Slashdot Mirror
Get Rid of Internet Explorer - Browse Happy!
Matt writes "BrowseHappy not only tells us why IE is unsafe, but also provides "switcher" stories of people that stopped using IE and switched to a safer browser. This campaign is not so much against IE, but for the use of safer and more user-friendly browsers."
please put all Firefox/Opera/Mozilla/etc stories below this line
____ _ _ _ ____________
but seriously you are preaching to the choir here, you think we (and our families/friends) dont know about Mozilla.org yet ?
Ugh,
Havent we talked about this enough allready?
YES IE SUXS!, and move on to mozilla, but the general public
A. Dont Care.
B. Not technically inclined enough to do it.
C. Think changing wont help any.
This campaign is not so much against IE, but for the use of safer and more user-friendly browsers.
So it's against IE.
Banu
This campaign is not so much against IE, but for the use of safer and more user-friendly browsers.
Yeah, right. This is rhetoric nonsense. Of course it's "against IE", if it's for the use of a better browser. If you're making a case for something, it - at the very least - implies that the item it's comparing it to is inferior in some way. Yes, this is a case against IE.
Don't say foolish things like this just to seem like you're not partial. You are. There's nothing wrong with being partial, when your partiality is based off of sound logical reasoning.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
browse happy quotes a bunch of articles, none of these articles really get into too much detail. As it is Firefox 0.9+ is pretty buggy, all of the bugs I have found thus far have been cosmetic and easily fixed, however if the obvious cosmetic bugs have left in, I am certain there are plenty of non-cosmetic exploitable issues in it.
I've always found the IE just works. I agree that the security issues are a problem but they are slowly getting worked out...
The anti-microsoftism here is tiring...
I use Windows because there's software that I can't run under Linux.
And I use Explorer because there are websites that don't render properly under anything else. Sure, it's bad design to create your website such that it only works under IE, but that's really not my concern; I just want the content and the pretty pictures.
My machine is secure. I'd sooner have an insecure browser than does what I need it to do than a secure browser than doesn't.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
I only use IE when I am *required* to do so, but there's the rub: there are too many things that do not work unless you use IE. The user agent switcher is nice, but it doesn't always work.
For irony's sake, I'll list the biggest offender (in so many ways) in my life: *IBM*'s Lotus Notes.
The headline gives the impression that this is about how to actually rid windows of IE (Possible in 9x/me, but doesn't seem to be in 2k/xp).
Which is why MS needs to take a few extra hours to write a stand alone app for windowsupdate instead of relying on IE and ActiveX. Then most people could leave IE installed and blocked by their firewall.
Do people wonder why we can't attract more women to Computer Science... ?
I'm certainly not going to share this with any women as long as the switching stories only feature guys. This hopefully a) wasn't done on purpose and b) is going to be changed really soon.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Does anyone recall what percent of slashdot page views are ie?
While yes hackers continue to find and exploit security holes in Explorer, let's not forget that holes would likely be found in Firefox et all as well, if the hackers decide to start concentrate on these other browsers once they have a large enough market share.
That may be true, but for the moment, IE is one of the biggest security holes you can use, so avoid it by all means.
If hackers find lots of security holes in Firefox, and the developers refuse to release a patch for 6 months, then fine... we'll have to switch again.
Look, folks, I've played the messenger part. I've done my part in telling others to try Mozilla. Done my evangelism with the pop-up blocking and the tabbed browsing. I've preached the security of not using IE and all its ugly security issues. I've even pointed to articles from official-ish proclamations asking people to use alternate browsers.
I've managed to switch a few people to Firefox, and that's good. However, there's the frustration of knowing there will be people out there who will not switch, not even know what a "Browser" is, and will definitely not be going to a web site, downloading an executable, and running it to install Firefox. Too intimidating, they'd say. Now what?
We've given them sufficient reason, and enough encouragement. There will be a LOT of people out there who will not bother installing a browser that didn't come with their machine. Though they'll happily install a Bonzi Buddy or Comet Cursor. How do we handle that great majority?
I love the Firefox, don't get me wrong. I'd love to see more people using it instead of IE. However, like any good soldier that's been out in the battlefield long enough, a morale boost would be nice on occasion...or at least more words of wisdom.
There was a /. article a few weeks ago about spoofing Firefox, which pointed to a demo. Sure enough, the script could turn off your title bar, status bar, etc. and looked quite real. Then the follow-ups pointed out where in the config to change things so that the spoof wouldn't work properly. Examples, proof, showing us instead of just claiming it's so.
Also, a hardware firewall will almost never protect you from a web-based trojan; you *requested* the data from the server to your PC, and any hardware firewall (not an IDS) that blocks that is failing to do its job.
Nothing is 100% fool-proof. You know the line: "if you make it fool-proof, the world will build a better fool."
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Every day I'll get at least one popup (which doesn't get blocked) that has to be shut down via task manager and not clicked on for fear of it having a booby trapped 'close button' that really installs something.
Firefox can't show browser windows without a caption. (unless you're running with Java enabled), and in that case it will show a Java frame. (which can't do much harm, and is possible in any java-supporting browser)
Firefox can't install anything other than XPI (which you need to give explicit permissions for).
Spyware/Adware already on your PC won't be magically removed by switching to another browser.
Your post sounds honest, but implausible.
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
I dont mean to sound like a jerk, but being someone that creates Server Browser Apps for a living, I am compelled to clarify a point.
.asp, .aspx, .cfm, .pl, .jsp or .php, the only thing that is ever sent to the browser is plain old HTML. The server pages are pages that may contain one or more programing languages, recieve and process data, and ussually interact with a database. All of this is done on the server side. Therefore, the server must be compatible with the technology used. But the output of the pages, that is the info that is passed to the browser, is always html.
.asp
It doesn't matter if the page is
The reason why many apps require Internet Explorer might be an Active X control. Active X controls run on the browser, on the client, and only in IE. Such controls are sometimes used to provide word procesing like text input capabilities in the browser, instead of plain boxes like the ones that slashdot uses to write comments.
No, you don't need IE to view
Yes, your programers were dumb enough to use non standard / non compliant client side coding or scripting.
Cheers
Adolfo
Why would this be a good thing? Imagine the nightmares web page designers would have to go through if they had to support two completely different non-standards-compliant browsers. We'd need to use several different browsers on a day-to-day basis just to view all the pages correctly.
Now, if firefox could gain a 30% market share while remaining standards compliant, that would be something good because it would destroy Microsoft's attempts to corrupt web languages. If 30% of people used firefox (or any non-IE browser, for that matter), designers would no longer be able to get away with IE-only webpages. And isn't that preferable to having firefox-only pages in addition to the IE ones?
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
I agree 100% on the issue with Mozilla profiles. Even on a small network the fact that Firefox stores its browser cache in the application data folder instead of local settings is a major pain when roaming profiles are brought into the picture. The default settings caused logging in and out of a machine to take at least five times longer than pre-Mozilla, not to mention the increased storage requirements that come with storing an extra 100MB or so of junk per user on the server, and that doesn't even take backups into account.
Thankfully, there is a "solution"... reducing the size of your cache to 5MB-10MB. While not spectacular for bandwidth savings and load time, at least this allows you to have a functional profile while maintaining some level of a browser cache.
that way they can make their tiny extensions or ignore some of the standards
FireFox is a branch of Mozilla, which descended from Netscape. You might remember some of their extensions such as Javascript, and plugins.
Fortunately most online consumers not use lynx.
My mother used to work in an art supply store. The owners would only order two of one certain pen per month. My mother would sell them with a couple of hours after they arrived and then turn several people a day away for the rest of the month.
When she went to the owners to ask them to order more they refused. You see, they checked their records and found that they only sold two per month.
KFG
Actually, Mozilla and Firefox will tell you when new versions come along.
However, your post is wrong in a much more profound way--arguing from perfection. Arguing from perfection is a form of a false dichotomy. This scheme presents two alternatives: perfection, and what the speaker wishes to railroad you into. Since perfection is never really available in anything, the only remaining option is the one the speaker wants to railroad you into.
No network program of the complexity you'll commonly use (like a web browser, chat client, or e-mail client) is "totally safe". That frame is a useless one with which to understand the problem. Far better to analyze it from the frame of providing everyone the freedom to share and modify the program so people can find problems, fix them (or make enhancements), and then help the rest of us by sharing their improved version of the program. This frame gives a realistic means to weigh which programs can be genuinely useful and which can be shown to be consistently bad.
Microsoft (being a corporation) has a profit motive behind working on MSIE. Thus once they have achieved market dominance there is little interest in improving the program further. Only competition will pressure them to improve the program, and then it will only be improved along lines that not determined by the users of the program. Users get no opportunity to determine what is valuable for the next release because corporations are not democratically run organizations and the software is not free for sharing and modification. This doesn't just apply to Microsoft, it applies to any other proprietary software. But we happen to be talking about this situation in the context of how Microsoft fails to address reasonable safety when web browsing.
Digital Citizen
The warning against IE went out in our office a few weeks ago and I've been trying my damndest to get my immediate co-workers to switch to Mozilla or Firefox. The majority of the technical people at the company have been using Moz for months or years now but my department, Client Services[1], are all addicted to IE.
Once our IT dept sent out the warning and urged everyone to use Mozilla for regular browsing I installed it on two of my three co-workers PC's (the third is dating our SysAdmin so it's his job to get her to switch) and offered to help them with anything having to do with Moz. The only thing they've asked me to do is uninstall it (which I won't do.) Whenever they use it they gripe about how it looks (well mostly about how they don't like the "godzilla" head) say it loads slowly and they don't have time to learn how to use it. Yet they still whine about pop-up ads, spyware etc... Whenever they start griping I chime in with "Ya know that's not a problem in Mozilla!" Their replies are always the same "We don't like that godzilla thing, it's got an ugly head, har har."
I even made them an offer: For one week use Mozilla exclusivly and I'll always stop whatever I'm doing to help with you any question you have, be it how to install a plugin, how to use tabs, how to block ads etc... and if you still don't like it better than IE I'll remove from your system. But you have to use it and take the time to learn it before I'll take your complaints about how it 'sucks' seriously.
The response I've gotten when the topic comes is that they stop bitching about IE and go back to closing pop-ups. My boss actually said to me "I don't like learning new things"
These are the type of people that will never, ever switch. They know enough to know that Mozilla and IE are different programs and they just refuse to give an alternative to what they already know any serious consideration. I fear these represent the vast majority of IE users.
Oh and the company I work for? We provide online, webbased training and learning management services to corporations, mostly for OSHA type regs and similar subjects that are well suited to the CBT format. About 80% of the company (those with technical or content creation roles) uses Mozilla or Firefox for most of their general browsing but the non-geek staff stubbornly use IE. If we can't convince our holdouts to switch, without forcing the issue by management fiat, I don't know that they ever will. *sigh*
[1] Not to be confused with customer service, we dont' deal with end users, we work at the corporate level.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
All right, a bunch of white guys talking about computer stuff. :P
I found that most bank websites work properly only in IE (of IE, FireFox, Mozilla, Opera). These fools are creating the dependency on MS that they tried to avoid in the 1990s. That was when Gates foolishly declared he wanted to toll every Internet transaction he could, as a new bizmodel. That's the banks' bizmodel, so they got spooked. Since MS has now crept between the banks and their customers, at the browser interface, how long before MS opens a bank to "compete with PayPal", and takes over the banking industry?
--
make install -not war
....to take over the corporate Windows browser.
If Firefox was available (from mozilla.org) in a Windows installer (.MSI) format and settings could be made using policies, you'd see a rapid increase in corporate desktops moving to Firefox.
Windows admins want to be able to install Firefox on ALL their desktops, with extensions pre-installed and the settings (optionally) controlled via system policies.
This should be goal #1 for 1.1 of Firefox and Thunderchicken. The brower is great. Now lets banish IE from the corporate Windows desktop. (Then the migrate to Linux will be that much easier)
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
Windows XP Service Pack 2 would take 15 hours or more to download on dial-up Internet access. During those 15 hours, your computer is vulnerable. Not everybody can afford the $800/mo T1 line that is the only broadband available in areas not serviced by cable or DSL. Is SP2 available from Microsoft on CD-ROM yet?
And what about those users who cannot upgrade to Windows XP yet, those who are still on Windows 98se or Windows 2000?
I couldn't care less if IE got better CSS support.
Until Microsoft quits cramming the whole damn browser into the HTML control so they can claim that IE is essential to the system (it wouldn't be, if they split the relatively safe 'html rendering' part from the 'internet access' and 'scary plugins and active content' parts), I don't care what they do with IE, it's a typhoid mary by design.
You're thinking about this the wrong way. Writers of open source software have their own agendas and sets of priorities, as does Bill Gates. In either case these agendas may or may not coincide with your particular wants and needs. The only way to be sure that your particular wants and needs are being met is to (a) code it yourself, (b) pay someone else to code it for you, or (c) suggest it as a feature and hope that someone else decides to code it because they like it. If you decide to go down this path, then Mozilla is your obvious choice (simply because IE is not an option).
If that kind of development work is not realistically possible for you (which it probably isn't -- not many have the required time and/or money), then you just have to make an informed choice between your available options: do you want the bundle of idiosyncrasies that is Mozilla, or the on-going security circus that is IE? It's entirely your call. Of course, if you have any complaints about your product, you should address them to Microsoft, since that's the product you're paying for. (Note: immediately prior suggestion exists purely to highlight the futility of said action.)
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
While yes hackers continue to find and exploit security holes in Explorer, let's not forget that holes would likely be found in Firefox et all as well, if the hackers decide to start concentrate on these other browsers once they have a large enough market share.
There is one gaping security hole, ahem, feature, that only IE has: ActiveX. Firefox will never have a vulnerability involving ActiveX or other proprietary Microsoft technologies because those technologies are proprietary and exclusive to IE. That is not to say that Firefox and other browsers are immune to security vulnerabilities, just that they have an inherent advantage.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Considering the number of complaints every time there's an article in this section, you'd think they'd change the color scheme. We shouldn't have to modify the url or go through other hacks to get a page it doesn't hurt to look at.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I remember one from when I started programming: "Nothing can be made fool-proof because fools are so ingenious."
I wish I knew who said that. Maybe I will look it up on Google some day.
But usually when Apache stumbles it's because of some plugin.
That's the difference. You can chose what to enable, and what to not enable, based on what you need, or what potential risks you wish to mitigate. PHP has had a number of problems, for example. So if you have no need for it, don't load it, and don't even install it.
The same can't alway be said about IIS.
except there does happen to be an extention that will run ActiveX on FireFox, it's highly recommended to leave it alone though because it adds lots of IE 'features'
In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
It has a lot to do with the way Firefox is constructed. Mozilla, Firefox, and IE have one thing in common aside from the fact that they're all web browsers. They are all deeply tied in to their application frameworks. With IE, it's tied to COM and ActiveX, some of the newer features I hear will be tied into .NET natively. Mozilla and Firefox are tied into XPCOM and Gecko Run Time.
That said, lets think about this practically for a minute. There are very few applications other than Mozilla Firefox, and a few niche applications for Linux I can think of that depend on the same gecko run time that Mozilla does in the same installation. So assuming a hacker could get in and screw up the Gecko run time or XPCom, how much damage could they really do? They could screw up the application framework, for a single user... possibly the whole system if the user is logged in as root or administrator, but it's not going to take down say... the Window manager your OS uses.
In contrast Internet Explorer uses components that are integrated so tightly with Windows and the application tools it uses, that if you screw those up bad enough, you can hobble, disable, or even kill the computer system the exploit is deployed in.
I think our friends at Microsoft could learn a thing or two from the way Mozilla is constructed, and it seems like they are from the new registry configuration scheme they've proposed for Longhorn. I don't know if it will make IE or Windows more secure, but it will keep guys like me working for many years to come.
This signature has Super Cow Powers