Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Responds to IE Criticism
darthcamaro writes "Looks like there was an online free-for-all on Microsoft's chat servers yesterday with Internet Explorer engineers. Several interesting things come out in the story including the fact that the IE big wig thinks that all of his engineers should have other browsers installed to see what they can do and, catch this...he thinks they're the underdog. 'I've worked at Microsoft for 14 years and I have always felt like the underdog,' said Hachamovitch. 'Maybe the road behind us looks easy, but at the time going it wasn't. I welcome the feedback today. Getting informed is the only way I know to get better. The day we don't get heated feedback I'll be concerned.'" Reader nkodengar notes that "Microsoft has posted an article on MSDN listing everything that will be affected by the the updates to Internet Explorer in Service Pack 2. This will be particularly important to developers who use ActiveX controls, pop-up windows and file download counters in their websites..."
"People choose," replied Hachamovitch (IE lead engineer). "Hundreds of millions of people actively use Windows and they get to choose. Nothing in Windows as it ships keeps them from downloading other software that extends their browsing experience (e.g. the Google or Ebay toolbars) or changes it (e.g. an alternative browser)."
No they don't. Maybe I do, but I'm a computer expert.
My mom certainly has no clue that there even IS anything other than IE to use. Most of our mothers probably don't even realize that IE is not "the Internet".
There's a reason AOL is still popular with 20+ million people -- because it's easy and most computer users are idiots when it comes to technical knowledge/know-how.
I find Microsoft guility of contempt -- contempt of not upgrading their browser. They kept quoting x-million users but then saying they had a choice. No they didn't. They used what popped up when they clicked on a Web address somewhere on their computer, and they've used that default browser from Day fucking One.
Microsoft is going to be looking at major lawsuits if they don't immediately push this RC-2/SP-2 patch series out immediately. They owe it to the world and they owe it to those of us who write proprietary software that DOESN'T suck.
(P.S. GMAIL invites! I woke up this morning and saw that my other gmail account got 2 new invites, so if you reply with a funny joke about sex and befriend me, I'll give em out to my two favorite ones.)
If you liked my post,
We've seen what they said about it, now all thats left is to see what they DO about it...
It simply isn't fair to blame Microsoft for the ignorance of their users.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Perhaps MS has finally looked at themselves and figured they were behind the times with their browser technology. Sure, they might still be #1, but word spreads quick about the underlying problems and that there is actually another browser choice out there... And it's better! The security problems right now are just the icing on the cake.
Why can't you comment on them? Why wouldn't you implement the CSS3 standard? Am I missing something here?
Hmmm.
Over the years I've read several books and opinion pieces on Microsoft and their success. "Microsoft as the underdog" was a theme in many of them. I guess it's their strategy for motivating their workforce.
As a peon, what would influence you to work harder? Being told that you're the underdog and you're going to get stomped on by Sun, Apple and probably now Linux, or being told that you have a world wide monopoly in the desktop computing space and companies are throwing buckets of money at you every year despite the fact that your software is mediocre at best.
It seems like a logical thing to tell your employees. I guess they leave out the specifics of exactly where they would be classified as the underdog.
How can I tell if Internet Explorer has blocked my pop-up window?
Functions that return a window object will return null if the window is blocked. Always check the return value of window.open() before using it to avoid script errors when pop-ups are blocked.
By allowing a script to determine if the popup was blocked, it opens the floodgates for even more annoying and intrusive advertising.
Now whenever the page detects it's popup was blocked, it will force the user to view a full-screen advertising page for a pre-determined time, or other annoyances.
When will advertisers get the message. If people block pop-up windows, they do so for a reason - they are not interested in you're stupid special offers. They should spare themselves the bandwidth and everyone else the annoyance.
The default setting in IE will be to block popups.
This pretty much means that the popup window will be officially dead in a year's time.
tcd004
When I build my software applications I have the end-user in mind. Why is it too much to ask the same from Microsoft? Why is they could get away with it, where if I blamed it on the user, it could mean losing my job? You make no sense.
Hmmm.
It's fair to hold M$ accountable for taking unfair advantage of the ignorance of users. Who else would educate them? And which would be more appropriate to change, one monopoly company under court administration for illegally exploiting its market, or millions of unorganized consumers with better things to do today?
--
make install -not war
"Most of our mothers probably don't even realize that IE is not "the Internet".
Wait... are you telling me IE is not "the internet"?
I think you are on to something.
tabbed browsing
popup blocking
mouse gestures
Incorporate stuff like that and get a jump on the competition...
Oh, wait....nevermind.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Let's remember, while Mozilla was still on unstable milestones MS had a much more advanced and working browser. It's barely changed since then. They're dragging their asses. It must have been a decision within microsoft, there's no way they could fuck up THIS BADLY with IE development.
IE stills sucks at CSS support. The bottom line is, when I design something and test it in mozilla, it also looks fine in Opera and Safari. When I look at it in IE there's a very good chance something looks wrong due to some missing feature or weird implementation.
They just hack everything together. You can't even use css like tr:hover although a:hover works because of their shitty implementation.
Photos.
Looks like MS has now gone for secure by-default way:
1. The modal installation prompt for ActiveX controls will be initially suppressed using the Information Bar.
2. Changes would have to be made to the way some pages automatically redirect or behave differently when refreshed after a control is not installed
3. If the dialog does not provide an option to install the ActiveX control, the file might not be correctly signed. - Phew! No more hidden installs then, hopefully!
4. In SP2, the Information Bar will suppress file download prompts that are launched automatically
5. Enforcement of file-extensions to match the content-type.
6. SP2 will have the pop-up blocker that is turned on by default
7. And, finally, there are some browser window restrictions
I still don't think SP2 will be a panacea, but for corporations with a large number of users, or naive end-users, SP2 should bring a sigh of relief...
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Now we see the denial inherent in the system. The delusion apparently goes to the bone. Mean old Department of Justice, picking on nice little Micro$oft... at least the big bad government giant is sleeping now.
--
make install -not war
Getting informed is the only way I know to get better. The day we don't get heated feedback I'll be concerned.
Every time you complain to any software company about a bug, a misfeature, or a problem, you are giving them something pretty valuable, something they would otherwise have to pay a lot of money to find through testing. But all your investment in time and bug reporting is repaid by--having to pay for the next upgrade.
It's like sending the company a $50 donation and then still paying $200 for the next upgrade.
That's one of the reasons why it is so important to use open source alternatives when available: when you report bugs in OSS, you don't pay for the resulting improvements over and over again.
Users, not programmers or lines of code, are the most valuable asset any software project has.
I think there is a common misconception that non computer experts are completely clueless. Now before you give me cupholder stories, peep this. A while ago I visited my mother who is in no way a computer expert. To my surprise, I saw a Mozilla icon on the desktop. I asked her if she used it and she said yes. She had downloaded it after hearing on the news how insecure IE was. She did the install (next, next, next, finish) and started using it no problem.
Now she doesn't do all the power user stuff but the point is that with a basic understanding of computer usage she was able to kick the IE habit.
Don't underestimate the ability of the average user to see the problems that IE has and to move away from it. Apathy however can be powerful and I think that's the main culprit.
Blaze a trail to the New World
One thing that Slashdotters tend to forget in their eagerness to hold Microsoft in contempt is that they are not stupid.
They may not have much respect for the typical consumer, be slow to respond, and ship buggy software, but they are anything but stupid.
From their standpoint, there really is not much imperative need to respond to complaints until they become critical enough to convince a common user to switch to a competing product.
But when it becomes apparant that such a thing is happening, they can and will respond.
END COMMUNICATION
am willing to take the responsibility of repeatedly kicking them in the nuts if it'll make them develop better code.
I didn't know they welcome the 'heated feedback'. Poor things...all they had to do was ask.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
For the size of Microsoft, that's quite an underdog!
:-)
Wonder how it got there?... oh, bad programming practices for one!
http://efil.blogspot.com/
In the actual discussion, their reply to any question about concrete features -- including standards support, CSS2, CSS2.1, CSS3, tabbed browsing, and PNG alpha transparency -- was, "We can't at this time commit to implementing xxx but we will look at it carefully."
They seemed evasive and unwilling to say anything except marketing-speak. What's the point of chatting to the community if you aren't allowed to talk about the product?
What, precisely.. is the point of having such a press release?
:/ what is the point?
Is it to engender sympathy b/c microsoft is feeling abused or unloved?
Is it damage control because Microsoft finally figured out that many people are dissapointed in IE?
Or is it a press release that simultaneously tells the masses that Microsoft recognizes the problems, but wants users to still stick with it 'cause they are so concerned?
Hrmmmm
It's a bizzare situation, either way??
Just ruminating.. I'm not trying to be insightful or anything.
Which, frankly, sucks because there are so many features on Firefox that I like, but it's so slow that I can't use it for everyday browsing.
My question is this: Are we so anti-Microsoft that we'll settle for clunkier software without complaint, just because it's not made by Microsoft? Where is the hue and cry for a faster, more responsive Firefox? Why do we accept things without complaint just because we admire the politics of the developers?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Oh great, they're looking at possibly, maybe doing more to support CSS3.
WTF? I don't want them to add more CSS, I want them to get what they have working like it should.
All the designers I have worked with are mad as hell. The amount of hacks they have to use to produce CSS that is cross-browser compatible and doesn't look like shit on IE is absurd, and the extra time spent on that is killing my budgets.
In other words, I'm mad as hell with IE and Microsoft. I don't really give a damn that IE doesn't have tabbed browsing, or that it ships with insecure defaults. Couldn't give a rat's ass about the lack of pop-up blocking. I care that every f'ing simple web design project's budget has to account for a few extra hours getting their shit working properly.
When FF hits 1.0, I'll go on a mission to convert as many people from IE. I hope others do the same; maybe this will help M$ wake up and smell the standards.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
What's so special about file download counters that will cause them to break in the new version of IE? I thought they were server-side anyway?
Since it's more difficult to configure a web server to count downloads of all file types, people often use a PHP script which redirects to the target file.
For example http://server.com/getfile.php?file=test.exe
The PHP script updates the server-side counter and then redirects the user to the real file they wanted.
Ever seen those "Your download should start in 5 seconds..." messages?
The new behaviour will make it impossible to automatically pop up a file download dialog, rendering this type of download counter/anti-leech script usless.
No. All of the IE engineers should have a twelve-year-old kid use their computer at night while they're out of the office. Maybe after uninstalling a few thousand pieces of spyware they'll reconsider some of their basic design choices.
"People choose," replied Hachamovitch (IE lead engineer). "Hundreds of millions of people actively use Windows and they get to choose. Nothing in Windows as it ships keeps them from downloading other software that extends their browsing experience (e.g. the Google or Ebay toolbars) or changes it (e.g. an alternative browser)."
What a load of shit. I spent 8 hourts on line with MS tech support trying to disable IE entirely from my system. You see, when you remove it, the system recreates it. And even when it isn't there, it uses a default installed version which is integrated into the system.
Microsoft tech support has NO CLUE on how to remove it so I messaed around and came up with a way to have all Microsoft apps default to using Firefox instead
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
What have the IE engineers been doing for the last three years? Handing out towels in the rest rooms?
Before you folks even THINK about implementing outrageous and curiously new features like... Tabbed Browsing or ActiveX, why don't you seriously think about the fact that the core part of IE is a load of junk. How about making the render engine RENDER XHTML and CSS2 properly?! IMPLEMENT THE STANDARDS *COMPLETELY.*
... what a concept ... have it render properly in IE!
I, along with so many other developers are sick and tired of hacking our otherwise perfectly valid and conforming CSS and markup to make it display properly in the hack you call a browser, which has remained virtually unchanged since the *conception* of Mozilla's Gecko engine. Before you start implementing *parts* of CSS3, why don't you fully and *PROPERLY* implement CSS2? Have you seen the numerous sites dedicated to Internet Explorer specific CSS hacks? You are the most HATED browser. Developers are outraged. It's ridiculous. No one CHOOSES to use IE.
I feel guilty about flaming you on CSS support. I'd much rather see the browser and company just collapse under the power and superior quality of Free and Open Source software. But since that's not going to happen any time soon, and since you're not going to be shipping Firefox or an alternative with your POS software you call an Operating System, and since it's unfortunate that somewhere like 90% of the population uses that abomination you call Internet Explorer... my head would stop spinning so fast if I could just write valid XHTML markup and valid CSS and
Just stop trying and give up, for the good of the common man. Really. Your days are numbered, so why not take some time to think about the good old days, and just let natural progression drag you under.
Thank you.
The reason why MS is potentially a big deck of cards is that they consistently shove things down peoples' throats and therefore never get to see what they *would* choose if they had the choice. This gives them an artificial sense of satisfaction among their user base, when it's simply a very long and forceful suppression. It's actually in their long-term best interest to provide people options and see what their choice is *absent* coercion. Otherwise, they will continue to eat their seed corn.
With popups gone, people will resort to javascript alert()s.
"Do you want to download our new penis enlargment software?" (yes/no)
*clicks no*
"Are you sure you dont? It will make your penis 5 times longer straight away... and if you add it to startup, your penis will grow 5 inches on every reboot. Visit our homepage." (yes/no)
*clicks no*
"Ok, so may we interest you in some generic viagra instead?"
ARGHHHH!
FireFox has been faster (and I mean FASTER) for some time than IE.
And for features, how does IE have more features when you get tabbed browsing and popup blocking in Mozila or FireFox?
What "features" does IE have that FireFox is lacking?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Check back to the Netscape trial and read Microsoft's rational for "integrating" the browser with the OS.
Also, check the comments of people who said that doing so would INCREASE the security risks.
Now, read the comments TODAY about the security holes attributed to IE and how difficult it is for Microsoft to fix them.
This is NOT a problem of "the ignorance of their users".
This is a problem that stems from an IDIOTIC approach to security that was motivated by the desire to destroy Netscape as a company.
The sound of the world's smallest violin.
Awwww poor, MS!
Well good browsing habits will not protect you from Active X.
Here you go!
Um, you are sadly mistaken in so many respects I don't even know where to begin. IE is buggy, IE is integrated into the system and when Microsoft apps attempt to open a browser, they use the systems browser not your default browser; this in itself is a potential security nightmare as it does so from shell. Don't believe me? Check your registry sometime by searching for iexplore.exe and url.dll
Aside from those two glaring errors, Firefox has a greater set of default functionality and a HUGE plethora of add-ons that extend it's ability.
Plus it doesn't use ActiveX. Need I say more?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
People don't choose IE. It's a default icon on their desktop and the default broswer in the file associations. Most Joe Sixpack users just don't know any better or are afraid to change or too lazy to change. If they do happen to know that they *can* change, they probably don't know *how* and are too lazy to find out or afraid because computers intimidate the average user.
If the Browser-Fairy were to suddenly change the target of the desktop icon on every computer all over the world from iexplorer.exe to firefox.exe, the market share for IE would go to something like 10% or less. Very few users would make the effort to switch it back. IE is a virtual monopoly because Windows is a desktop monopoly. There is no conscience choice involved.
You've obviously never coded anything but the most simplistic website. IE completely ignores the standards which means making a web page that works in both IE and every other browser in the world is difficult. The result is that since IE has a large market share, most web developers write nonstandard pages that works in IE and breaks in every other browser in the world. What makes this even worse is that IE is a single-platform browser essentially turning the web into a windows-only system (and before you get started about IE existing on the Mac you should know that Mac IE and Windows IE are completely different beasts and break in completely different ways).
As for IE being faster, I have not noticed IE being any faster than FireFox, but if it is it's probably because bits of it run in ring zero, whcih is an enormous security risk (one you will never see any Linux developers taking).
As far as security is concerned, IMHO FireFox, etc probably have as many security holes in as any other bit of well designed software. The Mozilla team fix security problems ASAP, MS fix security problems shortly after someone made use of them (AFAIK there has never been a zero-day attack whcih simply put means that if MS patched holes as soon as they knew about them we would have no security problems with fully up to date systems).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Actually, returning null when window.open() is blocked is the usual behavior for Firefox, and I assume for most other popup-blockers, as well. If memory serves, window.open() returns the window it creates so that you can further manipulate it from your code. Thus, no windows created --> null return value. Those of you with popup blockers can test the functionality here.
(Arrrggghhhhh! Selling my soul for a gmail invite!)
OK, I lost my virginity on this one, I don't know how good the joke is but it definitaly works. Caution only point this joke at the right person.
These three male ants and one female ant are trapped in a jar. The femal ant is desperately trying to find a way out and one of the male ants says to her,
"I know how to get out of here and if you sleep with me tonight I will tell you how in the morning."
So the female ant in desperation says ok, only to wake up the next morning and find that the male ant is gone. She starts crying and the second male ant comes over to offer comfort. Again she tells the male ant that she really needs to get out of this jar and the male ant responds,
"I know how to get out of here and if you sleep with me tonight I will tell you how in the morning."
Again she falls for the ploy and the next morning awakes only to find the male ant has left. Being tricked twice and still trapped, she begins to cry hopelessly and the last ant comes over to her to offer comfort.
(PAUSE for effect)
Do you want to hear the punchline?
(Wait for positive response)
"If you sleep with me tonight I will tell you in the morning."
OK, OT and cheesy but hey it worked.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
Ha, you should tell that to Microsoft...
The day we don't get heated feedback I'll be concerned.
Funnny, I thought having the Department Of Homeland Security recommending other browsers because of the abysmal security was plenty of reason for concern.
Firefox has a BUILT-IN google search bar and ability to customize your toolbars.
And how the hell can you browse without TabbedBrowsing?
^_^
You don't have to click Yes. The security holes in the browser allow them to install it for you.
Just the other day I got hit with a SearchNow! installation. The only reason I noticed is because I saw activity in the system tray. I have no idea why they did that, because otherwise I would have been none the wiser.
I didnt click *anything*. I was unexpectedly redirected to another page by a page I was visiting, and bam... it was installing.
I routinely tell any popup not to install software. I berate my in-laws who click "Yes, install Gator, we love Gator aka Gain aka Claria". I'm a computer programmer who uses ie at work by day, but uses firefox at home by night because he Knows Better(tm).
Firefox has *never* installed a "plugin" automatically on me because of a security hole. And I trust that it never will.
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
I have used IE my entire life...
:-).
Let's see, that makes you 9 years old
You are right in that IE has many good features. One of the reasons MS won the browser war I was because IE worked just as good as and often better than Netscape, so there was no reason to change.
Good browsing habits will not help you with IE. I've been hit more than once by drive by installations of spyware that did not require any clicking 'Yes'. And, yes, I keep my Windows OS up to date.
So things might be different for browser war II.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Well, there have been several instances in the past where versions of one browser have been totally incompatible with the next. I specifically remember the differences in IE 4, 4.5 and 5. More recently, there have been subtle differences in 5 and 5.5
Specifically on IE front, I empathise that it becomes more difficult because a large number of websites have been written with only IE in mind. Maybe those are now considered flaws, but there was a time when IE was preferred because of those nifty things that it allowed one to do
This probably might make you unhappy, having to re-write probably large parts of your website, however, considering the number of attacks that have been targeted towards it, if the new SP protects the naive users, then I'm sure it will go down well with the user community
http://efil.blogspot.com/
It's just different strokes for different folks. You're a more knowledgable user, so naturally you're able to stave off spyware a bit better. With the ActiveX management and pop-up blocking, this should help protect a lot of the more ignorant users out there.
Around here, the prevailing attitude is that you're an idiot if you use Internet Explorer, because, you know, it's "M$" and all. But in the real world, people don't treat their operating systems and web browsers like religions and just use whatever they like best. If you like IE, keep on using it! I like Firefox and so will keep on using that. Variety is what makes the world interesting, you know...
The article discussed features associated with Windows XP service pack 2. I didn't see any mention of extending these IE enhancements to Windows 2000.
Does anybody know if IE enhancements such as pop up blocking will be available to Windows 2000 users?
MS does not try to create innovate products for customers. All MS does is look at where it is losing market share, then quickly hack a barely functional product that will keep customers from leaving. The world went GUI, a year later MS had a GUI. The Internet happened, a year later MS had a browser. Customer started putting servers on commodity hardware, much later MS had server software. This has been the case with media players, music services, nearly everything. Even the wonderful Excel was based on other popular products.
MS needs to give up the browser. It was a ill thought out reaction to the fear of losing market share, and all the problems result from the bad engineering that occurs when people are in a hurry. IE makes a fine application frontend, and they should concentrate on promoting it for that use. Data servers on the back end, the local IE rendering the GUI.
This will not happen because MS quality cannot compete in the open marketplace, and though many will continue to use IE due to the tight integration with other MS products, others will use the change as an opportunity to move to more reliable solutions.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Shouldn't it be "Score: 5, Redundant?"
I thought that picking on M$ always gave you a good score. I am on slashdot, am I not?
Of course!
This is a fundamental part of the culture at MS. They nuture the "underdog feeling" there in order to remain so fiercely competitive -- even when the product is a near-monopoly.
I saw this when I was an intern on the Excel team some 10 years ago -- the team leaders took pride in obsessing over what the competition was doing, and acting almost as if the company were going to go out of business in 3 months if they didn't.
If this applies to the marketing/legal departments too, that would explain a lot of MS's behavior.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
Microsoft *are* that car manufacturer, but they're just continually saying that it's the fault of the owner, for not reading the tiny warning label printed at the back of the battery tray, only visible when you get under the bonnet with a torch.
no, we bash ie because it's crap. the only reason it loads anything faster (or boots faster) is that it's always open and always running (unless you're using a mac). and it's simply not possible to use ie your whole life without getting spyware on your box. run ad-aware or spybot search & destroy. you'll be surprised exactly how much spyware is on your system.
while ie might load faster (because you can't get rid of it), it still doesn't have basic functionality that other browsers have. tabbed browsing? nope. not even w/ sp2 (that isn't out yet). popup blocking? 2.5 years after the fact. way to go ie.
and what "features and support" does ie have that mozilla doesn't? it's hard to beat open-source software on support, since it's a community effort to begin with...
bottom line - even with good browsing habits ie is still crap - as is all microsoft's products.
What would we ever do without these wonderful features?
More features? Like popup blocking, tabbed browsing, PNG support etc.? Or did you mean 'features' like standards-noncompliance? IE is years behind in terms of functionality.
What the crap have they been doing for the last THREE years? Playing Halo?
Check out some of these release dates:
6.0 --> 31-Dec-2001
6.0 SP1 --> 28-Aug-2002
I thought IE on the Mac was dead... judging by their release schedule, IE on the PC has been dead for years. Any other software company that waited *years* to release their next version of internet software (or an operating system, no less) would be dead in the water.
What really makes me mad is they drove other browsers into the ground during the war, only to sit on their haunches and enjoy the elimination of their competition. Thank goodness for Mozilla, or we'd all be in real trouble.
Get to work MS.
--J
Microsoft has been using this strategy for years, it's called "embrace and extend". Basically, when you have most of the market, if you leave in a few conspicuous bugs (e.g. rendering anomalies) or non-standard behaviour, but otherwise implement a powerful and popular standard, you achieve extended lock-in to your particular product. Everyone is forced to spend time adapting to you, and frequently don't bother with implementing for other users. That's why MS doesn't ever want to fully comply with standards. Because they can.
--A Polar bear is a Rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.
I've worked at Microsoft for 14 years and I have always felt like the underdog
"..but they paid me too much for doing too little which is why I have stayed here 14 years."
Maybe the road behind us looks easy, but at the time going it wasn't.
"It's going to be just as difficult in future."
I welcome the feedback today.
"...but I'm going to do nothing about it."
Getting informed is the only way I know to get better.
"I've really messed up in the past."
The day we don't get heated feedback I'll be concerned.
"..because that means our products work as they should and I'll be out of a job."
To defend Microsoft a little, they are not the only purveyors of corporate bullsh*t. But I get so annoyed that they think we, as the general public, cannot immediately see through this coverage of facts.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Probably because you are the only user of your computer. People with families may not be so lucky. Sure "I" know and use good browsing habits, but that doesn't mean my wife does (or even cares enough to try) or my children who forget everything you teach them as soon as they see something they like. IE is inherently unsafe for the average uneducated (and uneducatable) user. THAT is but one reason why so many people bash it. Thus, despite my attempts to protect myself, I am still forced to clean my system regularly because of the crap that gets installed whenever a family member has logged on.
notice how they kept side-stepping the questions about being W3C compliant!
Obviously if they were 100% compliant then web developers would stick to the standards, and any compliant browser would work and IE would start to lose market share.
Notice that his responses kept repeating the "needing to support current customer configs". What he really means is "ensuring continued customer lock-in to IE and Windows".
I bet they had PR coaches sitting right next to them the whole time the chat was going on.
Hilarious!
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Ok -- to calrify a bit more, since people don't read my other comments and assume WAY too much from all this.
I use IE. I also use FireFox. I also use Ad-Aware, SpyBot, PC-Cillin, and keep all of the above up to date. I block harmful ActiveX controls with SpyBot, pop-ups with the Google toolbar (well, IE now, after installing SP2 RC2), and just generally know what's "good" and "bad" online. Before you go around saying "OMG -- YOU WOULD HAVE LIKE28936 THINGS IN ADAWARE!!!!!!1111111", please take into consideration that I may be doing these things already. How many items do I find in Ad-Aware every day? About 3-4 -- all cookies. That's about it. So whine all you want, and say I'm stupid, but I promise you my computer is in wonderful shape.
Two freaks, no foes. It takes absolutely nothing to make some people angry.
I think it's a good development. For one, it means that not everyone will go over to firefox. I wouldn't want everyone on firefox, just as I don't want everyone on internet explorer. I want there to be some sort of balance.
I'm fine with a vast majority of people using IE once this service pack comes through for XP. If it does what they want it to, and they aren't putting themselves at risk, then I'm all for it.
My concern is for the users on legacy operating systems, who will never get an internet explorer update. They will still be vulnerable to exploitation. As they still comprise a surprising amount of internet users, this is some cause for concern. Any news on if Microsoft will be releasing the updates to IE as a standalone upgrade? Or are these things specific to the operating system?
The conspiratorial part of me wonders if Microsoft was planning this all along. To leave the browser abandoned so people get scared about security issues, and then release the fix for many security issues as a Windows XP only service pack.
"If the Content-type ProgID for a given file does not match the file extension ProgID, Internet Explorer in XP SP2 may take the following actions: 1) the user may be prompted to download the file and 2) the file will not be executed in the extension-handler if it fails to execute in the mime-handler."
I'm not so sure I like or agree with that one.
MIME types are there for a reason, so I can serve anyfile.anyext as text/html or image/jpeg. Or name.hubba as a Quicktime movie. I'd expect both to work, since that's what MIME types are for...
Extensions are a bad hack, and a relic from the DOS era. They should get rid of them instead of enforcing them (yeah, I know Mac OS X partially fell for extensions also, poor sods).
Regards Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
aint life cool?
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Part of the reason MS thinks of itself as an underdog is their inability to really innovate. They've never been first in any software category - they're good enough to be the last man standing, but that requires competence and persistence, not innovation.
Their marketing and sales force has the general public convinced they're brilliant innovators, but among their technical peers, they're behind the curve. We know it, they know it, and it gives them an inferiority complex a mile wide.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Do you get the feeling MS is really starting to sweat that they are simply out of ideas and finding fewer places to steal from since they strangled thier own market place?
It can steal your bank account passwords.
What more reason do you need?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This creates an environment on the web browser that makes it easy to include flaw after flaw, because the developers who work on it (while totally decent), are not really good enough to encourage quality coding from the get go in such a manner that would prevent these kinds of things from occuring. ActiveX, while nice, is bloated and has far too many problems, and it is unecessary and not cross-browser compatible, along with many of the other things in IE that make it so powerful.
The simple solution is to resimplify IE, and remodularize it in such a way that there are bug fixes released for downloadable modules, and not the browser itself. There should be a default browser that doesn't have all of the BS that would enable some user to take over your computer. By disabling this, it would remove millions in cost from the people of the world, simply by not allowing as many viruses to get pushed around.
Therefore, I believe that the solution for Microsoft is simplification. That simple step would make certain items on the web incompatible for a while, but I think that the only time a commercial venture really needs to use ActiveX is when it is dealing with some for of subscribing end user or when programming in intranet type application.
Of course, windows won't do this because they are interested in aesthetics and ease of use for the end user, which also creates ease of use for the people who write viruses as well.
Except it's still trivial to do a download counter with that method despite the IE change. Just have your PHP script start the binary stream or (if it's 3rd party) give a real redirect instead of outputting an html redirect page. I do it all the time on my website (cheap plug: OSWD.org).
I always thought it was an excuse for download.com or whatever to put another banner ad in your face. They give the mirror thing even when there's only one download source available. Download.com doesn't need to care about leeching because they're just a collection of links to 3rd party servers.
I wonder how many of these IE users are Opera users with Identify as MSIE 6.0 set. I just caught my self.....
I'd think that Opera would trick whatever is counting. Maybe someone else knows more.
Grrrrr... don't bother me, I'm thinking.
> When I drive my Subaru it doesn't pop-up ads for Ford.
When you drive your Subaru, the radio plays ads for Ford. And Chevy. And Kia, &c
> When I drink my Starbucks I don't get told that I could also be drinking Folgers.
When you go to the grociery store, you see House Blend next to #10 cans of Folgers.
> If your ignorant mother had a computer that had no web browser on it would she know a different way to get to the Internet, find an FTP site that has browsers for download, retrieve one, and install it?
Non-sequiter. Would anyone not familiar with the technology know how?
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
How often to people give heated feedback to, for example, Mozilla/Firefox? I personally find the browser to slow and clunky in many ways, which is why I use IE and a popup blocker (Google Toolbar) rather than Mozilla, for sheer speed.
Only 18 months ago Mozilla was considered a poster child for a failed free software project. It was ridiculed frequently on this forum for being slow, buggy, etc... Then along comes Firefox. How short the collective memory is! The Mozilla developers fought through it all. They deserve our highest esteeme.
an ill wind that blows no good
It's really hard to beleive that Microsoft would seriously listen to any criticism when they STILL deliberately send broken CSS to competing browers. Visiting MSJVM support info in Opera with Opera or Mozilla as the user-agent gets the "negative left margin" style. Choose IE as user-agent and it's fine.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Let's look at Microsoft's recent issues:
1) They want to save $1 billion.
2) IE is getting slated by everyone because Mozilla are better products
3) They are getting fined by the EU for bundling IE anticompetitively
4) IE 7 is going to be too little too late
5) IE is horrible at suporting standards
They could solve all the above issues overnight with one cheap, simple and blindingly obvious move...
Spend 5 minutes compiling a version of Mozilla with a little 'e' in the corner instead of an 'm', search and replace 'bookmark'/'favourite' . Simply feed the results into software update and sack the whole IE team, all problems solved.
Seriously, there is NO reason for them to write a browser anymore - it's not as if anyone is paying for IE nowadays.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
All of those moving div layer type of schemes basically rely on the javascript "setInterval" function to do their magic. If you have a proxy that can modify page content, set it up to change "setInterval" to something like "dontsetInterval" or some such thing. Break the code, in other words. The thing then stays offscreen because the code to move it onscreen never gets run.
There's very few occasions in which I want setInterval to actually work, and I just whitelist those when I happen to run across them.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
To see an example of this, go to http://www.tek-tips.com.
I remember this one, and it's annoying indeed!
If you use the Mozilla AdBlock extension, you can block the "http://www.tek-tips.com/jsource.js" that's responsible for this annoyance.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
It didn't appear for me until I reloaded the page with javascript turned on.
You just can't automatically redirect the user to that script. They have to click on the link to start the download. The page was clear about this if you actually bothered to read it. If the user clicks on the link then the browser assumes they wanted to download the file.
"The new behaviour will make it impossible to automatically pop up a file download dialog, rendering this type of download counter/anti-leech script usless."
If that were actually true (which it's not) it would break all web-based CVS/SVN repositories.
"Ever seen those "Your download should start in 5 seconds..." messages?"
All the sites have to do is tell the user to click the link instead of wait because the browser will block the automatic launching of the script.
If they want to force a delay they can use sessions to tell the script not to pass the file to the user until X amount of time and then use JavaScript to disable the link until X amount of time has passed. If a user disables JavaScript and clicks too soon, the file script can just show the user a "Your file isn't ready yet. If you had JavaScript enabled you'd know this." With a self referencing link and same JavaScript code set to however many seconds are left of the delay. The delay option is still there. It just has to be done differently.
Site owners can still count downloads if they want. They just have to use server side scripts only that don't interfer with the file being sent to the user.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
just becuase users are "too busy" to educate themselves?
Just exactly how much self-education do you think the general populace is capable of? Our (the U.S.) public education does a lousy job of teaching the masses the three R's, much less anything technical. How about this one, mister infinite-amount-of-time-on-my-hands -- Do you know by heart all of the local ordinances of your municipality? You are supposed to! After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? So, you better not be ignorant.
Sit back and chill, while I relate my little tale. I went to drop my boy off at kindergarten. I parked at the curb beside the school and escorted him in. As I returned to my truck, a janitor relayed a message from a cop that if I continued to park there, I would be ticketed! Now, bear in mind that I was legally parked (correct distance from the curb, no "no parking" signs anywhere, I wasn't in an intersection or crosswalk, etc. etc.) So, I went to the P.D. and asked some cops what the deal was. Guess what? Of three cops questioned, none knew for certain what I had done wrong. One said something about the street maybe being to narrow (it wasn't). Another said he thought there was some law about not parking at the curb of a school (there isn't). They suggested I go to the public library and read the book of local ordinances. I did that, and it turns out that I was in the right -- I was legally parked.
Things I learned:
1) Laws I wasn't aware existed, and where to find them.
2) The cops themselves DID NOT KNOW THE LAW! They are supposed to be trained in these matters, right? I mean, if they don't know the law, how can they ticket you for breaking it?
Now, It being the case that everyone is supposed to comply with the law, and that ignorance is no excuse for breaking it, we can conclude that everyone should be familiar with the regulations -- right? But, but, the book runs about 1000 pages! A personal copy costs a whopping $800, unless you photocopy it. There are only three copies in the city (of about 20,000 people) available for public viewing. Now do the math!
It is entirely UNREALISTIC to expect every member of society to inform themselves of the laws they are bound to obey, much less the web-browsing alternatives to IE. They are bounded by their level of reading comprehension, the amount of free time at their disposal, their level of mathematical ability, and their access to information itself. Get real.
Does your Web site contain files with file extensions that do not match their Content-Type?
If your site serves files that are handled by mime-handlers, the file extensions on those files should correspond to the same ProgID as the mime-handler. If the Content-type ProgID for a given file does not match the file extension ProgID, Internet Explorer in XP SP2 may take the following actions: 1) the user may be prompted to download the file and 2) the file will not be executed in the extension-handler if it fails to execute in the mime-handler.
You can correct these mismatches by changing the content-type to match the file extension. Be sure this is true for your Web pages as well.
Exception: This change does not affect cases where a "content-disposition=attachment" header is sent. In those cases, the file name or extension suggested by the server is considered final and is not changed based on Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) sniffing.
So my ohp script that generates svg, that won't work anymore?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
When on their days-old SP2 upgrade guide, they list tags like and . Hel-lo? Ever hear of XHTML? It's case-sensitive according to the standards. I can understand the cost of migrating existing systems, but for any new things not to be completely standards-compliant -- especially from the company who controls the browser market -- is appalling.
well, it is microsofts' responsibility afterall! well, not the part where the stoopid average joe doesnt update his stuff, cant blame good ol' bill for joe's misery. but yes definetley the part where people pay gobs of money to write something good and billy doesnt write good stuff. writing a GRAND "daddy" browser that is integrated with everything in the system, while there are doors and windows everywhere for everyone to come and peek is billy's fault. billy cant feign ignorance for that. surely he could have changed things as he proceeded with 95/me/2k/xp/2k3/..."longhorn" now ?
If you are not aware of it, Dean Edwards, from everything I've read, has been leading a fantastic project to fix a number of CSS issues with Internet Explorer and doing a fantastic job. His solution is accomplished via a script you include in your markup.
See the previous slashdot story: Making IE Standards Compliant for more information.
Above link redirects to the bathtub girl. I never saw her before - now I wish myself back in the good old days where I'd only heard about her
Check out my PHP Url Validator
My great hope
is that all the companies
(and government agencies)
who created IE-only sites
SUFFER HORRIBLY
when the world moves to SP2
.sigs are for post^Hers.
People just keep saying over and over that the users are just as much fault for not educating themselves. There is a reason why Slashdot users know about IE, Adaware, Linux and the new OS X system. We like learning about this stuff. Should I be accused of being lazy because I don't know how to cross-stitch? No, that just doesn't interest me and I could live out my life happily not knowing it. Many people feel that way about computers and we shouldn't call them lazy for not drilling into technical things when they really have no interest to do so. If I buy a PC from any store, I get Windows and IE...done deal. People should not be blamed for not knowing about Firefox, Safari and other options like that. It is up to a business to support the public interest of the business and since Mozilla is distributing Firefox free, don't expect advertising. Therefore it seems like the necessary advertising for Firefox is word-of-mouth and that seems to fall on users. Since Firefox's main users are techies, it's fate rests on us telling our mom's, not Microsoft. My mom is afraid of computers; she's not going to download Firefox any more than I'm going to learn how to stitch with her.
Thank you! Stop changing headers to show your browser as IE to view sites that won't allow it otherwise.
Those tools kick ass for web developers but using them to casually browse sites that trip on an alternate browser only compounds the problem.
The admins can't justify *not* catering to IE specifically when it holds 98% share. No matter how much he may want to. They've got suits to answer to and all those suits care about is reaching the most people. And as stated earlier, they likely think that "e" is the Internet as a whole.
.NET is the problem. This is M$ next attempt to control everything on the web. They couldn't get everyone to fall for the IE specific crap (tho lord knows enough did), this is next step. Everytime someone refuses to write to the .NET standard M$ loses a bit more control.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. If I purchased a DVD player that had bad wiring that could start a fire, would I be required to take it apart and solder myself? What if the DVD player were just defective? I still would not be required to fix it. The maker or a tech would do it at the makers expense. Liability for paid-for software should be no different. Note: paid-for software does not include closed sourced software that is free of charge. Basically, if you pay for a product, the maker of that product should be financially responsible to a certain extent.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Can't you just see Ballmer up on stage in red PJs and a blue cape that's way too long?
when Netscapes in this world appear
and break the laws that they should fear
and frighten all who see or hear
the cry goes up both far and near
for Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
What are you suggesting? Maybe that Microsoft engineers had not ought to look at other browsers? Should they move forward blindly? Or is it that you are afraid they will take something they see and make it better? Isn't that what makes any one product more salable than another, because they did the same thing better? Perhaps they should not release a security update? Would that make you feel better if they just didn't do it? Change can be hard, we all know that, to bad we will have to change a few things, I know how all of us hate to see change and progress in our industry, of course MS embodies that, that's why we hate them so much. I am glad we stopped fixing things and change in the linux world or linux would be just like MS and we would have to hate that too! Come on! Let's apply the same set of rules and standards of judgement to everyone.
I have to agree many end-users are dumb, but as a Computer Scientist we some times think too technical and less end-user. Many people that work for microsoft are very talented people. I am sorry to say it is the management within M$ that is the problem. Maybe it is a start with Service Pack 2 now but lets look at the end-user and standards many organizations put in place. IE for example is an abomination to web standerds not only it is seems to be completely unmantained as much as it should be but there are also many other problems wrong with IE. Back to the end-user (eg. my gf for example is not going to switch to fire or opera I tried!!! Sorry but people are used to it.) It is the responsibility of M$ to start getting on the ball with IE. On the other hand, I am happy with SP2 it will sting but that is how upgrades should be if they are good. Example I worked for 2 years in Networking and found that everytime we upgraded something would break if it was critical we would delay the upgrade to our production side of our networks and even then their can be problems. I am happy that m$ is seeing they have to balance end-user and security with this update ... may be there is some hope to see a standard compliant IE in the near future.
phew!!!
"listing everything that will be affected by the the updates to Internet Explorer in Service Pack 2. This will be particularly important to developers who use ActiveX controls, pop-up windows and file download counters in their websites..."
Like the trojan, spyware, and virus writers.
It is TOO LATE for MS to fix their browser, because they should have done this years ago before even starting to work on the hundreds of stupid little patches for so brutally specific hacks they almost had to be originated by the user itself. 3/4's of the world's largest web sites will now break with SP2, because anyone with an iota of web talent has learned to work around the shortcomings of current MS browsers. Just killing the ActiveX popup would have been more than enough to relieve 99% of users' woes.
I'm just pissed now that I'll be hacking HTML day and night when this thing hits prime time, because my breadwinner is on the line. I'd rather see all the ignoramuses flock to Mozilla Firefox, but since they're ignoramuses they probably never leave MSN unless their 12-year old script kiddie is present to create a bookmark for them. URLs are rocket science to the common luser.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Can ActiveX be made secure *AND* functional at the same time? I don't see how. Therefore, ActiveX does not contain vulnerabilities, it is one.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Well, I tried taking all the marketing spin out of that definition to make some sense of it, but when I was finished there was noting left.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
By default Windows has Automatic Updates turned on.
And this is the feature you are talking about.
They are going to your computer and updating it.
It may not work but it is there and if Microsoft improves it to the level where your computer updates itself prior to catching a worm (or removes a worm and updates) they complete what you are requesting here.
They definitely have intent to address it.