Slashdot Mirror
Netscape 8 Breaks IE XML
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has alerted users that Netscape's latest browser appears to break the XML rendering capabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Dave Massy, a senior programme manager for IE, warned users in a blog posting that after installing Netscape 8, IE will render XML files as a blank page, including XML files that have an XSLT transformation. What a week for Netscape 8.0; first the browser needed several fixes hours after its release, then it was discovered that without IE installed, Netscape 8.0 will not install, and now IE needs Netscape uninstalled to work."
I haven't tried out Netscape 8.0 (Firefox is fine with me for now), but what are some reasons people are switching to Netscape 8.0?
Does anyone have any stats on how many people are even using it? What are the website statistics showing?
To me this sounds like Netscape ran into a "too little, too late" situation with their newest iteration of their browser.
Back in the day, I was a big Netscape fan, and I waas really hoping that this new release would bring them back as a player, but enough is enough, guys. Three strikes, and you are OUT.
One more thing...
<zealot>
Firefox rules...IE sucks...let's fight!
</zealot>
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
*IE needs Netscape uninstalled to work.* /me runs out to install Netscape 8.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Or rather booo....
I'd love to know what kinda crap their QA department is getting right now.
-- Dave
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
Having a hard time. Who is evil here?
If I recall correctly, your submission came up as a blank screen...
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
You didn't spell it "senior programme manager" is all. How can the editors get wet over a story when you spell everything correctly? (Note to the people who think "programme" is the correct spelling - no, it's not. A "senior program manager" at Microsoft is an American job and deserves an American spelling.)
Microsoft couldn't have planned it better themselves...
Behold, another webcomic!
" then it was discovered that without IE installed, Netscape 8.0 will not install,"
WELL DUH. This is the Netscape with both Gecko and IE rendering engines. It needs both, but can only deliver Gecko they can't redistribute IE component so it has to come with the OS.
DUH! Why is this such a huge discovery?
I stopped using Netscape after AOL bought it! Kept using NS4.7 (and later IE), until Firefox appeared.
Repeat after me: Netscape, Is, Now, Just, A, Brand.
I think I'll just quietly install NS8 on all of my clients' boxes before they fix this 'feature'.
No need to tell them about it, though... Just leave them using Firefox.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
It's amazing how quickly everyone forgets the IE 4 chaos....
instance where an arbitrary and totally meaningless deadline for launch wrecked havoc on software.
Releasing Netscape based on Firefox 1.03 after 1.04 was available with important security fixes was completely idiotic if a key differentiator of Netscape is supposed to be superior security!
And then releasing an updated version within 24 hours based on 1.04 to show the world they could simply have delayed the initial launch by a day in the first place proved their mismanagement (any excuse about changing to 1.04 being complex and delaying the launch too much went out the window).
Now their bragging rights about being able to switch betweeen IE and Firefox rendering is damaged because they didn't test enough to find out if their product breaks existing functionality like displaying XML?
Not Netscape-specific but for software in general...Managers, get a clue, if you don't like deadlines given by engineers then remove features until they can provide timeframes that are acceptable. And you engineers that are too cowardly to say "No, that cannot be done by that time unless we eliminate/postpone some of the requirements" get some balls.
!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN :)
Well, you are part of that community. How would you react?
Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
the New netscape is owned by AOL, and really has nothign to do with Mozilla... that connection has long ago been severed.
I lot of folk in this thread seem not to realize that.
If it already is broken, do you *really* break it?
Apple built a platform for their ideas, Google built one for everyone's.
Lots of people seem to be down on NS, first because of the patches and now this. But AFAIK, they have the only mainstream browser with two rendering engines. Even though the version number is "8", this is really a spanking new product. Any truly innovative product is going to have growing pains. So far, none of these are fatal flaws that can't be fixed with a patch. Cool down and give 'em a chance.
I found it to be high praise for Firefox and damnation of IE that NS reverts to Firefox rendering when it considers a web-site to be even semi-suspect. Basically, they said IE is dangerous and Firefox is safe(r ).
You *could* screw up a *nix system with a bad installer, but it is harder to do for a couple of reasons:
1 -- you usually only need to run the installer as root if you are doing a system-wide installation. If it is just for you it is easier just to install it in your home folder. Personally, I do that fairly often. I have an updated version of whatever I was installing in my space and can fall back on the system-wide version if I foobar it somehow.
2 -- *nix apps are generally more self-contained than Windows apps. The fact that much of the configuration information for Windows programs resides in the registry is just asking for problems. For example:
If program A uses protocol X and program B does so also, installing B may change registry entries concerning protocol X so that they match its needs. Program A stops working with protocol X.
The *nix tradition of self-contained configuration files avoids the collisions that can arise in the registry.
So again, YES, it is possible for an installer to completely wreck a *nix box BUT it is much less likely.
Life is short: void the warranty.
I can already tell you the argument in that case:
Netscape breaks IE: They both use the same rendering engine. It was an honest mistake.
IE breaks Firefox: MS did it on purpose because they were losing marketshare.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Really, just looking at the Microsoft Fanboys referenced in that article.
"Internet Explorer (7?) is all I need."
"Honestly, the rubbish you [Microsoft] have to put up with... my heart goes out to you guys. Keep up the good work with IE7"
Yes, people, we are eulogising about software that hasn't even been released yet.
I thought the point with Netscape is that it is meant to be an IE-replacement - hence the render using IE engine feature. Whether it respects an obsolete, badly coded application it is designed to get rid of is kinda irrelevant.
Obviously, this is a bug that needs to be fixed, but let's not start burying Netscape yet. More competition is always good.
The article says:
...
...
I decided to install Netscape on a copy of Windows that did not have IE installed. From there I would see how Netscape ran.
But, but
Bill Gates testified in court, under oath, that IE was an integral part of Windows, and you can't have Windows without IE. Bill would never tell a lie, would he? Would he?
My world is shattered
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
At home I use Firefox.
However, the company I work for standarizes on Netscape and IE. Right now I'm using Netscape 7.2. We were all told very specifically to *not* install Netscape 8 because of all the problems it's been having. This is interesting because previously we had always been encouraged to use the latest version to test out the new features and make sure our web applications were compatable.
IE already renders a great number of XML pages as blank, without the help of Netscape.
Gentoo installs first in an isolated sandbox (a fake root) which prevents a malicious installation program destroying the system. When the installation program is complete, portage finds the files which were installed into the sandbox and copies them across to the real system, keeping a note of which files belong to the packages, so that they can easily be removed later.
So although the problem of installing packages without wrecking your system has been solved already.
Out of interest, how do other distros approach it?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
The best program I have ever used to customize my Windows installation is nLite.
You can completely remove IE and many other components and services.
Some features:
- Service Pack Integration
- Component Removal
- Unattended Setup
- Driver Integration
- Hotfixes Integration
- Tweaks
- Patches
- Bootable ISO creation
So far it supports Windows 2000, XP and 2003.
www.nliteos.com
From TF Blog:
"We currently have the following work around for people that are hitting this issue:
1. Uninstall Netscape 8
2. START->RUN
i. Type: regedit
ii. Hit ENTER
iii. Navigate to the following:
iv. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Plugins\Extension
v. Highlight and right-click the node titled "xml" and select delete.
vi. Restart Internet Explorer
{roman numerals my own}
I believe that the current workaround is to use Netscape.
"Tortured sentence structure," indeed. This from a person who (1) fails to realize that a poorly-written Slashdot post cannot be expected to be properly capitalized, and relies on capitalization in the story blurb to determine meaning, (2) incorrectly capitalizes "Job Title," and (3) writes "Which it isn't." as a sentence and paragraph to itself, after another purported sentence which is in fact a misplaced clause and before yet another that misspells "capitalization" (or is too British to receive any attention).
Yes, my sentence structure is indeed tortured. It's tortured by idiots like you who see fit to be pedantic without the requisite knowledge.
Slashdot is predominantly a news site located in, based from, and operated primarily by people residing in the United States. On the front page of any news source, it is always nice if the language used is consistent within that page. But at least it's not ABC News, where this story managed to discover a previously unknown word: Artical (see the caption under the photograph).
Is it the British spelling that makes Indian people impossible to understand when they speak, or is there some other factor there?
Yeah, install AIM these nowadays and your desktop and start menu get filled with all sorts of AOL cruft.
When "Elf" came out, AIM was pushing these horrible "LOUD" ads for it on the AIM client (I managed to block most of it by blocking access to their ad server).
I know AOLs hurting for money and trying madly to get some revenue, but they need to make sure they don't chase away potential clients with obnoxious behavior and poorly written software.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
I disagree. I use both Firefox and IE. Some sites work best in one, some work best in the other. I can't believe you think it's okay for the installation of a piece to break its rival software without alerting the user. Not cool. tk
Try this... I know it must happen on other sites, but I was "fortunate" to find this.
...there are problems with NS8, let's face it.
1) Navigate to http://www.ascd.org/ w/ Firefox. Move through the site via the dropdown DHTML menus. Works.
2) Navigate to http://www.ascd.org/ w/ IE. Move through the site via the dropdown DHTML menus (albeit drawn differently). Works.
3) Navigate to http://www.ascd.org/ w/ NS8. Note that IE engine is being used. Move through the site via the dropdown DHTML menus. Get caught in a recursive site-provided "Page Not Found" loop. Change engine to Firefox for site. Same issue.
I'm sure you'd say the same if installing Visual Studio rendered an old version of GCC unusable.
Actually, this is a well-known phenomenon among "independent" Windows software developers.
I have a number of friends who are working on high-quality audio and video apps. One of their ongoing problems is that, when installed on Windows, they tend to break. Usually this happens soon after someone runs Windows Media Player (WMP).
I remember reading reviews back when WMP first came out. After giving WMP a poor review, the reviewers would then comment on how, when they tried running their other higher-quality audio apps, they were all broken and had to be reinstalled. They would then work until something triggered WMP, and then they'd all be broken again. And WMP couldn't be fully uninstalled.
The story became clear when the news got out that Microsoft had a simple solution: License your audio/video app through Microsoft, and it would keep working.
That's right; WMP contains a search-and-destroy component that disables unapproved AV apps. To make your app work, you have to sign over most of the rights to Microsoft. They'll then put your app on their "approved" list, and they'll give you a royalty on the sales.
Anyway, I know a number of people who have become rather depressed when the import of all this gets through their thick skulls. They had this silly idea that they could write their own app and sell it on the Open Market. Hah.
I just tell them that their naive economic theory is still alive and well, if they write their apps for OSX or linux. Or Solaris, for that matter. But Microsoft owns Windows, and they control the software that runs on it. This doesn't alleviate their depression. But a few of them have become Mac and/or linux fans.
My wife had a collection of audio/video stuff on her Windows box. She was getting more and more frustrated by WMP breaking in and taking over, totally screwing things up. One day we installed a bunch of things on my Mac Powerbook, and I let her play with it for a few hours. She then went out and bought one. A few days later, she gave me her Windows box, which I turn on when I need to do some testing of web pages against IE. She shudders at the thought of ever using it again (though she has to use Windows at work, and knows it quite well).
Anyway, I'd consider NS screwing up IE to be merely payback for what MS does to independent software. Too bad there aren't any laws against this sort of thing. At least, there aren't any that can be used effectively against Microsoft.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Netscape: What happen ? ....
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Netscape: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You !!
Firefox: How are you gentlemen !!
Firefox: All your bugs are belong to us.
Firefox: You are on the way to destruction.
Netscape: What you say !!
Firefox: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Firefox: HA HA HA HA
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
I almost didn't reply, since so many others have, but scanning them I realised none of them have actually posted the right answer.
Yes, you can 'uninstall' IE but, that doesn't actually remove the core of the POS, just some of the outer fluff.
To actually get rid of it completely, you have to get 98lite, and install from scratch using 98lite. This way, you can actually avoid installing the IE components in the first place. This is the only way to the best of my knowledge to ever get a clean windows install.
If you ever install IE, you have to format and do a reinstall from scratch to get rid of it again.
Of course, a clean install does mean that a lot of very poorly written programs won't run, but in the grand scheme of things, that's an advantage.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Kinda reminds me of back in the day, when I was a lowly tech-support person at a small, "national" ISP (we used UUnet's POPs)...
We used to routinely--and by routinely, I mean that they constituted at least 75% of our calls--get a lot of people calling in with the same problem: they could dial into AOL just fine, but their computer couldn't successfully negotiate a connection with our (UUnet's) modems. It would just break down during the handshaking process and give one of several predictable errors.
Well, it turns out that whatever AOL was using in their specialized dial-up adapter broke the standard windows dial-up adapter. As soon as you nuked and reloaded the standard MS-provided Dial-Up Adapter from the Windows CD (a process I could still do in my sleep to this day, I've done it so many hundreds of times), those people could connect to our (UUnet's) POPs just fine. But guess what: if those people EVER dialed back into AOL--even if they just attempted to dial and then aborted the process--it would immediately re-break the standard MS-provided dial-up adapter and they'd soon be back on the phone with our tech support people.
Now fast forward to today, and who owns Netscape? Oh, that's right... it's AOL, so I guess this is just a more modern interpretation of their same old slimy tactics. What scumbags and/or incompetents they are.
Yeah, that can happen if you don't know how to program for Windows. Funnily enough, it doesn't much seem to happen to people who do, though. Which apps were these, again?
Personally, I've tried several of the usual suspects, including several versions of the dreaded WMP and RealPlayer. The closest they've got to fighting is associating file extensions with themselves rather than another app when they're installed and/or run. They're all pretty well-behaved in this regard now, and AFAIK the current versions of all the major packages at least prompt the user before changing these.
What specific problems did your friends' applications encounter?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.