to do business, then I'm all for it. Digital signatures would be very cool once they are implemented on a global scale. No more paper filing, the trees would be happier :), and best of all, if this is implemented well, that bond of trust between businesses and consumers can be strengthened.
On the other hand, I still don't want to see everything on the Internet become a pay service.
Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
And AOL just gave how much away for the rights to use this for the next 7 years???
Seriously. Isn't this a bad move for them to make regarding the anti-trust suit? Doesn't this kill their whole "freedom to innovate" mantra?
In any case, it doesn't really matter. Strange that Microsoft would virtually abandon a project that could have much work done to it, and yet try to push along new OS/Office versions which really have much possible improvement.
Maybe they are realizing that they can't compete with the Moz group, and are deciding to go in through the back door, back to their old tricks.
I've always said it, and I always will, the community's incessant bitching about how insecure microsoft is has led to attrocities in design.
Example: Windows file protection - to avoid DLL Hell. DLL Hell was pure and simple bad user habits (running in Administrator mode etc etc). So they made a system that completely bypasses security, and disallows everyone on your system from changing files... even administrators. It's a travesty, that's what it is.
Well, here we see another travesty: because of simple HTML script exploits, which under normal circumstances (ie, if you weren't running as admin) would have very little consequences, Moft has come up with another travesty, has introduced 'state' into what should be stateless... And as a result, I just can feel the hours and hours of headache that is now set upon us programmers, for the rest of time.
I can clearly recall posts on slashdot, (but to be fair: /. isn't the only guilty body, every bitchy tech writer of the times is), saying how IE had too many priviledges.
All I have to say is BULLSHIT... IE has as many priviledges as the user running it - and as such, just as many, not any more than Mozilla running at the same user level.
Now, because of that bitching, we have a 'lowered priviledge set'... something which isn't based on users... it's a whole policy scheme... It's introducing complexity where there is no need for any... Yadi yada... *Sigh*...
Boo on everyone.
Everybody's jumping to conspiracy conclusions, but here's the simple answer: when you give away browser upgrades for free, but you charge for OS installations, and you think that the browser is becoming more important than the OS, you have to merge the two together.
As time goes by, more and more applications become web-based. These days, consumers are more concerned about the version of their browser than the version of their operating system. When you try to hit your favorite web sites, check your web-based email, etc., it doesn't matter whether you're on Windows 98 or Windows XP: the browser version is what matters. They know they can't simply start charging for browsers, so the way to fix this issue is to only do new browsers with new operating systems, and blur the line between the browser version and the OS version.
Bottom line, Microsoft wants to get consumers more interested in OS versions again. If consumers see a web site that says, "Sorry, you need Windows 2005 to view this site," then they have a much higher chance of opening their pocketbooks than if the web site says, "Sorry, you need IE8 to view this site."
What's your damage, Heather?
It is completely laughable and sad that Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly for this very reason, and now they are integrating IE and Windows even further. The government really showed Microsoft!
No matter what your opinion is about the anti-trust trial or anti-trust laws in general, this is a clear display of how the Bush administration favors big business and selectively enforces laws in the favor of big business. The DOJ forced a "slap in the wrist" settlement against MS, and now MS and co. don't fear doing again what they were found guilty of doing before.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
More and more people are not buying the upgrades for either Hardware or Software, because what they have is just good enough. This is driving manufacturers wacko. For word processing and basic home stuff, a few hundred megs of CPU speed is good enough. There is no compelling need. A lot of people are not doing the routine upgrade, and are getting off the treadmill.
Although their cash reserves gives them a decent shot.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I wonder what this means for IE on the Mac?
How many minutes has it been since Microsoft spent 3/4ths of a billion dollars putting that Netscape stuff to rest? It was a strange set of arguments they had, simultaneously attempting to prove that IE was "an inextricable part of the OS" and yet entirely optional with no unfair advantage over any other browser option the user might attempt to use.
Now that that case is put to rest it's about time they made sure that the next generation of DRM technology can't be run under WINE or on the MAC. The best approach I can imagine for this is to have is use an entirely proprietary API for IE and to update it with WindowsUpdate. It's not hard to imagine the newbie surfing along who gets this webpage.
Our web servers have observed that your computer needs several security updates available for free from Microsoft [here]. For the safety of our customers we cannot allow you to continue surfing our site until these updates are in place. We apologize for any inconvenience.
At that point the user is using the latest IE with DRM enabled with no idea how many or few sites need it. All your content can then be DRM protected by default with FrontPage, and the user's take is that everything "just works" when they use IE, and has intermittant and annoying problems with every other browswer. This strategy is getting old.
They now intend to call it Microsoft Firebird (TM)
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
Where is the line between standalone and integrated? The IE component is used lots of places other than the web browser. I'm on Windows 95 (it runs suprisingly well), and there are quite a few places where programs other than IE use the IE HTML-rendering component.
In Win98 and later versions, the operating system uses the IE component to render some stuff (the desktop can be a web page, for example). IE can then be seen a just a program that provides a couple of navigation buttons to the standard IE component, and it's already "integrated" into the OS, and there is no "standalone" IE.
Microsoft is saying that from now on, they'll just release updates to IE as OS patches (service packs), and if they're not supporting your os anymore (win 95, win 98), then you won't get patches for IE. This means that if you have a version of windows that they're not releasing SPs for, then you're stuck with a browser with loads of security holes that you KNOW are never going to get fixed (although many would argue that even with a recent version of windows, you KNOW the security holes won't be fixed).
The only real difference I see is that there will no longer be a separate IE installer.
As it currently stands the browser is effectively integrated into the OS and for all intents and purposes most people who use Windows don't view it as a separate component.
Try updating an older version of IE and see what it does to the OS. Try getting your aunt or grandfather to use Mozilla or Opera.
This is just a shipping simplification on their part not a change of policy.
As a web designer, this worries me. How am I supposed to test my sites from here on out? Before it was as easy as loading up said site into IE 6 or IE 5 or what have you and seeing if the layout was as it should be. What now?
Not that I need a version number, but I would like to know how they're going to dole out any updates to Javascript, CSS, and the like. I sure hope it doesn't become small updates like "CSS Update 12-2-04". The goood thing about browsers up until this point, new features were released all at once in slow updgrade cycles, which meant you were testing at a stationary, not a moving, target. I'm curious to know how this will be handled from now on.
And yes, yes I know, "code to standards", which is the way it *should* be, but in practice, there's the reality that not all browsers output the way you need them to (especially IE).
I wonder what this means for IE on the Mac?
If I get it right, MSIE 6 is already not available as a standalone application for MacOS - it has only a "sort of" presence as a part of the whole MSN for MacOS X package.
Q: Why is this? the anti-trust? (no further standalone)
A: Although this is off topic, I will answer briefly: Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1. Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS.
What, exactly, about web browsing could require 'enhancements to the underlying OS'? The only answer I can think of is DRM/Palladdium, but of course Microsoft does not want to say that. They want these "improvements" to sound like "features" that people would actually want. Perhaps they will play on peoples' fears of online banking and ordering?
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
On a similar note, wouldn't this make things even worse for Microsoft's with regards to the antitrust case in the EU? If I'm not mistaken, the Media Player bundling is a big deal already?
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Hmm, all of a sudden the AOL/Netscape settlement takes on a new level of relevance.
Microsoft calls their next OS version, "Lisa".
Then the circle will be complete!
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused by this. First of all, it's a two-sentence statement in a chat room, so there is very little information to go on.
My question is, does this mean that end users will have to upgrade their OS to receive a new browser version? If this is the case, that's a huge blow to web developers. There are still a lot of things that IE6 supports poorly or not at all: transparent PNGs, CSS2, etc. I'm not seeing any indication that Microsoft is concerned about the continuing development of their browser AT ALL.
IE6 has really stagnated, and since Microsoft and AOL settled, I firmly believe that AOL will stop paying developers to work on Mozilla/Netscape. If both IE and Mozilla stagnate, the people who lose are developers whose platform is a web browser. I'm concerned that the stagnation of both browsers may stifle the innovation of developers who wish to deploy applications to standards-compliant web browsers instead of to a specific platform. (This means that those of you who don't use Windows should be VERY concerned, because if web browsers stagnate now, developers will continue to develop for a single platform instead of to a standards-compliant web browser platform. Microsoft doesn't seem to be interested in extending IE's functionality -- instead, the company seems to be pushing developers to make IE plugins, which creates lock-in.)
The Web has only been around for 10 years, and has only really taken off in the last 6. I don't think browser innovation is at its "zenith", and I certainly don't believe that DRM is the only thing left to add to browsers. It concerns me that Microsoft (or at least that Microsoft spokesperson) seems to think this is the case.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Tell that to a web designer. They'll laugh in your face.
Mozilla is fast, stable, mostly bug-free (and what bugs it has are fairly straightforward to work around) and very standards compliant. The last is important: it means I know what will happen if I write certain code.
Wish I could say the same for IE. Even its bugs have bugs. (Though admittedly it is not as bad as NS 4.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
It sounds like they're not doing true transparent PNG support and there's no mention of them fixing the longstanding HTML and CSS bugs.
Those of us who make websites for a living don't care what it's tied to as long as Microsoft can follow standards. If the browser is truly XHTML/CSS/Javascript compliant I don't care if it requires a blood sample to boot, it means that I won't have to do any browser detection or special cases to deliver a site to my clients, saving them money and me some grey hairs.
How about a new version of IE for OS X, eh? We've been stuck with this one for 2 years.
Windows OEM license costs what, £80-90? Even the low end Office is double that.
If MS start bundling something 'good enough' for most with all Windows licenses for £20-30 extra then every shareholder out there would complain very loudly. If they put the price of Windows up significantly, the low end market will leave Windows and move to LindowsOS beacuse it's 'good enough' and would then be a really significant saving.
MS aren't that daft. Office isn't getting bundled with Windows any time soon.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS.
Emacs is said to be the text editor that pretends to be an OS, but the new IE will be the first browser that is an OS...
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Yeah, yeah, I know, but we can dream, can't we?
I think such a strategy might ultimately be bad for MS, particularly as the Web is becoming more and more standards-based. It would essentially be the opposite of the strategy that caused a gradual migration to IE from Navigator: "You need Windows 2005 or Mozilla 1.6 to view this page." If one is free, it's not a tough choice.
I can hear it now, 'screw them.. i wont upgrade, bla bla bla'.
While that may work for some of us, big business ( the core of the market ) WILL use it, will upgrade and will continue to bend over to DRM.
Eventually 'we outsiders' will be pushed into a non operational status.. Sort of like trying to pay for a burger with out 'money'.. sure its not requred, but try to live outside the 'system'..
This is only one more step in the process of domination of freedom.
Sure ill fight it to the last like the rest of you.. but bitching about it on here wont do squat for stopping the process for the *masses*. ( i.e : sheep )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Tell that to a web designer. They'll laugh in your face.
(opens window to alley) Hey, get out of my trashcan! There's no more sandwiches in there... and let me ask you a question about Mozilla.
You should look at MozDev - there's a furious amount of development going on for extensions and plugins to the basic browser. It's amazing, and something I haven't seen in the IE community since the dot-com money went away.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
IE/Mac and IE for windows have always been completely separate products.
Really, they don't even come from the same company. The Mac Business unit is pretty independent these days.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I have TCO meeting with my CTO in OCT and it'll be so boring I'll need a COT.
Sigs are bad for your health.
For those stupid sites that say "requires IE", send them an email complaining about their stupidity. Really, building a web page is not programming and it is one of the easiest things you could do. How hard is it to make a stinking standards compliant web page? My little daughter can sit down with vim and do that.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Think of all of the friends and family that you know that bought a computer during the interet craze. Most of those had Windows 98 on them. Now think of how many of them ever bothered to upgrade their browsers. Many websites that deal with secure communications to non tech savvy people have to deal with this. At least now they can say "Oh, you need IE 5.5 or greater" and link them to a download site. Now they are going to back you into a corner and say "You need Windows 2008 or greater" or they are just going to stop developing past IE6. Either way, it is a strange move on MS's behalf. They must be underestimating Netscape / Moz's abilities. I wonder some times why there are sites complain that you need IE6 to view them, yet they work fine in Mozilla if you hack the response to mimic IE6. Lazy people I guess.
Opera, Konqueror and Mozilla supports more DOM modules than MSIE 6 SP1.
On MS website, they clam that.
This is not true....According to Microsoft own claims, through the document.implementation.hasFeature() method, Microsoft Internet explorer 6sp1 claims that it do not support DOM Level 1 HTML, but the DOM Level 1 XML returns true on the support question.
But...the node-type constraint, which is defined by the Node interface is not defined my MSIE6 SP1. In other words, Microsoft do not support ANY DOM modules at all.
Oh, so just send in a lot of Mail to M$... You all know that MSIE have full PNG support[2] since MSIE 4.... Thats what they promisted[3].----
Mike Menk
Grimstad,Norway.
[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dndude/html/dude03262001.asp
m l
[2] http://osys.grm.hia.no/html-repguiden/sshoot/
[3] http://www.petitiononline.com/msiepng/petition.ht
I've seen the inevitable 'online banking' scenario thrown up here a few times. What's going to happen is this...
:)
At some point, bank X will say "we're now going to require IE8 to secure online banking".
People will complain and say "hey, but I only have WinXP, and I can't get Win2006" (or whatever it becomes).
Microsot will have contacted banks and negotiated a way for banks to giveaway (or sell) copies of the latest Windows version, locking in users who may have considered switching at that point.
Bank replies with (or promotes in branches)
"Hey - to give you the ultimate in security, we're going to require Windows 2006 - the best in security. If you don't have a copy, we can sell you an copy for only $29.95, which can be applied to your checking account over a 3 month period - that's less than $10 month for modern security!" or something like that.
People will just use it because it's going to be pushed by most major banks. MS is the only company that can afford to do this (buy mindshare from large companies) and they're about the only company can can't afford NOT to do it as well.
Perhaps banking with MS software will be 'free' and using something else (linux/mac) will cost a 'security fee' because you're using something that can't be 'trusted'. There are teller fees, why not 'browser fees' for 'untrusted' browsers?
Microsoft may have already bought a bank (or started their own) in the next few years anyway. Banking fees are certainly a stream of steady income. If WalMart can sell used cars (probably real estate at some point too!) does MS banking sound all that far-fetched? Perhaps everyone writing M$ will give the idea even more credibility!
creation science book
It seems to me that Apple already has a workaround for problems like this in the works (I apologize, if I'm reading into this wrong, I'm probably not the most computer literate person on slashdot...). But anyway, I've got the newest Safari public beta, and in the debug menu there is an option called "user agents." I believe you can use this to make it imitate IE for these websites. If not, I'm sure I can expect a correction very shortly. I hope this helps.
Microsoft didn't kill anyone with IE. Netscape lost the browser wars because they had an inferior product (after v3.0) while Internet Explorer continued to improve. I was a Netscape Supporter to the last, but even I got tired of waiting for them to catch up. Microsoft beat Netscape, but we can't hardly blame them for that. That's what competition is all about.
IE6 SP1 is the *last* version of IE. Starting with Windows Longhorn, all that will remain is basically just a set of APIs. This doesn't mean Longhorn won't include a browser, though, you'll still be able to browse through the main interface/Explorer.
I've been doing that for years. a lot of times when I hit a webpage that didn't display adequately, I would shoot off a polite email to whatever webmaster email addy I could find with the site, outlining the OS and browser I was using. They were polite, short, to the point. Funny, just trying to help, maybe give them a clue that people were trying to access their site, make use of their data there, perhaps even-gasp- purchase something. I don't recall ever even getting back a reply. It's like they don't care, use the borg or F*U is the impression I get.. I quit doing that, it's a waste of time.
The borg vampire needs a stake through it. It's a disgusting example of over arrogance, bad business ethics, and using economic clubs to keep "their internet" in line. Such sheer arrogance. I have no use for their OS, and it's gotten to the point, their users/businesses that use them. Fascists and monopolists can bite me as far as I am concerned, from the lowliest goosesteppers to their fearless leader, screw 'em all. The sooner some mega worm takes them down the better, as far as I am concerned now. I used to have sympathy for them,saw them as just another company trying to sell products, and even used their products occassionally, but no longer,not after watching what they are REALLY about over the years, and I have NO sympathy for the users any longer when they get nailed with the exploit du juor. Businesses or single users, it doesn't matter. If hundreds of examples aren't enough to show those people it's just a mistake to keep supporting them or using their products, that it just costs and costs and costs and no matter what it's a bug filled expensive piece of consumer fraud and monopolistic extravagance and expense, well, too bad then. And if they DARE manipulate the official laws with their economic bullying and lobbying and bribing clout that mandates everyone using their crap, I'll be cheering on the blackhats then. Screw them and the rabid horse they rode in on.
Yesterday, MS and AOL settle for MS illegally using it's Monopoly position to crush Netscape throught bundling the IE with the OS. The next day, I am reading about how they plan to integrate it even tighter to the extent that you will no longer be able to install or upgrade to the new IE without installing or upgrading Windows. The whole DOJ action has proved to be a monumental failure. The only value it has was that it temporarily restrained MS just enought to give Linux and OSS a chance to grow. It was a window ( another good word ruined) of opportunity that with the perverse synergy DRM,Palladium, Trusted Computing,Microsoft Computers,Server/Client and of course .Nyet, MS is hoping to slam shut.
These are dark days.
Is that what I have? So "standalone installation" is Microsoft code for "Well, we'll let you delete it (it goes in the recycle bin and all) but it instantly comes back"?
If WinXP wants to protect its help system, that's fine. But the IE frontend shouldn't have anything to do with that. And even so, there's no excuse for Outlook being undeletable. It doesn't show up in the Add/Remove applications window, even under "Windows components"
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Apple wants to lock you in to their technology just as much as microsoft does.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
- IE's layout & rendering codebase is a big, huge, monolitic piece of junk. It was no longer fruitful to maintain.
- The time is ripe for significant advancements in the browser space, and for integrating the notable advantages of a DOM-like model with the notable advantages of more traditional programming APIs
- Win32 is getting old. So is GDI. Unmanaged code is out. WinForms is crusty.
- Unless Microsoft introduces interesting and significant new technologies in the next version of Windows, it is going to see diminishing sales.
I'll let you do the guessing.That's interesting. If AOL is caught on an older version of the standalone browser, then doesn't MSN have a big advantage ? Start building in lots of new features and AOL's browser would start to look jaded.
Would probably be tough to call it anti-competitive too. "Look, we went to AOL and they did this contract with us!"
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
If there is enough people that wants or do not want something it will be provided.
Case in point, Internet Banking. There is not much value Added that a Bank can do. Remember Gates' much maligned comment a few years ago (pre interenet if I remember) that banking will be reduces to a few lines of code. He was close to being right, except Banks didn't want that and rebelled.
If there is a market for a Bank to fully support a FOOS solution, it will be provided. We could even do it ourselves thru a non profit organization, that bought the needed "Connection" services, like Credit card clearance, money transfer etc.
Help fight continental drift.
Sorry, but this just begs for the question:
Nowadays, who the hell needs IE anyway?!
Host: Rob (Microsoft)
Q: when will IE get transparent PNG support?
A: Ian, I'm sorry, I can't answer that question for you
With this:
Host: Brian (Microsoft)
Q: Why is this? the anti-trust? (no further standalone)
A: Although this is off topic, I will answer briefly: Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1. Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS
It would seem that MS has painted itself into a corner with the feature set of IE. They seem to rely on the OS for so many things the browser does (like alpha blending, or the lack thereof). I wonder if the OS development team has oversight of the IE development team. There really isn't much reason that the IE team wouldn't be able to build a feature like alpha blending independant of the OS (lots of apps like Photoshop do this), unless they have been told not to deviate from the OS feature roadmap. Why else wouldn't the IE Program Manager be able to answer a question about PNG support? Sometimes it seems like the IE team is really just a department of the OS team, which is something that MS could not legally admit from what I understand.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
This is the most disturbing part of this whole story for me.
::bangs head violently against desk::
This is Telex4's point, in this comment's grandparent. "Microsoft will tightly control their DRM technology..." should not be the most disturbing part of the this whole story, because it isn't part of this whole story; it's the editor's OPINION.
This thread is having a petty argument over whether or not slashdot is a news site and whether or not slashdot's editors are truly editors in the journalistic sense.
1. Slashdot is a news site. They relay news, the same way local newspapers relay Associated Press articles and articles from better papers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.).
2. Slashdot's editors are editors. Many people read slashdot exclusively, at least for this kind of news, and slashdot's editors are in charge of what stories go through and what their readers are subjected to.
3. Yes, editors do pass subtle opinion within stories in newspapers all the time. There's a difference between what they do and slapping "I think that..." directly after a story. What slashdot editors do DRAMATICALLY changes the articles they post. In this case, it changed a sotry about MS no longer bothering to make new versions of IE work on old Windows installations into a story about the tyrant software villains deftly attacking the open-source world.
Slashdot editors: C'mon, I know it's your site, but just cut it out, eh? I hope you realize how hypocritical you all are when you scold MS/SCO/etc. for spreading FUD.
Time Magazine Interview with Tim Berners Lee, unfortunately, a preview to a for-pay full article. If anyone knows where the full article is, for free, let me know.
In any event, in this article, TBL - creator of the web - discusses what his greatest fear for it would be. In other words, what would harm the web most?
His answer: A "split" internet. Browser A is best used for this site, browser B is best for this one. DRM, thus, is technology that will do - as most of us are no doubt aware - more harm than good. It DESTROYS the ubiquitous nature of how one SHOULD be allowed to access online content. Time, ironically, has designed their site to be used with Browsers X and Y (Netscape and IE).
Does this mean that Slashdot will be deleting the big blue e graphic from the gif folder?
Beep beep.
For that matter, do the Mac vers go away too?
You haven't read RMS' "Right to Read," I take it. If you have, and still only see the potential (and by no means assured) advantages of prolific DRM, I'm saddened.
Wasn't that what MSFT was sued for in the first place? They bundle the browser with the monopoly OS in order to stamp out competition? Haven't they learned anything?
Well I guess they have ... they have learned that they can get away with it.
Even funnier is this statement:
"Host: Rob (Microsoft)
Q: when will IE get transparent PNG support?
A: Ian, I'm sorry, I can't answer that question for you"
[voice style="Pokerfaced Federal Officer]
You're on a need to know basis, and you don't need to know.
[/voice]
No no no, wait:
[voice style="smooth type"]
I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya.
[/voice]
But then again, their adoption sceme of PNG's is just to transparent (ow! - had to pun): They'll _never_ fully support them!
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
I've been using Mozilla for about six months now and I really like it. It's faster than IE (IMO) and is a lot more 'professional'. Another thing that I've found is that if I browse with IE for a week and run a spyware removal program like Ad-Aware, I find a buttload of cookies, data miners, etc. A week of browsing with Mozilla only yeilds one cookie-- doubleclick...
Anyway, for all those people who replied that their bank supports non-MSIE browsers I have to say, they do now, but your days are probably numbered.
Supported, that is, until some "brilliant" bean-counter comes along and takes a look at the IT budget s/he's going to comment, "Why are we paying salaries to support browsers that only comprise 10% of our hits combined?"
Then, THHWWAAKKK! the tech support people for the "odd-ball" browsers get cut from the staff and the "brilliant" bean-counter gets a promotion and a raise that more than the combined salaries of the jobs s/he cut!
Am I coming across as a little cynical? Perhaps, but so far it's the way the world seems to work.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Given information on the net I've seen, and conversations with MS employees, the new thing that "requires ties to the OS" is crazy 3D visual effects, not DRM. Longhorn (the next windows) introduces all these dumb effects in the windowing system. I was talking to one guy about the next IE, and I said "I can't wait until standards support and PNG support are in there", and he said "Wouldn't you rather those developers be putting cool 3D page transitions like in PowerPoint and eye-candy effects like that?" So it seems it's stupid proprietary eye candy, not DRM. A good thing in that we won't be getting DRM, a bad thing in that we get stupid features instead of the things we want out of a modern browser.
we see www.microsoft.gov
Only a matter of time. Microsoft wants to control the world, and it's not gonna happen. It's not 1998 anymore. People are a little more knowledgeable of Microsoft's anti-competitive acts and the alternatives (read: linux, apple). Shoot Bill Gates an e-mail and tell him what you think.
The real problem you're discussing is one that has been noted many times: the internet kills anything successful.
Basically, the promise of the net is everyone's a publisher, and can make something kewl, and show it to everyone.
The problem is if they do a good job of it, they get popular. Bandwidth bills go up. They can no longer afford the site, because banner ads don't get you shit. Unless you're a lowest common denominator genius like stile (but there's only one stile).
So, they either die, get bailed out by a benevolent donor, or get bought by someone who cares about all the page hits.
So slashdot purely existing as a "great tech news site" was not a long term option. Because being great means being attracting attention, and attraction attention costs YOU money on the net, not your consumers. This inversion is not necessarily the panacea it was thought to be 10 years ago.
Personally, I'm quite content to go on loving to hate slashdot for the forseeable future. Gives us gov't workers something to bitch about at coffee break.
Even if every single current microsoft product was to fail horribly, sales go to zero, etc, etc, they still have GIANT PILES OF MONEY on hand. Like ridiculously large.
So even if they 'fail entirely', they have enough cash laying around to start maybe 5-10 new companies, let alone restart themselves.
They may be forced to abondon the dark side, but they will not die.
It means that from what I took from the article, Microsoft, instead of competing from the consumer end, through improved stability and features, is instead going to compete through the crony end, working through lock-in and back-room deals on the corporate end.
"Freedom to innovate", was intended to be on the behalf of users...not their corporate masters.
And to the futher down, I'm not a Linux zealot. in fact, I use what is the best tool for the job. (I use Windows for most casual activity, and Linux for dedicated server/long term stability). That is why this upsets me. MS has decided to abandon making the best tools for the job over and over. I don't like the idea of Longhorn (all those pretty graphics are going to get in the way), instead of making a more stable, Windows 2k variant, maybe with improved file browsing and linking capabilities.
Lighten up.
Slashdot is whatever the editors want it to be.
And they don't have to tell us what that is, if they don't want.
Feel free to start your own site, to spread your objective opinion.
At least here you have a forum to disagree with their point of view, that's more than you usually get from a newspaper.
Mozilla.
Firebird.
No, really, does MS know there are other operating systems out there or are they completely blind to their competition?
I swear they just assume that people fall over themselves to grab the latest $300(AU) or so upgrade for windows so they can keep up to date. The day is not far off when people will actively be looking for alternatives to replace their restrictive proprietary windows OS at home and in business. Linux may be the answer, but then again, maybe something else will come along.
Tying the internet browser to the OS is just plain dumb on MS part. People want choice. What if we all had to drive Ford cars on the road. There were no models, just a Ford95, Ford98, FordXP. People would look at alternatives like GM or Toyota. Problem is the fuel and roads are all designed for Fords. Toyota may be easier to drive and faster but because everything is Ford only it would be hard to do.
Take this into consideration too. Now that IE6.whatever is the last IE for 98 and ME, what if a security flaw was discovered and all the hackers in the world found out. There would be no updates. "Either you upgrade to WindowsXP or just die" says MS. What about your poor family who are trying to put son/daugher through school and they need a computer. They can't afford a good one so they just buy a second hand PC with windows98. Some hacker finds a vulnerability with the browser and while surfing the net for an assignment, the son/daugher's data is erased. The cruel thing is they have no option but to start again. They can't update their explorer to fix the problem...
And one more thing, now that the OS and Browser are one, what happens to the dumb people who install Hotbar, Kazaa, BonziBuddy, Gator, NewDotNet, Xupiter and other spyware that smashes IE to bits? Now that the browser is even more tightly integrated, we will find that the computer won't boot at all. Even to back up data we need.
RATM!
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
I did fine in Opera 7.10, but my real question is, hwo can a server know what browser you are if you fake the string? I mean, I've been to sites and had "Identify as MSIE 6.0" on but it still gave me the "not compatible" issue. Is it some feature they check just to weed out browsers? And to what end?
I was baffled by this with Capital One's banking site. I finally realized they were using JavaScript to detect the browser, which is totally independant of the UA string. No browser I am aware of allows changing what JavaScript reports.
JS browser detection is used frequently, but mostly to determine what JS code needs to be used. In some cases, though, the JS then redirects to the appropriate URL (the real site, or the "Upgrade Now" page).
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
I thought it was something in the SSL negotiation. If there's hard crypto involved in the browser identification step, you won't be able to fake it. That's where I'd be going if I were Microsoft, for sure.
Then, even if you do have "clever people" circumventing your access controls, you can still keep industry from adopting the circumventions. (Individuals might not care about the legality of their actions, but nobody is going to write a business plan around an obvious DMCA violation).
Repeal the DMCA (at the ballot box or at the point of a gun, I don't care how you do it), or live with its consequences.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
December 31, 2004 (AP, Redmond, WA) - Microsoft Corp. announced today that they were completely discontinuing support for their Microsoft Windows ME operating system . One was quoted as saying, "Now that they've left ME alone, can they leave me alone?" The recommended Microsoft alternative to Windows ME is Microsoft Windows Longhorn. During the announcement, Microsoft announced that the current version of their Internet Explorer product is not available for other versions of Windows as of today. Open source advocates are suggesting that you switch to another operating system (I.E., Linux, FreeBSD, or Mac OS 12) and another Internet browser (I.E., Mozilla/Pheonix/Firebird/CometBrowser comet systems bought mozilla? BASTARDS!, Opera, Konqueror/Safari, or Galeon). Microsoft strongly recommends NOT following their directions, even though (must scratch borg implant), I mean, because these other operating systems are evil. (Author was unable to complete article due to the MSUS Secret Service murdering author. However, the dead body hit the mouse, and clicked "Send" on Outlook LH.)
No browser I am aware of allows changing what JavaScript reports.
Download mozilla sources, look in:
dom/src/base/nsGlobalWindow.cpp
~ line 5830 you'll find:
aAppName.Assign(NS_LITERAL_STRING("Netscape"));
Change it to whatever you want -or- for a less permanent solution, make it read from a file. Recompile.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato