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;
> 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.
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
It's the beginning of the end for private personal computing as we know it!
Anyone got some champagne?
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.
Im wondering how this would be implemented. Browsers already such as Opera can fake the version that the browser is identifed as. How will DRM work in this case? Will there be an encrypted key or something else?
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
And AOL just gave how much away for the rights to use this for the next 7 years???
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?
I wonder what this means for IE on the Mac?
This is the most disturbing part of this whole story for me. Disturbing because this fits so well with what has been MS SOP for years now. I guess now that the fear of the GOV and litigation have been removed it is time to take monopolizing to the next level.
---
Of course I'm paranoid it's crazy not to be!
It's simple, really. Remember: this isn't a newspaper. It is not a real news source. Linking to other networks and sites does not make you a legitimate news site, which is fine. The term editor is being used in an unconventional way for Slashdot, so don't hold editors to genuine editorial standards.
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).
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.
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
Bond of trust? What fairytale world are you living in? Is copyprotection a bond of trust? How come there are all these shitty CD's being released that won't play on computers? Is that the bond of trust you are talking about? How about the news that moviegoers are going to be metal-detected when going to see Finding Nemo? Is that trust?
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
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.