Slashdot Mirror
MSN's Slate Recommends Firefox over IE
brightertimes writes "That's right folks, Slate (Microsoft's on-line magazine) recently printed an article enitled "Are the Browser Wars Back?
How Mozilla's Firefox trumps Internet Explorer.""
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Cheers!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
I highly doubt that the author of this article will keep his job, when a while ago, a Microsoft employee >a href='http://www.macnn.com/news/21786'>got fired for taking pictures of shipments of Macs
got sig?
All in all, this is not really surprising, although it is certainly not good news for Microsoft.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I've always thought Microsoft made the best keyboards and mice, but second-rate everything else. Turns out that they also deserve credit for making content sites.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
However - I think they are making a mistake in that philosophy (if it IS there philosophy), in so far as much if they try and forceably tie people down to their platform then corporates and government departments will rebel against microsoft. Some already are - there will be more. Also if FireFox/Mozilla becomes the standard browser it could lead the way to a migration away from the Windows OS.
Microsoft have made mistakes concerning the global village paradigm before - I think they are doing it again now.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
From the article: Whether or not you do, US-CERT advises increasing your Internet Explorer security settings, per Microsoft's instructions. (Alas, the higher setting disables parts of Slate's interface.)
Sorry, you seem to have misspelled "Alas, the higher setting highlights Slate's use of insecure and nonstandard features." You might want to have that keyboard checked.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
"But for now, there's safety in numbers--the lack of them, that is. Internet Explorer is used by 95 percent of the world. Firefox's fan base adds up to 2 or 3 percent at most. Which browser do you think the Russian hackers are busily trying to break into again?"
That is an interesting way to see it. Blame IE's popularity!
You know what the hardest part of this is? Getting those computer-illiterate people who you support to use Firefox.
I've been trying to get my dad to use it (with threats like, "when the russian mafia gets your credit card because you were using IE, don't complain to me"...) but it doesn't work. And he's not terribly illiterate. I can't imagine trying to explain to my girlfriend's grandparents, "Ok, Don't click on the blue E anymore... click on the icon that looks like an orange fox"... they would never do it.
As nice as Firefox is, it's going to be an uphill battle to get those illiterate folks to switch.
I want to iterate the above..
If you read the article (wolf in sheeps clothing) it knocks Firefox because it has fewer users and therefore hacks for IE are far more lucrative than for Firefox - True.
Does this mean there are as many potential hacks for Firefoxs - No, False, in my opinion. Why?
Because the types of hacks found in Ie are fundamental mistakes in design that would be universal to ANY browser if they were on the same par. They are not. These fundamental mistakes have not been made by the othere -especially the OSS browsers. This is because, as I have always said - OSS software is open to the world and gets more scrutiny. Major problems a re found earlier.
However, the makers of Firefox should not rest on their laurels...
So IE has vulnerabilities that are exploited all the time by crackers and script kiddies, but isn't that mainly due to software having its inherient holes and bugs? Every piece of software out there has its bugs, whether we know about them or not. Given that IE has a commanding lead on the browser platform, doesn't that just give people a reason to target IE? No one likes #1, and when you're at the top, you're constantly fighting people's criticism and attacks.
So my question is, when Firefox gets to be #1, won't that just shift the attacks to Firefox?
Live forever, or die trying.
I have been using FireFox for a long while. It's great.
But then, i don't think it has been designed with security in mind as much as convenience, exactly the same predicament that made IE such a huge security hole. There is auto-install of plug-ins, there is auto-install of skins - i kind of have a hard time believing that all of these were written by people wrecking their brains about possible exploits. [if you know different, let me know]
With IE, we know it's broken beyond fixing. With FireFox, we don't know. It has not been tested, as it has not been the target of serious malware writers.
Imagine - unlikely as it may be - FireFox wins the new browser war. Will it still be safe? IMHO, only a real security model like the one built into Java can really protect users.
And from working with that, i know that it places lots of seemingly unnecessary and annoying constraints on development and web apps.
Seems interesting that they bash IE and talk about all the cool features Firefox has, when XP SP2 with a revamped IE (with many features that firefox has, some look extremely similar *rip-off*) is going to be out very soon....
You're missing the point. Making Firefox available as an ActiveX control for displaying web content in other apps would NOT be a security hole. Allowing web pages to embed Active X components in the web pages is what is a potential security nightmare.
Ironically, the very reason people avoid ActiveX - the fact that, once an applet is "trusted" it can do pretty much anything - is the reason Windows Update uses the technology (how else can you update your system without an applet trusted to do anything?)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
OK, I misunderstood- you're talking about using Firefox as a dropin for the MSHTML component, not making a wrapper that'll make Firefox run ActiveX controls. While this is an improvement, it wouldn't allow Firefox to completely replace IE, because of the sites (for example, one RBOC telephone book) that require you to accept and run an ActiveX control for the site to even work. But of course, implementing this would open all the holes.
It's not like IE is a profit-center for Microsoft anyway;
they make all their money from Office and the O/S itself.
What's to stop them from scrapping IE6, and replacing it
with a Firefox derivative labelled "IE7" ?
(no doubt accompanied with lots of unconvincing spin
about how they're cool now with open-sizzource, 'yo)
>;k
Notice at the end of the article he basically says that regardless of anything good about Firefox its really a better choice since it has such a small market share - which is what makes it secure. Basically he seems to be saying that Firefox is security through obscurity rather than good design practices which MS didnt completely adhere to. Nice political dodge for the author.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Well it's interesting to see that an MSN run website has slammed Internet Explorer, and spent some time extolling the virtues of Firefox, which is indeed surprising at first glance. But in many ways, there is one other important factor to consider.
Even Microsoft *knows* that Internet Explorer is antiquated. They pulled developers off it years ago, and afaik have only recently started some work on it. It displays none of the features that all the modern competitive browsers have, and has FAR more security issues than possibly any other browser.
But at the end of the day, they don't care. It doesn't provide them any revenue, so they don't really give a damn about what features you want. It comes free with every OS they distribute, and it doesn't have advertising panels or anything like that, so it doesn't really matter to them what browser you decide to use with their OS, you're still using their OS.
And that's another thing to consider. Until they bother undertaking a vast overhaul of Internet Explorer (which they may not even do), they know that users will be vulnerable to all sorts of these problems that keep reoccuring. So in some ways it can be construed as a good idea for them to move you to other browsers, especially free ones like Mozilla where they do not provide another company with revenue. This will keep their users much safer, and at the end of the day, I think that's what this is about. Their users. You can use any browser you want on their OS, but again, you're still using Windows.
Consider the two scenarios. You get extremely frustrated with all the viruses and bugs that Internet Explorer throws up, and you decide that you've had enough. What are your options?
With those choices in mind, which would you expect Microsoft to prefer? ;)
I'm not as impressed as you are. Paul Boutin is still dismissive, insulting and pulling the party line. He gives the wrong reasons for using Firebird and stops short of placing blame where it belongs. It's not just the browser, it's the OS that's got problems.
Here's a flamebait quote:
You've probably been told to dump Internet Explorer for a Mozilla browser before, by the same propeller-head geek who wants you to delete Windows from your hard drive and install Linux. You've ignored him, and good for you.
Paul does not go on to tell us why anyone who did not dump Windows after Melissa should be happy. Instead he gives us the now usual FUD equating M$ and Linux security and the M$'s lame excuse for poor security:
Even Mozilla's spokespeople stress that no software can be guaranteed to be safe, and that Firefox's XPInstall system could conceivably be tricked into installing a keystroke logger instead of Sun's Java engine. But for now, there's safety in numbersâ"the lack of them, that is. Internet Explorer is used by 95 percent of the world. Firefox's fan base adds up to 2 or 3 percent at most. Which browser do you think the Russian hackers are busily trying to break into again?
Sorry Paul, this normal user is very happy to have dumped Windoze 98 in favor of Red Hat and Debian years ago. I've had perfectly usable browsers, email clients, digital music, and everything else I've ever wanted with far less hastle and trouble than my Windoze suffering peers and relatives. The browser is just the tip of the iceburg. I've enjoyed stable systems that stay up longer than my utility company's electricity, and a plethora of superior programs and features without having to drive to a store and periodically "rebuild" my computers. Learning Linux has been easy, fun and never required me to wear a propeller on my head.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft didn't care about browsers until Netscape and Java. Then they saw that the future might be a commodity OS running a browser as the interface to the apps (running on a server).
If Microsoft doesn't control the browser, it doesn't control that interface. Windows becomes very easy to replace.
And there goes Microsoft's monopoly.
The problem is, Internet Explorer is a freely-available application, and Windows is not. Microsoft isn't stupid - they really have nothing to lose by letting this little upstart get some breathing room - it'll make their massive changes in Longhorn seem more "revolutionary" for those who have been away for awhile, such as "basic features which IE should have had 7 years ago" and "latest extension which prevents a horrible security risk". You know, fun stuff.
OK, sceptic [sic], hold the judgment...I agree that it probably wasn't really a server-side error, but the Acrobat Reader plugin to IE is a piece of crap.
I've had to set up quite a number of sites that serve either static or streamed PDF content, and IE has problems with handling content in SSL in some inappropriate cases (Pragma/Cache headers cause IE to 'lose' a download file in SSL). The Reader plugin, like I said above, is a piece of crap and doesn't always render correctly, and can't always handle streamed content properly (probably related to IE's problems). The errors produced at this time are usually very misleading and often indicate a server problem (because Reader thinks it never got a file/stream).
Making Reader launch the actual app rather than the plugin helps with rendering and stream content, but again will have problems if IE can't find the file it just downloaded.
Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape do not have this particular problem, both because they don't use a plugin, but also because they present the app with a complete file (is that really so hard?).
Why the big deal? Just because a publication is owned by a company does not mean that it has to be a propaganda peddler. The New York Times and Slashdot are/were owned by media companies. Did they become solely dedicated to shoving that company down people's throats? No. Does Microsoft's ownership of MSN change anything?
Uhm, the phrase "pointy haired bosses" doesn't have any meaning whatsoever outside the context of Dilbert.
Obviously, you've never worked for a big company.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
.... realize this is a tactic of competition by MS.
Realizing they are gaining an ever increasing degree of mistrust by the consumerk, they simply figure that if they attach themselves and there perception of mistrust to Firefox.... then they can create enough confusion in the minds of the consumer, as to what the consumer mind trusts...... then it becomes a crap shoot (playing the odds of chance) to maintain at least a part of the market.
And of course maybe everyone was already leaving IE anyway and MS just decided to make it look like it was their idea and of course creating/maintaining the illusion that people follow what MS says...
Or maybe MS just had some "Black-Scholes Formula" in marketing that has turned bad all around (like the trillion dollar bet -- search google)....and they have yet to realize their marketing mouth has gingivitis...
All these Windows viruses are actually a good thing in the long run. They force users to get educated on computer security (well, most of them) and make them start looking for alternatives.
A few weeks ago I asked my brother how his new Dell was, and he told me that he had downloaded Mozilla (on his own! he's a computer n00b) because IE6 kept "fucking up" (lol his own words) and he got "sick of that shit". He had downloaded the big Mozilla browser, however, not Firefox.
Honestly, computer users are too stupid (or just don't care) about "standards" and "compatibility". They want something that works, and when something breaks, they're going to move onto something else.
Firefox today, Linux tomorrow. Eventually people will learn that IE6 isn't the whole problem, it's Windows. You'll soon see articles within a year and a half pushing the use of Linux into the mainstream, and Windows will start losing its stronghold on the market.
This will be shortly before Longhorn is released, and by the time it is, it won't matter. Longhorn's requirements will be so massive that people will not want to buy a new computer just to use Microsoft's "latest and greatest" when they can run Linux at no cost, and not have to buy a new machine, not to mention top-notch security to boot.
It's already starting to happen - look at KDE and GNOME. Both are very user friendly and very point-click-drool interfaces. Not to mention alot prettier than XP...
You'll see... Linux's time is coming...
The fact of the matter is: IE is free. Just as free as mozilla. MS won't come straight out and say, "Use Mozilla" because that would be retarded. But they don't care if everyone goes to Mozilla. MS was interested in winning the original browser wars because they were afraid it would destroy their desktop market. Now that losing is no longer a fear, they can safely move away from free application development and focus on their core competancy: OS development. They can let Mozilla develop all they want, and integrate Mozilla at a later date.
hrrm.
The whole article is damage control, and FUD.
.exe" like he never though of that trick, and it isnt really important
It shimmers over "not installing
Well one thing he deserves applause for: "Microsoft wiped out Netscape in the Browser Wars of the late 1990s not only because the company's management pushed the bounds of business ethics"
It mentiones "without a user knowladge" but fails to adress it as an issue, instead blaiming sneaky spyware writers.
It then mentions Firefox, isnt a "one-click" (Didnt amazon patent that? they should watch using those words) install, because it needs "plugins" ans for java you need to go to "Sun" (who?)
And the obvious "youll still need IE for the trusty MS update teehee" and and the final worrd is ofcourse-we-didnt-do-it.: "Just watch firefox become popular adn the spyware will eat yur breeen too muahaha."
Escuse me while this "propellor-head" goes back to programming his (free) PVR, on his (free) OS of choice, after this session in a (free) browser to await the coming arrival of the firefox-virus writing overlords who will cometh to taketh over my desktoppe.
"/Dread"
As long as Mozilla/Firefox doesn't pose a real threat to IE (and it doesn't, of course) I'm sure MS appreciates its minions dropping the occaisional complement on Moz. That way they have something to point to when the EU people start making anti-trust noises.
You can bet that if Moz had a chance of getting 20% marketshare, the MS folks would be trash talking it constantly.
It would be surprising if Slate ran an article about how great Linux was as a desktop OS - but the browser wars are over (at least until Linux becomes a major force on the desktop at which point who knows....)
Hungarian notation *is* confusing and meaningless. Here's why:
The purpose of Hungarian notation to to prefix the type of a variable to the name of the variable. That way, you don't have to look up the type of the variable any time you see code that references it.
However, the type information used in the Hungarian notation prefix is usually incomplete; Much of the following information about the variable is not included:
In other words, Hungarian notation encourages programmers to think they know the type of a variable (including all the above attributes), without actually knowing the type of the variable.
And then there's the maintenance cost associated with changing the type of a variable.
In fact, the only good reason to use Hungarian notation that I can think of is that it's a widely-used convention among Windows developers.
So you're saying some information is worse than none? How ridiculous. I seen many examples of bugs and problems that could have been avoided by simply prefixing "p" in front of a variable name that's a pointer. Much of the information you describe is described by the name of the variable. Beyond that you have to read the code a little bit. Consistent use of variable names and a decently-designed class library (or at least something less cryptic than STL, which sacrifices everything that makes C++ good for performance) will solve the other problems. If your class library is appropriately designed, you will be forced to treat your data in the way it needs to be treated. Quoting and encoding will be properly handled. Data source should be irrelevant because all data would be treated the same, and automatically translated as appropriate. Allocation, locking and other issues will be handled simply and consistently by a well-designed class (often the constuctor and destructor can be used to handle these things transparently). You can't blame Hungarian notation for a lack of proper encapsulation and data abstraction. If you are going to code like that, go back to Fortran.
And the "maintenance cost" you speak of? If the change is a fundamental type change (say a pointer to a reference, rather than an int to a long), then you'd better check all those instances of a variable because you're liable to have problems (even if it compiles).
Hungarian notation won't make a stupid coder smart, but it will certainly help a smart coder avoid mistakes. I'm a smart coder; I can't speak for the rest of the world.
Hungarian notation or at least some subset of it, is a lingua franca that exists primarily in Windows programming due to an attempt to move away from IOCCC candidate coding with one character variable names or inscrutable naming conventions and abbreviations. The other step is consistency in the API's and libraries, something Windows fails at miserably, and MFC is only somewhat better. The code is would have written for these clowns would have required a minute fraction of the development and maintenance that their archaic "design" required, and yet they were proud of their ignorance. Oh well, it's no spin off the government's teeth, because they can just piss more millions as needed. I'll stick to private concerns where getting work done efficiently actually matters.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.