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)
Microsoft released a security advisory that recommends temporarilly installing and using Linux as the simplest way to prevent the latest nasty internet worm. The windowsupdate.com website now redirects to debian.org, a sure sign that the two-year-long "Security Initiative" at Microsoft is finally being taken seriously. Company insiders say a patch will likely be out "in a few weeks tops" so that customers will be able to return to using Microsofts' superior product. According to a Microsoft spokesperson, the fact that you will be able to seamlessly continue your work using OpenOffice, Firefox and WINE is proof of the company's committment to standards conformance and interopability.
Someone didn't get the memo from old Billy boy to not diss company products.
another one joins the bandwagon...
Cheers!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
I switched the other day (yeah, I'm going to get my geek card revoked), and firefox kicks some serious ass. I didn't switch in the past because I need some of the features of IE for our app at work, but now I only use IE for that. Anyone using IE should just switch, no questions asked.
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Where did all this snow come from??
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?
Here and I thought those sounds were from the 4th of July fireworks......
I boycott signatures
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)
Talk about saving users from themselves.
Microsoft is just looking for a way to convince courts they're not a monopoply.
Ignore this thread. It was probably started up by an MS buff to use reverse psychology to ttrick ppl to read it. If you read the article it concludes by slating Firefox because it does not have suffient users and is therefore not applicable as a target by virus writers. This assumption is in fact false. There are many underlying attibuted shared by all browsers, many of them which are vulnerable in IE, and guess what - they are not vulnerable in Firefox. In other words, the same problems are likely to occur in both browsers if thety are equals. They do not. They only occur in IE becase though IE has always been a fast browser in my oppionion, it ultimatlely sucks as it is so insecure.
Thankyou
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?
When your own people give in and recommend a rival browser, it seems they are admitting the security issues in IE are basically unfixable. This does raise an interesting query - does this mean MS will be less likely to attempt repairing the flaws, ceding some interim revenue to a free competitor that right now is no threat at all, and devote more resources to Longhorn's IE version/replacement?
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
...he says that on Firefox the fancy popup menus don't appear, and after loading up explorer I see what's missing...the exact same functionality that countless free cross browser AND cross platform javascript/dhtml popup scripts provide (for example, young pups ypSlideoutMenu which is used on the Blender foundations' homepage).
I think it's another case of Microsoft making stuff look crap in other browsers for no good reason.
Haven't tried it on a mac yet, but I'm betting it looks like ass in safari too.
I am NaN
MSIE is incredibly far behind, in standards compliance, features, usability, and security. Basically, MSIE hasn't improved much since 4.0, which I think is more than 7 years old. Continuing to use MSIE means a serious degradation of the user experience. Apparently, it's so bad that even Microsoft's subsidiaries are jumping ship. I wonder why Microsoft has let it come this far.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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 half expected that MS would dump IE, but I think this article somewhat validates my thoughts.
The very fact that this was published on MSN must hit at deep rumbling in the MS camp. IE users are, quite frankly, sick of IE. The recent warning from the US government must have been the last nail in IE's PR coffin. People now know other browsers are out there, and have begun to download them. MS issued a hasty patch after Homelland security recommendations for another browser, but it seems they won't upgrade IE functionality until Longhorn, 3 years away! That will mean IE will have spent 6 years in development limbo.
Or then again this could be a lone cowboy at MSN, eager to leave for the fresh pastures of The Register.
I reckon MS will soon dump IE in favour of a new browsers, or maybe a new 'kind' of browser(.NEt based, XAML interface anyone?). Maybe MSN client?
Tellingly IE still runs off version numbers IE5, IE6, whereas most MS apps run off the 98,2000,XP versioning scheme. These are my crackpot prediction for a rumour hungry world.
May the Maths Be with you!
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...
Mozilla crew can not be bothered making comments on why people should use there product over other browsers.
A friend of the team replied "they are too busy getting it right".
Next on : "MS programmer fired and replaced by spin doctor".
-- forget
I switched both my parents over to firefox and it took them over a month to notice. They wanted to know why IE had a funny embryoish logo in the top left heh. I had switched the firefox icon over to the IE one and set up an IE theme on it. Really I havn't seen a single example of somthing IE does better than fire fox. The only limitations I've noticed are on web sites designed ONLY to work with IE like the mcafee web site.
I found this really nifty application called Comparator made by Vansath Dharmaraj -- it's basically a test browser with a split view: the top one is the page rendered in IE, the bottom one is the page rendered using Mozilla (which comes back to say Mozilla-powered browsers such as Firefox).
That, along with Firefox extensions IE View and Web Developer makes coding websites compatible in both IE and Mozilla browsers a hell of a lot easier.
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
You're laughing, but someone at Slate is going to lose their job over this article. It's reminiscent of nothing in my short term memory, related to Microsoft.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
In related news, the editor for slate magazine was fired: Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 11:04 AM
What would be really great is if the Firefox team could build ActiveX wrappers mapping the integration of IE into third-party apps (like QuickBooks and FranklinCovey). This would allow companies to obliterate IE from their organizations.
Even here, a note is made about ActiveX:
:).
;): they don't have the possibility to use ActiveX.
ActiveX was meant to make it easy to add the latest interactive multimedia and other features to sites, but instead it's become a tool for sneaking spyware onto unsuspecting PCs.
Now, we all know that ActiveX, a technology that has been around for years and years, is perfectly insecure. Moreover, now there are other ways to do most things that ActiveX achieves: Java apps, server side scripting (with, let's say, PHP) and many more. Secure ones.
So what? We have better alternatives. Microsoft obviously won't drop ActiveX support from IE until someone still asks for it. Then, the problem is with companies and sites that make use of them.
It's strange that someone would still be using something that's not portable, and an increasing audience won't be able to benefit from (if they follow CERT raccomandations, at least
At last, I think that sooner or later ActiveX will disappear (given Microsoft doesn't try some horrible marketing move), because no-one wise will use it. Many users have been educated to click "NO" to those popups requiring you to install a BHO... so new site will have an hard battle against users' suspicion. The problem here is: will Microsoft let this happen, or has it some interest in keeping a buggy technology alive?
I remember it were just for one reason I switched to Mozilla Suite (no, Firefox just doesn't suits me
PS: also the pop-up blocking thingie has been useful, but I am a Mozilla user since before it was introduced.
42.
At this point Microsoft needs FireFox. Without a browser alternative the ONLY safe recomendation would be to remove Windows. At least with FireFox as an alternative to IE (and ThunderBird for Outlook) Microsoft can remain as the desktop operating system.
Without FireFox the safe solution is to get rid of Windows and that is Microsofts worst nightmare. So for now Microsoft will be happy that FireFox exists and that Windows remains as the desktop platform.
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....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My web site gets about 1200 visitors/day and I track the stats on browsers used... although it's only 4 days of data, my stats are showing that 25.5% of my visitors use Mozilla. This is a huge increase over the norm, which is around 16% Mozilla.
Yes, it will shift the attacks to Firefox. But, since Firefox has an active development team that is constantly working to improve it, with major updates every couple months, and minor fixes every day, any exploits will probably be fixed faster than Internet Explorer, which has no real active development until a major exploit is discovered, or MS wants to ship another service pack every couple of years.
/usr/games/fortune
Their reputation is so bad right now that without a clear admission of how bad it is nobody will believe them when they announce SP2 "fixes everything".
I notice the timing is really close to SP2 coming out ...
Or, maybe I've been reading /. too long ...
Mozilla was open-sourced in 98, but it was just spun off into the non-profit Mozilla Foundation after AOL/Netscape fired everyone last year.
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)
Some interactive features designed exclusively for Internet Explorer won't appear, such as the pop-up menus on Slate's table of contents.
I get this statement as an attempt to slightly discredit Firefox. The article conveniently fails to emphasize that this lack of interoperability is the site designer's fault, and instead presents the Internet Explorer exclusive feature in an innocent manner. Bleh, what can you expect from Microsoft?
Audioscrobbler
There's a difference between the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla project. ,1998 that the source code for Netscape Communicator would be free of charge.
The Mozilla Foundation, established in July of 2003, exists to provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the Mozilla open-source software project.
The Mozilla project begun as when Netscape Communications announced in January 23rd
"Mozilla":
http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
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 was looking at my website's logs today. Here's what I found for June:
MSIE: 52.0%
Mozilla: 27.4%
Now for this month, July: MSIE: 48.1%
Mozilla: 32.9%
Yes, it's only the first five days of July. But still, it looks like a pattern to me. (btw: OS stats are 68% Windows, 18.5% Linux)
My Systems
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.
It's not like his eZine was dissing Windows XP or MS Office. The article still derides Free Software advocates by calling them "propeller headed geeks" and so on, and does suggest Firefox is somewhat less capable than IE because the fancy menus on Slate do not work (even though there are definitely platform-agnostic methods to achieve the exact same effect). Despite that, the article is very favourable to Mozilla's stable of products which is nice.
Anyways I don't think anyone will lose their jobs over this:
* IE doesn't make MS any money--it has been bundled into Windows XP so there is no lost revenue (at least for the short and medium term) if users switch en masse to another browser.
* MS has integrated IE into Windows so tightly that you cannot avoid it. You need IE to run Windows update, and a lot of software uses IE DLLs to function (even a lot of third party Windows-based software). Using Firefox to browse web pages doesn't completely obsolete IE
* Microsoft is doing enough on its own to obsolete IE--in fact they seem to encourage anything that will obsolete it. IE development has basically been abandoned since Windows XP was released (and even before 2002 there was little improvement). The Slate article just helps things along a bit.
* Anything that makes a Microsoft property look like it isn't part of a big machine bent on world domination is welcome--especially if it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the bottome line.
So that leaves one thought: Why does MS seem to be abandoning IE?
I think it has already been touched on by some here. Web browsing and other internet-related tasks are being integrated even further into future versions of Windows. Longhorn is supposed to be re-worked top to bottom to incorporate XML-based protocols, better support distributed computing technology (web services and so on). What is your machine and what is the internet is supposed to become almost seamless.
In achieving that goal IE has to disappear in BillG's eyes. Not only that, (X)HTML has to recede into the background as well--it is a document markup language at its roots and is poorly suited to development of highly interactive applications. Never mind that there are vendor-neutral/open standards emerging (XForms, XUL, SVG, etc)--they are not yet as established as HTML. MS sees this as a new opportunity to use Longhorn to establish an MS-controlled platform again using XAML and Avalon.
I think that BillG himself actually despises IE. The design is antiquated and insecure at its heart. The code probably gets more and more unmanageable with time judging by how often one patch sometimes creates other bugs. First and formost, however, by throwing resources as IE microsoft would prolong what it sees as "yesterday's Internet". Ideally, Longhorn would be released without any visible indication of a separate browser and enough HTML support to make existing sites function. As Longhorn grows in market share, MS hopes that sites start incorporating MS-specific protocols like XAML to transform websites into really interactive, whiz-bang internet applications that break completely in IE or Mozilla or any other mere browser on a competing or obsolete platform.
No, there will be no firings at Slate over this editorial stance. Far from it--it is probably quite compatible with the Chief Architect's long-term vision.
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?).
A bunch of other slashdot folk have pointed out bits and pieces of this puzzle, but let's see what happens when we put it all together:
1. The new standards, XML, etc, are going to be controlled as much outside the browser, by the productivity suite, as they will be within it. The standards for basic browsers have more or less solidified at this point. There's no more control to be taken here.
2. The browser market has been driven into the ground. There's no money to be made here anymore, as decent free alternatives are available, and the market has gotten used to not paying for their browser. There won't be another Netscape threat.
3. The whole "browser as your desktop" idea has faded away. MS is no longer in danger of losing its OS or productivity-suite sales to a browser company.
Put all of this together and you've got the reason why MS doesn't really give a crap if people use IE or not anymore. But why go the extra step of taking it down?
1. Even in its recommendation, the article is a backhanded compliment at best. Very much in the league of "If you have to switch, this one will work." Which leads to a setup for the future version of IE.. "All the features of Firefox, plus..." which of course will only be able to run properly on the new Longhorn system.
2. IE's security problems have really started to hit the mainstream. The article isn't telling folks anything that wasn't known already, but lets MSN Slate look like a wonderfully independant publication while doing so.
Most importantly:
3. IE doesn't make them money anyway. At this point, the various holes are costing them more than IE provides them both in actual dollars in support and programmer hours that have to be devoted to containing the mess, and in PR.
So it's really to Microsoft's interest at this point to get people *off* of IE, especially to something simple that they'll be able to easily port settings from for the new version. The only thing that might keep them there is stubborn pride. If cooler heads have prevailed in the boardroom, expect to see more on these lines from Microsoft sources.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
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?
I have to give Microsoft credit on this move... They know that no smart person listens to what they say so they advertise Firefox in order to push people away from it and move back to what they "don't" recommend... IE
It's like when your mom decides she likes rap too and you have to burn every 50 Cent CD in your collection because of it...
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
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...
What about all those links that used to be preinstalled on IE ?
Am i wrong ?
Reminds me of the media player model. Lots of links to websites. Maybe some kickbacks for hits on websites?
The reason IE is so insecure is the fact that Microsoft was levraging it's monopoly. IE, is so inscure because of the way Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to try an take over the internet. The PC industry was growing fast enough, that if only some users of Netscape switched, AND all new PC's were sold with IE on them, they would be able to win the browser war. That was a given for Microsoft. They would win. So the question was, what to do with the win? Perpetuate the monopoly and hijack the internet. ActiveX will only run on windows. Let's make a world where all websites that matter, use ActiveX. Let's break standards so that websites that work in IE, won't work well in other browsers. We have enough programmers, that we cna hijack the standards and everone else will play catchup. So by adding ActiveX, making the user experience easy and good looking, with security as a side note, Mircosoft created IE, which by the way had to be intergrated into the OS as a pretence so that the Department of Justice could not ask them to remove it for a default windows install. The browser is really a few dll's that anyone can use to manipulate html. So it's strenghts are your strenghts, and it's weaknesses are your weaknesses. The file explorer, Internet Explorer, Outlook Epxress, are all built on an intregrated together via these DLL's. You can use a secuirty weakness in any one component aganist the others. Time has proven that ActiveX and breaking web standards was a bad idea that is only now starting not to pay off for Microsoft.
vi +
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.
No one seems to realise that a very fast and nice concoction of Gecko (Mozilla/Firefox's rendering engine) with a simplistic Win32 UI called K-Meleon is available and provides a very fast and snappy browser in Windows. Since it uses quicklaunch, you don't need to wait for ages to start it, as oppossed to FireFox. I like it anyway :)
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"
Microsoft said from the start that ActiveX was secure. It took 8 years for the first big hole to come and bite them in the butt. Microsoft has an ActiveX control that turns out to have a security exploit in it. They have released an updated control that has been patched. The problem is, if you have "Always Trust Microsoft" checked, a webiste can force you to download the old, insecure ActiveX control, and then take advantage of the exploit. Microsoft's solution, never check "Always Trust MicroSoft". So my gut instinct was correct 8 years ago......
vi +
Why no mention of Opera? To my knowledge, it's just as safe as Mozilla and its relatives and in my experience it's easier for a newbie to configure and learn. The only thing I can think of is that MS would rather promote the free project than the commercial competitor, especially seeing how Opera could kick their asses in areas other than the desktop. Or am I missing a point, as usual?
I fail to see why being knowledgeable about MS's plans would be viewed with suspicion. Perhaps I should clarify my background.
.NET really is faster and better (as our developers have found out). Whether or not there are bugs to work out and regardless of how MS has executed the solutions, they have developed and/or embraced some very good concepts. Longhorn shows real promise, and for a 1.0 product MS Reporting Services is astonishingly well executed.
I've used Linux since 1995 or so but actually became an "open source affecionado" around mid-1997 on a student work term. My employer was well into migrating from old AT&T UNIX boxes to COMPAQs running Slakware Linux tuned to meet their needs (data collection/logging and web-based reporting). Actually seeing Linux used in a production environment run as rock solid as the old AT&T boxes (and much better than the Windows NT server) without any licensing costs sold me easily. In the years since then things have only gotten dramatically better for Linux.
However, in my field of work Linux is still very much the exception (unfortunately). Things run on either Windows NT or 2000 or in special cases QNX or a proprietary RTOS or UNIX. My present employer works in very close conjunction with Microsoft to develop drivers and application software. It is an important part of my job to stay current on Microsoft's direction as well as that of our own developers. As I am an applications specialist and not a developer/programmer at this point I cannot issue a decree that we shall adopt Linux as a platform of choice for our products--indeed no one can without reprocussions.
Because of my background with both sides I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both Linux and Windows (or Free vs proprietary systems in general). For example, Linux and BSD are unmatched for stability and security. Regardless of any studies that say otherwise, Linux is most often much cheaper to maintain than Windows. Free Software applications are also thr real kings of the enterprise. The Internet wouldn't survive without Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, BIND, mySQL, PostgreSQL and so on.
On the other hand, vendors reluctance to develop open drivers (or disclose enough information to the community to do so) ie frustrating. There is still too much crap to contend with for the everyday user to get their Centrino chipset to work, or to make their flashy new NVidia or ATI video cards work properly.
Microsoft/proprietary software has its own list of goods and bads. Microsoft developmer tools totally kick butt on the competition. Developing with
However, with Microsoft I have very real and grave concerns as well. While Windows has come a long way in stability and usability, Microsoft neglected security for too long. I think that poor security has been the most serious issue MS has ever had to face. Licensing schemes have been a royal pain to deal with for a long time too. I'm next to fed up with complicated licensing schemes, license key codes, dongles, product activation and other administrative nightmares, all of which add no function to the end solution at all and only serve as mechanisms to grant the user the priviledge of running an application. And as promising as Longhorn looks, MS is re-inventing the wheel in a blatant attempt to lock the industry into it's own solutions. Really, what is the point of creating XAML when open standards were already there? Longhorn also looks set to break a lot of compatibility and be even more resource hungry than ever.
I think _every_ professional should know as much about MS's plans as possible. Likewise they should all know as much as possible about development in Linux and Free Software in general (you know damn well many in MS are studying up on the "enemy"). How else can anybody be competitive? It is only wise to bet on both horses here in particular. With Longhorn so far from release and the potential for a disconnect in terms of hardware and software compatibility with previous versions of Windows, Linux is poised to make a breakthrough. Hopefully Those in the Linux camp can "steal" the best ideas from Longhorn and execute them with characteristically more elegant, interoperable design.
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.