IE7 Leaked

also by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny

So has the first exploit been leaked too?

Re:also by mjh49746 · 2006-01-23 04:48 · Score: 0

Thought they were all exploits. Why else would people be calling it Internet Exploiter? Or is it Internet Exploder? Bah. I'll never get it right.
Re:also by AutopsyReport · 2006-01-23 04:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, hence the 5299th version. How many exploits can they go through before it's even released? :)

--
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Re:also by FidelCatsro · 2006-01-23 06:05 · Score: 4, Funny

I will get murdered for a variation of a Soviet Russia joke .. but here goes.
At Microsoft You leak IE
In rest of World , IE leaks (information about) You

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Re:also by luna69 · 2006-01-23 06:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

> So has the first exploit been leaked too?

More importantly, does anyone outside of the legal department in Redmond actually care that it's been leaked?

I mean, it might be good for a laugh before going back to real browsing in Opera and FF, but why in the world would anyone who is actually paying attention to browsers want to a) dwnload this, and b) actually install it?

--
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Re:also by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-23 06:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Dude - IE7 is so advanced, it is its own exploit! How's that for innovation?
Re:also by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 06:39 · Score: 1

I want to download and install it to see if it breaks anything important, before our users get it. Too bad we don't have an MSDN subscription.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:also by kevinkhaw · 2006-01-23 07:11 · Score: 2, Funny

And the FUNNY THING IS... the top right search bar for IE 7 is GOOGLE!.. go figure... :)
Re:also by websaber · 2006-01-23 07:33 · Score: 0, Redundant

It has already been leaked to the web http://www.mozilla.org/

--
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
Re:also by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 07:48 · Score: 1

That joke has already been made about 10^27 times in this post. Congratulations, you have officially beaten the horse enough to puree it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:also by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 08:12 · Score: 0

when reading slashdot, you laugh at the jokes
when posting to slashdot, the the jokes laugh at you!
Re:also by TIMxPx · 2006-01-23 08:49 · Score: 1

Internet Deplorer.

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
Re:also by LemonBug · 2006-01-23 13:37 · Score: 0

what a gay joke.

shocking by servo335 · 2006-01-23 04:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

Not realy kind of expected it.

Obligatory Troll... by TheRealMindChild · 2006-01-23 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know it's trolling, but considering the security of IE6 WHICH HAS BEEN OUT FOR YEARS, I don't think I will be standing in line to try this "beta".

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson

Re:Obligatory Troll... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course most of those security problems (with IE or Moz) required the user to do something stupid such as allow a malicious ActiveX install or go to a malicious website. That's still the case today.

Do you really not trust yourself that much?
Re:Obligatory Troll... by DigitlDud · 2006-01-23 05:04 · Score: 0, Troll

I've been using IE since 4.0 and I've never been owned by any security exploit. The insecurity of IE is all FUD.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by DigitlDud · 2006-01-23 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser. Not exactly indicative of insecure coding. Look at Firefox for comparison.

Most of the IE security holes are cross-site scripting BS and things that require stupid users to work properly. And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Ucklak · 2006-01-23 05:33 · Score: 1

Do you know that ActiveX is?

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by undeadly · 2006-01-23 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course most of those security problems (with IE or Moz) required the user to do something stupid such as allow a malicious ActiveX install or go to a malicious website. That's still the case today.
The whole point of using a web browser is to browse the web, and that seems to be forgotten when someone is talking about how stupid it is to browse malicious sites. How are you to determine that a site is malicious? Use Google and click on more links to unknown sites? However, a browser that you only can use to browse "safe" sites is basically non-functional.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by DigitlDud · 2006-01-23 05:37 · Score: 1

ActiveX controls are no more or less secure than Firefox plugins. Just don't install malicious shit.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:41 · Score: 0

How the hell can this be modded troll, when it could very well be a fact. I know that it is the case for me. I have never had a virus come in from IE. I get about as much spyware using IE as I do Firefox, so I don't see the big deal. Do you know how I have managed to maintain my virus free status? By not doing stupid things. I know that clicking banners that say I won a free xbox360 for being the 655463143rd visitor to a website is BS. I know to not install ActiveX unless I am 100% absolutly positive of the source.

So I ask again, How the hell is the parent a troll when the grandparent openly says it is a troll but it gets modded up. I'm sorry, I forgot, the grandparent bashed Microsoft, while the parent expressed a positive experience with Microsoft.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Ucklak · 2006-01-23 05:46 · Score: 1

True but the difference is that the only way a Firefox plugin can be installed is through user action. An ActiveX Control can automatically ask the end user (and thereby trick the user) on page load for installation permission which doesn't require user interaction.

Basically, on page load, ActiveX controls will ask you for installation - one click.
For Mozilla, you have to actively click the link which is basically a download the browser handles - not the donwload manager, give permission, then install.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Trevahaha · 2006-01-23 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative

I think it's actually somewhat "difficult" to install ActiveX anymore. Since their updates in SP2, you have to click on the information bar and explicity state that you want to install this ActiveX (and it gives you a warning about how it can be unsafe).

I mean, I'm the first one to admit that IE has been very crappy in the past... but IE6 SP2 (other than the damn rendering, of course, but there's hope for IE7)does a pretty good job of being secure.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:02 · Score: 0

Eh? What about the vulnerabilities, where just visiting a webpage is enough? Some major sites pull content from many sources (e.g., ads), and it is impossible to say that even major mainstream websites can't be hit by a sneaky coder out there.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by diegocgteleline.es · 2006-01-23 06:02 · Score: 1

This is a fake leak. AFAIK Microsoft has to release a "IE7 Beta 2" (a public beta, available for everybody). So this HAS to be a real beta version.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by dave420 · 2006-01-23 06:19 · Score: 0, Troll

I hear this all over the net. I've been using IE 6 since it was released, and I've yet to have spyware/adware on my machine or have my browser "hijacked", etc. I go on some hell-ass dodgy sites, too, and I've yet to come across anything untoward. It's almost as if the insecurity of IE has been blown out of all proportion...
Re:Obligatory Troll... by MioTheGreat · 2006-01-23 06:19 · Score: 1

If you haven't told it not to tell you what the information bar is, It'll tell you. (One click)
Click the bar (Two Clicks)
Click Install (Three Clicks)
It then asks if you'd like to install it. (Four Clicks)

Four clicks. It's not as insecure as it used to be.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by CyricZ · 2006-01-23 06:41 · Score: 1

What has most likely happened is that the Internet Explorer user just thinks he has not been exploited. But it has been happening, and happening for years. He's just unaware of that fact.

While it may not be trolling to suggest that Internet Explorer is secure, it is an incorrect opinion to hold. Experience shows that Internet Explorer is anything but secure.

--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.

This is such an ignorant statement. I hate seeing it, and I see it over and over again on slashdot.

First, it assumes that there are no local privilege escalation exploits. This is a poor assumption, especially on Windows, but really on any OS with privilege levels.

Second, it assumes that your personal data is not worth anything. Yours might not be, but mine is.

Third, it assumes that there isn't some way to muck with the system to get Administrator to run something when they log in. This is not a safe assumption either. Hell, there's still people running FAT32 on Windows XP. They have no protection.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Crazyscottie · 2006-01-23 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser.

Three documented buffer overflow problems. Keep in mind that Microsoft is well known for its lack of documentation in both bugs and operating system "features." Also remember that buffer overflows aren't the only kind of "non-stupid-user" vulnerability in any application (e.g. heap overflows).

And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.

Disregarding the fact that "irrelavent" is not an English word, how many Windows users do you know who actually run as a non-admin? I don't; I know I should, but it's a pain in the ass, and I consider myself knowledgeable enough to know how to prevent most issues and to fix any that should happen to come up as a result of vulnerabilities.

--
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by zerocool^ · 2006-01-23 06:52 · Score: 1

Someone sent me to a site to watch some movie the other day. I was thinking it was another one of those dumb college humor type sites. Anyway, they didn't have an option for downloading this movie, only embedded. So, whatever, I click. It says "You need to download the Firefox ActiveX Plugin to see this video".

I'm like, there's no way in HELL I'm doing that. But I wonder how many people have?

~W

--
sig?
Re:Obligatory Troll... by EraserMouseMan · 2006-01-23 07:18 · Score: 1

So instead of assuming that the parent is assuming why don't you just provide factual proof that he is?
Re:Obligatory Troll... by jesser · 2006-01-23 07:48 · Score: 1

Aren't your first and third points the same?

--
The shareholder is always right.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 07:50 · Score: 1

I just did. I suggest you reread my comment again. That very statement (exploits don't matter if you aren't running as superuser/administrator) implies one of two things: 1> That someone is a completely clueless idiot talking about things they know fuck-all about. 2> That someone is making the assumptions that I listed above, and probably some more. There is no middle ground, there is no third option besides that they trolling.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Obligatory Troll... by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 08:15 · Score: 1

Well, yes, technically they are. I should have listed #3 as an argument of #1 but it seemed more useful this way. By #1 I meant a direct privilege escalation hole. #2 is more of a bomb... But yes, tricking the administrator to run something later is technically a privilege escalation technique.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Bill+Dog · 2006-01-23 08:58 · Score: 1

Second, it assumes that your personal data is not worth anything.

True only if you run IE under the same account that you do your data-creating activities in. If you make a separate, additional non-admin account for IE to run under, then you only fear points 1 and 3.

And #3's not really valid because, if you're clueful enough to not run as non-admin, you're clueful enough not to run any new thing you find in your IE account's area that you can't identify.

--
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Re:Obligatory Troll... by infinityxi · 2006-01-23 09:26 · Score: 1

Stop being an idiot. This is just another case of anedoctal evidence to support something that has been documented for years. Take whatever side you may, but to call the insecurities of IE FUD is ignorant. This is not to say Firefox et al. do not have their share of exploits but I don't want to hear this "well I've been running software xyz and I never fell victim to virus abc.". Fact is nobody really cares how much of a model web user you are. You also might want to stop the "oh woe is me, people are biased against microsoft stance." It isn't impressing anyone.

--
Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
Re:Obligatory Troll... by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 09:32 · Score: 1

And #3's not really valid because, if you're clueful enough to not run as non-admin, you're clueful enough not to run any new thing you find in your IE account's area that you can't identify.

This isn't true at all. The reason they changed root's path to not include '.' by default is that people were sprinkling binaries/scripts around places root went (like /tmp) in the hopes that they would be run by accident. Notably, this is not how the path is handled on windows, and it doesn't matter if '.' is in your path or not.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Tim+C · 2006-01-23 10:23 · Score: 1

There's no technically about it; #3 is just a special case of #1, assuming you're thinking of the "run as" service.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by drinkypoo · 2006-01-23 10:36 · Score: 1

Now we come to the point where it is not safe to make assumptions, as I am not in the least talking about the Run As service, which doesn't fucking work anyway. If you spawn a process with Run As, then any processes in turn spawned by it are started with your user context by default, not the context of the process. Thus, any installer with a 16-bit loader (which is still many of them) cannot be run through Run As. THIS IS BY DESIGN, too, not a bug.

Anyway, back to topic. I'm talking about stuff like hiding binaries in directories which may be in the Administrator's path, or which they may visit, in an attempt to get them to run them. There are also other possibilities, like if there were areas in the registry that you could somehow get access to, that would cause Administrator to run programs at startup, for example if you could write to the section that handled filter drivers. (Or if their Profile dir were world-writable, you could add a shortcut to their startup group.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Obligatory Troll... by JebusIsLord · 2006-01-23 10:45 · Score: 1

Its not that IE has no exploits, but rather MS has, GENERALLY SPEAKING, fixed them before malicious code finds its way onto our machines. In the last 2-3 years anyhow, I'd say that an up-to-date Windows XP machine has been fairly secure. The primary problems have been patch deployment and customer education, but of which are mostly remedied by SP2.

Firefox has exploits too, but customer education has never been an issue, so firefox users tend to get patches on a timely basis and avoid problems.

--
Jeremy
Re:Obligatory Troll... by martinX · 2006-01-23 10:49 · Score: 1

Disregarding the fact that "irrelavent" is not an English word

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

--
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Re:Obligatory Troll... by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 11:30 · Score: 1

And this is why someone (please MS) should implement per process permissions, rather than per user. Cause, even if I'm running as limited, doesn't mean I want a new startup shortcut placed by some installer. I don't really want random programs writing or reading directories that have nothing to do with them.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Obligatory Troll... by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 11:33 · Score: 1

This is why VMWare's browser widget is so interesting, but for me it's so much simpler (and less resource intensive) to just run Opera behind a good proxomitron filterset.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Obligatory Troll... by cheaphomemadeacid · 2006-01-23 12:49 · Score: 0

Since when is upgrading your priveliges a problem in windows? (http://www.google.no/search?q=local+windows+site% 3Afrsirt.com) No wonder everyone runs as admin, there's hardly a difference...
Re:Obligatory Troll... by accidental_1 · 2006-01-23 13:06 · Score: 1

May be difficult to install but users still find a way. The real difficult part is removing one.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Trevahaha · 2006-01-23 13:42 · Score: 1

Not really... you go to Tools -> Internet Options... click on the Programs tab and then click on Manage Add-ons...

Find the control and click Disable.
To completely delete it from your system, just go to: C:\windows\Downloaded Program Files\
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Hosiah · 2006-01-23 14:36 · Score: 1

My first thought was "April first isn't for months now!", but no kidding, there really IS an active-X plugin for Mozilla. http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm Not that I'd touch it with a ten-foot, uh, really long thing...just because I run Linux doesn't make me reckless...
Re:Obligatory Troll... by DigitlDud · 2006-01-23 15:23 · Score: 1

Well, we run nearly 1000 WinXP lab machines as non-admin here that get used by thousands of users. None of them have ever ended up with spyware installing itself or anything. As administrators it's a pain in the ass to get a lot of software running but it's very possible to do.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Bill+Dog · 2006-01-23 15:40 · Score: 1

True for UNIX, but the typical Windows user doesn't exactly open a command prompt at "Temporary Internet Files" and "notepad ReadMeInNotepad!.txt". :-) They use the GUI shell. File type associations are stored in the registry, which is non-writable under a proper non-admin account. The system folders and Program Files dirs are non-writable under a non-admin account, so commands can't be replaced. About the only thing I can think of is that if you have say a shortcut to Notepad in the SendTo folder of your IE account, and you used that shortcut to say view something, it could have been replaced by a shortcut to a deposited EXE in that user account's area. (I log in as admin but run IE as a User, so my SendTo shortcuts are always the protected ones under the admin profile.)

--
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Re:Obligatory Troll... by typical · 2006-01-23 17:17 · Score: 1

I've found that Microsoft does provide pretty solid user documentation, contrary to what you are saying.

I agree that they do not provide much information about bugs compared to the Linux world (and they don't have "bugs", they have "issues" -- sigh).

Where they really fall down is on specs. POSIX has a spec. It was designed by people who knew what they were doing and were thinking hard about the future. Win32 has MSDN documentation, which is not a spec. It means that you can't easily "write to the spec" under Windows.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Myen · 2006-01-24 01:44 · Score: 1

Don't worry, that only works on Windows anyway (and only if your Firefox was compiled with MSVC - as mozilla.org binaries are - due to issues with C++).

Dunno if Wine would help though :)
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Myen · 2006-01-24 01:50 · Score: 1

[This is totally about the offtopicy Run As]

Strange, I run cmd.exe as admin to load sysinternal's regmon, which doesn't work in my normal account (because it won't be able to load the registry monitoring driver thingimabob in that case)... Same with the Add/Remove Programs thing in Control Panel (which I get to by running iexplore as admin then locating it there).

Just tried it, and both process explorer and task manager reported the child processes as belonging to administrator...

Windows XP SP2. Been like that in 2000 too IIRC.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Hosiah · 2006-01-24 03:32 · Score: 1

Don't worry, that only works on Windows anyway ...
Nothing is impossible when it comes to a MS f***-up. I once had a vase full of healthy flowers that withered and died next to a machine with Win98 installed. I take no chances. There are more things in heaven and earth than are explained in our technology.
Re:Obligatory Troll... by drinkypoo · 2006-01-24 05:00 · Score: 1

I, too, run XPSP2. The cmd.exe is probably different to everything else. Try starting an installshield installer stub with runas, something that has to be administrator to install (or just look at the process ownerships.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Obligatory Troll... by Myen · 2006-01-24 14:16 · Score: 1

Ah, it's probably MSI (Microsoft installer) based, and you've tried to launch setup first as normal before trying runas? msiexec.exe (the MS Installer service) doesn't like to quit, so if you run as a normal user first it'd stick around with the normal user privileges. I'm guessing the InstallShield setup is a stub that runs the MSI (probably with some parameters or something, since they tend to not like starting the MSI directly).

At least, I'm hoping your setup isn't using a 16-bit stub nowadays.. :p

I'm certain... by Billosaur · 2006-01-23 04:44 · Score: 5, Informative

...that IE7 leaks all right. Anyone want to place bets on how secure it is?

IE7 Screenshots

--
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network

Re:I'm certain... by Name+Anonymous · 2006-01-23 05:25 · Score: 1

that it also leaks memory. And leaks disk space.
So restarting the computer to clear up the leaked memory (unless exiting and restarting IE7 actually does that.)
And clean up routines to clear up the disk space (cache and cookies).
Re:I'm certain... by Slashdiddly · 2006-01-23 07:47 · Score: 1

Anyone want to place bets on how secure it is?

The screenshots look pretty secure to me...
Re:I'm certain... by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 11:39 · Score: 1

Well, the lack of a menu bar seems annoying to me. Or the placement of it beneath the search field. And I still don't buy the combined history w/ checkmark widget.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

Download a copy by overshoot · 2006-01-23 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Re:Download a copy by teksno · 2006-01-23 04:51 · Score: 1

lolz...

really though, with Microsoft's track record of browser security, why would you want to DL anything but a final relese. and even at that point, why would i want to DL IE...
Re:Download a copy by dantheman82 · 2006-01-23 05:33 · Score: 1

You know, this website is taking an awefully long time to load in Firefox. Even the browser is fighting the return to its IE overlord...

--
This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.
Re:Download a copy by ZeroExistenZ · 2006-01-23 06:15 · Score: 1

I believe you have mistaken identities.

Firefox is the new overlord having IE mimicking the new "cool and usable". IE is en effect being the snotty conceited wannabe guy who has no friends, going into identity crisis.

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Re:Download a copy by byolinux · 2006-01-23 06:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, don't download it from Mozilla, cause it's not-free software. The binaries are under an EULA, not the MPL or the GPL. Non-free artwork, too.

--
Join the Free Software Foundation
Re:Download a copy by AndersOSU · 2006-01-23 08:17 · Score: 1

So what your saying is that the snotty conceited wannabe guy is still insanely more popular than you, despite your attempts to tell the whole school that you're actually smarter, and therefore better?

I think the no-friends thing might be a denial of the reality

Additionally I believe that your entire post is a freudian slip belying some serious unresolved social issues

(Disclaimer: This post created in Firefox.)
Re:Download a copy by ZeroExistenZ · 2006-01-23 09:30 · Score: 1

I believe you are mistaken in your analys.

It doesn't mean it "sounds simular to psychology 101" it is what you think to read. It's just flattering you praise my ability to recognise psychological patterns and making an analogy as accurate it makes you suspect I speak out of experience or am writing from my subcontious.

There was no personal information in my post, but mostly it seems most slashdotters seem to relate best to "highschool dynamics" and analogies relating to that. I do not speak in terms of "smarter", "the whole school", cause I haven't been there in quite a while. I don't mirror myself to my "popularity" to define myself or to place myself into society (nor my intelligence, nor my education, nor my possesions).

As a matter of fact when you get into the "real world" (I'm assuming you're a highschool kid) popularity matters not. The results you deliver matter, your actions and how you take care of your family and people who have value in your life and not how "cool" people think you are.

You don't have to agree persé, people disagree, not everyone thinks the same. Doesn't mean the other has "unresolved social issues" when one doesn't share your views or misses the motivation of certain comments which imply IE-usage is down and decling. Exact percentages are impossible to show. Cause ofcourse windowsupdate will have a near 100% usage IE browsers.

Now, you say "You cannot neglect 80%" (as that seems to be your point). You cannot neglect that 20% goes out to actively download a browser when one is installed in the OS already, which caused IE to win the browserwars. In my view Microsoft is trying to stop people migrating away and implementing features which weren't planned to keep up.
So to you, Microsoft has remained its identity of "staying steady on front in a dominating position" when they sortof lost interest before?

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1

I think I speak for all when I say by Tibor+the+Hun · 2006-01-23 04:44 · Score: 2, Funny

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

--
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.

Re:I think I speak for all when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:13 · Score: 0

Vader, relax. Padme is still alive.
Re:I think I speak for all when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:14 · Score: 0

Not all. In Soviet Russia:

NYEEEEEEEEEET!

So? by mjh49746 · 2006-01-23 04:45 · Score: 0

You won't see me beating down the door just to get it early. I'd rather stick with Firefox.

Double meaning? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:45 · Score: 5, Funny

IE7 Leaked, as in memory? :]

Re:Double meaning? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

No it just leaked. When you install it, the computer leaks some liquid substance (yet to be identified) on the floor. Then shuts down and doesn't want to turn back on.
Re:Double meaning? by ZeroExistenZ · 2006-01-23 06:18 · Score: 1

When you install it, the computer leaks some liquid substance (yet to be identified) on the floor.

That would be Microsoft's new DRM solution.

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Re:Double meaning? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-06 03:42 · Score: 0

You won't be worrying much about memory leaks when you start to notice how many web pages it's breaking.

Has been available for some time. by THESuperShawn · 2006-01-23 04:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

IE7, almost every revision, has been available in Usenet for some time now.

Honestly, I really don't see how this is such a bad thing. It is not commercial (pay) software. By 'leaking' the browser, more people are using it/talking about it.

I don;t see where this is such a big deal.

--
Repant. Thy end is sheer.

Re:Has been available for some time. by mikeisme77 · 2006-01-23 04:52 · Score: 1

If it was any company other than Microsoft, which constantly releases crappy software, then they wouldn't want the early version leaked so as not to give it a bad reputation before it comes out--considering early versions always have major bugs in them that are supposed to/should be removed before the final release. However, some people may use a piece of software that isn't ready for release yet, try it out and run into one of those major bugs and then decide the software is crap and tell everybody they know (when the actual release comes out) about their experience and how crappy the product is. Again though, for Internet Explorer, it doesn't matter because everybody that would be in the techological know (and would know about the leak) would already know IE is crap, so any issues they find with it wouldn't effect their assessment of it being crap.

--
Read my blog posts on usability.
Re:Has been available for some time. by maxwell+demon · 2006-01-23 04:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe it is "leaked" intentionally by MS in order to keep the news on it going?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Has been available for some time. by poot_rootbeer · 2006-01-23 06:40 · Score: 1

Honestly, I really don't see how this is such a bad thing. It is not commercial (pay) software.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because Microsoft does not charge any money for Internet Explorer, that they should relinquish the right to choose who may have a copy of it and under what conditions?
Re:Has been available for some time. by G-funk · 2006-01-23 09:43 · Score: 1

I'm saying that since their software relies on developers creating content for it, that they're total fucking idiots for keeping it for MSDN users only.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Has been available for some time. by Drachemorder · 2006-01-23 10:22 · Score: 1

"By 'leaking' the browser, more people are using it/talking about it."
I would consider this a bad thing.
Re:Has been available for some time. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-23 10:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, but remember, Internet Explorer is an inseparable part of the foundations of Microsoft Windows (tm). So obviously, there couldn't be Internet Explorer 7 leaks for download, because that would break the very close ties between the Microsoft Windows (tm) core and the Internet Explorer family of technologies, which is a fundamental impossibility.

Either it's all a fraud, or you're distributing full copies of Windows, too. There's just no way Internet Explorer 7 could be made available separately. ...

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Has been available for some time. by mkosmo · 2006-01-23 11:29 · Score: 1

Im sure its not harmful to Microsoft. Its free advertisement. Im sure they may unintentionally cough cough leak some stuff to get the audiences pumped. If I were a company like them, I would leak older betas that didnt suck too bad in that effort.

Sweet! by Mayhem178 · 2006-01-23 04:46 · Score: 5, Funny

"Tabbed browsing" and "ability to delete browsing history"? This story must be a duped, because this browser was leaked to the public years ago. At the time, I think they called it "Firefox."

--

"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

Re:Sweet! by Virak · 2006-01-23 04:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, but this latest version finally adds the many security holes and rendering bugs that users have come to expect from their browsing experience.
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:02 · Score: 0

And it came years before firefox in the form of Opera
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:11 · Score: 0

Well well, what do you know! In the universe where I live, Opera just became a decent browser this summer. Before that, the DOM- and general JavaScript-support was less than useless, and I'm being nice. Before that, there was only one browser with decent DOM- and JavaScript-support, together with decent CSS-support.

Do you know the name of that browser, Operaboy?
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:13 · Score: 1, Funny

I think you misspelled "Opera"...
Re:Sweet! by Mayhem178 · 2006-01-23 05:16 · Score: 0

I just feel dirty if my browser doesn't get hijacked at least once a week. Nice to see M$ is on the ball. Come on, Mozilla.....can't you get with the times? The developers at Norton and McAfee need to make a living too!

--
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:37 · Score: 1, Informative

Everyone keeps pointing out the features being taken from Firefox.
I've used Opera for a long time with these fetures before I even heard of Firefox(perhaps since before Firefox was around?)
I use Firefox at work, but I much prefer Opera.

So, who was the first to start using tabbed browsing anyway?
Re:Sweet! by birge · 2006-01-23 05:41 · Score: 1

I see how you could make this mistake, but THIS browser will render pages correctly and load them in less than two minutes. But I agree they do appear very similar.
Re:Sweet! by Kesch · 2006-01-23 06:11 · Score: 2, Funny

OMG! Now I can use Windows Update and tabs at the same time! THE FUTURE is here.

I'm done. I'll go back to reading Slashdot with Firefox now.

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Re:Sweet! by Kesch · 2006-01-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Any users experience increased performance over similar browsers are asked to wait a few weeks until their machine becomes bogged down by malware and IE attempts to give you porn every time you click a button. You will then experience the familiar functionality you have come to love.

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Re:Sweet! by jonesy16 · 2006-01-23 06:40 · Score: 1

Oh the whit, how I envy you. Tabbed browsing was actually added to Mozilla in 2003, a full 3 years after it was added to Opera and a full 9 years after it's original debut in 1994 by Brooklink, Inc. (http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wa_browser_mult.h tm).
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:40 · Score: 0

Opera got its act together once they've released 7.54, although 7.23 was also a nice improvement. Feel free to check their release dates.

And I really don't mean to troll, but Opera *is* more CSS-compliant than Fx, especially since the 8.00 release. Not that it matters to me that much, as I'm a Fx user, but one must give props where props are due.

I'll be sure to evaluate Opera 9.0 when it comes out; I don't like 8.x that much (RTE comes to mind), but 9.0 should be a really, really neat browser. Presumably it'll even use less memory than Fx (I'm one of those people who suffer from Fx suddenly eating up 150+ MB of RAM).

And truth be told, I've noticed something weird when doing web development: if I design for Firefox/Gecko and check in IE, there'll be a dozen "Opera-specific quirks" creeping in (if I can call them that way, because I don't feel like reading W3C drafts and recommendations all the time to see who is wrong). I'm also bound to find half a dozen Safari+Konqueror quirks in the end. However, if I forget about Fx until the thing is done, it just flawlessly works in it... I've done three sites that way (designing "for Opera"), and got exactly 0 Fx rendering quirks and just 1 Safari quirk that was easily fixed with a couple of CSS tweaks.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong with my CSS, though, despite HTML+CSS validating properly, but I'm under the impression that designing with Gecko in mind, and disregarding everything else, tends to trigger a lot of Gecko-specific quirks, and other browsers actually render like they should.
Re:Sweet! by mikeisme77 · 2006-01-23 06:45 · Score: 1

Some things IE may render "correctly", but things like tables I've found that Firefox and other browsers (Konqueror, Safari, Opera, etc.) handle in a fairly consistent manner, whereas IE seems to break the formatting. And that's just basic HTML. My experience has been that the alternative browsers tend to follow the rules of HTML better than IE, which tends to break formatting--especially when comparing to what you see in a popular web page designer called Macromedia Dreamweaver.

--
Read my blog posts on usability.
Re:Sweet! by saskboy · 2006-01-23 06:56 · Score: 1

Actually back when it was leaked it was known as Pheonix, then Firebird, then Firefox. I'm still waiting for Mozilla Lightning Chicken, but the Firesomething extension will have to do for now.

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 07:01 · Score: 0

*cough* OPERA *cough*
Re:Sweet! by Mayhem178 · 2006-01-23 07:10 · Score: 0

You don't say? Wow, I had no idea that such a novel concept could have had precedent before even Firefox, since obviously my statement was all about tabbed browsing. Oh, no, there couldn't possibly be more to Firefox than tabbed browsing. That alone is what made it superior to IE, and now that the secret is out, Firefox is doomed! Nevermind the superior stability and rigorous adherence to W3C HTML/XML standards.....

Are you familiar with the term "facetious"?

--
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Re:Sweet! by freakmn · 2006-01-23 07:43 · Score: 2, Informative

I've found the ietab extension for Firefox to work fairly well. Windows Update has a tendency to take focus on occasion, but it's technically possible to do both. I'm curious to see if/how they fix the focus problem in IE7.

--
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
Re:Sweet! by WoodieR · 2006-01-23 08:16 · Score: 1

you know what they say about everything being repeated or " duped " around here ... and the other saying about all stories eventually being true ...

--
Question Authority before IT questions You ...
Re:Sweet! by LouisZepher · 2006-01-23 10:12 · Score: 1

This is why web designers everywhere should adhere to W3C standards, so pages will break in the non-compliant IE, and move... Gah, ya know, as I was typing this, it sounded good, but what would happen in place of a great Exodus from IE to elsewhere is that John and Jane Averageuser would simply not view a site that doesn't work in their "internet"... This is not to say that I don't advocate W3C standards, but the argument falls flat when applied to reality.
Re:Sweet! by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 11:43 · Score: 1

That's all right, I already don't view sites that don't work in my internet. I'm certainly not going to try it in IE, it defeats the whole thing.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Sweet! by lucas+teh+geek · 2006-01-24 03:50 · Score: 1

damn, did you just defend IE? i can't believe you did that, whats wrong with you?

--
TIAEAE!
Re:Sweet! by birge · 2006-01-24 07:13 · Score: 1

woah. let's not go crazy, here. i didn't defend ie so much as imply that firefox sucks, as well. but, yeah, if ie 7 comes out and it doesn't have too many security flaws relative to 6 (which shouldn't be hard) then i think i'll happily use it. for all the breathless rhetoric around here, i've never had a problem with 6, except for wishing it had tabs. i can't say the same for firefox, save the tabs.
seriously, people are here act as if somebody gets hit by a buffer overflow exploit every two minutes. do you know anybody who's ever been the victim of a serious ie exploit?
Re:Sweet! by lucas+teh+geek · 2006-01-24 13:28 · Score: 1

i take it you dont have to fix many friends PCs? there was a long period (before i considered firefox "ready" for the average user, and hence wasnt pushing friends to use it) where i could not visit someone without having to uninstall a crapload of adware/ie-toolbar/malware shit for them, shit they never wanted in the first place. perhaps you dont consider that a serious exploit; but personally, shit being installed without user intervention is a huge flaw in my opinion

--
TIAEAE!
Re:Sweet! by birge · 2006-01-24 13:46 · Score: 1

yeah, spyware is annoying as hell. but (a) it only happens when you don't know what you're doing and (b) it's not the end of the world, it's just annoying. rarely does spyware cause problems beyond nuisance, but i totally understand why you want your mother to use firefox. but presumably you're smart enough to use ie without getting spyware. personally, i'm a lot happier with ie, especially after sp2, since it just works better for me than firefox. what self-respecting geek would use a took that doesn't work as well just to satistfy some idealogical bent? people here are just going to have to deal with the fact that some well informed geeks actually prefer the evil ie over the morally pure firefox.

this has already been posted to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:46 · Score: 0

Re:this has already been posted to slashdot by baadger · 2006-01-23 06:24 · Score: 1

Finding a copy is not hard.

Interestingly though, the copy I downloaded is digitally signed by MS with a date of the 27th July 2005.
Re:this has already been posted to slashdot by baadger · 2006-01-23 06:28 · Score: 1

BTW, the files on filemirrors.com are build 5112, not the latest one shown jcxp.net (source of this article).

What if ... by iamjambon · 2006-01-23 04:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

someone released a browser and nobody came?

firefox has left the building!

Re:What if ... by Philip+K+Dickhead · 2006-01-23 05:52 · Score: 1

What if someone released a browser and nobody came?
With Slashdot front-page stories delcaring that "porn funded the creation of the Internet," I believe that the chances of someone releasing a browser, and nobody coming are distant - if not nil.

--
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

Browser stagnation? by xusr · 2006-01-23 04:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems that the web browser landscape has been pretty tranquil for quite some time. Firefox 1.5 and Safari 2.0 both seemed like fairly inconsequential updates. For Firefox, I want hot-key accessible favorites like I have in Safari. For Safari, I want type-ahead searching. The first to give me that will have my browser vote....at least for now.

Re:Browser stagnation? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:10 · Score: 0

There is a browser like that. It's called Opera.
Re:Browser stagnation? by rkcth · 2006-01-23 05:27 · Score: 1

Dude, how about SVG or canvas support, that is HUGE! (Both of which are features in Firefox 1.5).
Re:Browser stagnation? by Carewolf · 2006-01-23 05:53 · Score: 1

In Konqueror you just press / for type-ahead searching like you would in less or vi.
Re:Browser stagnation? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:02 · Score: 0

Apple invented the Canvas element with Safari.
Re:Browser stagnation? by warith · 2006-01-23 06:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

For Firefox, I want it to stop becoming ridiculously slow after intensive usage, and continue to use 140MB in the background after I close all of its windows...

Seriously, what's with the memory leak?
Re:Browser stagnation? by kwalker · 2006-01-23 06:09 · Score: 1

Hot-key accessible "favorites" (e.g. "bookmarks")? You mean like Ctrl-B (Command-B on Mac OS)? The cursor goes straight to the Search input and you can start typing. I never have to use my mouse to get around my Bookmarks list.

--
... And so it comes to this.
Re:Browser stagnation? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:15 · Score: 0

Pimp your Safari or try Opera's nicknamed bookmarks.
Re:Browser stagnation? by xusr · 2006-01-23 06:21 · Score: 1

Favorites, bookmarks.....take your pick. I am referring to Safari's automatic assignment of hot-keys to bookmarks in the Bookmarks Bar. For instance, Slashdot is the first bookmark in my bookmark bar; if I want to go to slashdot, command+1 takes me there. My local weather is the 5th entry: command+5 takes me there. I've become addicted to this as a way to navigate quickly through sites I visit every day. It would be better if Safari would let me assign these hot-keys to any bookmark, so I wouldn't have to use the bookmark bar at all, but that's just a personal preference.
Re:Browser stagnation? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:27 · Score: 1, Informative

If you are on Unix/Linux you need to kill the lingering firefox processes. There shouldn't be anything running after you close it. However, if you are on windows, is there a resident portion of firefox that speeds up launch times (like they do with OpenOffice.org)?

Also for memory use, Firefox isn't terrible. Using Solaris' pmap command, it is obvious that over half the reported memory consumption is system libraries (e.g., /usr/lib, /usr/openwin/lib, etc.). By my count, less than 50MB is the Firefox heap, stack, and Firefox-specific shared libraries. Of course, this still doesn't bode well for PCs with only 128MB of RAM or less, though, if any other applications are running.
Re:Browser stagnation? by zerocool^ · 2006-01-23 06:58 · Score: 1

I really do wish that firefox had more efficient code and didn't use 150MB of RAM pretty much all the time, but... to be honest, while it's not an ideal solution, a 1GB stick of DDR on pricewatch is about $50 right now. Load up while it's cheap (it usually is in Jan/Feb). Stick 2 or 3GB in your computer and you can probably get rid of the problems.

Admittedly, it's by throwing money at the problem, but unless you're willing to take the source and fix the memory hogging (I'm not), this is a cheap solution.

~W

--
sig?
Re:Browser stagnation? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 07:16 · Score: 0

For some reason, I think the memory hogging is related to the in-RAM browser cache. Don't kill it, I depend on it (200mb RAM cache, no disk cache makes for reasonably fast browsing without the campus administrator finding out where I browse (I also set Firefox not to save history).
Re:Browser stagnation? by sepluv · 2006-01-23 09:10 · Score: 1

Same in Firefox (since 0.1 I think).

--
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Re:Browser stagnation? by supachupa · 2006-01-23 10:39 · Score: 1

I shudder to think what you mean by "intensive usage".
Re:Browser stagnation? by Tim+C · 2006-01-23 11:25 · Score: 1

By my count, less than 50MB is the Firefox heap, stack, and Firefox-specific shared libraries.

Well, that's nice, but I regularly see FF's RAM usage go over the 150-200meg mark after a few hours of what I consider light usage. It's not all system libs...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Browser stagnation? by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 11:47 · Score: 1

Well, whenever Opera 9 comes out, I think it will be a consequential update for Opera users anyway. Sadly for the overall state of the browser market, it also seems to be mostly a "catch up" release, bringing some much missed features to Opera that have been in other browsers for some time.

On the other hand, there might well be some cool new features (beyond getting lots more SVG supported) that they won't mention till release.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Browser stagnation? by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 12:02 · Score: 1

IDK, I would think nicknames ought to be pretty close. ctrl-N for new page, sd, enter and boom, slashdot. Though I use Opera, so the shortcuts might be slightly different.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Browser stagnation? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-24 03:41 · Score: 0

And I want it to stop asking me to install flash.

Man, if I wanted Flash I'd have fucking installed it myself.
Re:Browser stagnation? by warith · 2006-01-26 04:39 · Score: 1

Is that some sort of attempt at a pr0n joke? ;P By "intensive usage" I mean having a dozen or so tabs open all day at work developing various websites and having stuff like phpMyAdmin, and Java/PHP docs open (and the occasional /. story ;). On a 3Ghz windows machine with a GB of RAM. Bread and butter stuff.

By "ridiculously slow" I mean it gets to the point where when you click on a tab, there is a 2 or 3 second delay before it switches. And something is not releasing resources because I can close the program and the process is invariably still running with 140MB+ until I End Task it.

I notice this behaviour on my home computer too, so I'm confident it's the browser and not the machine.

Linked article title appropriate by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:48 · Score: 5, Funny

The linked article is titled "Internet Explorer 7 leaks onto Internet".

Yeah, I can't think of a more apt analogy than Microsoft taking a big leak all over the internet. They've been pissing on us for years.

Re:Linked article title appropriate by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:56 · Score: 0

Wait until IE& takes a core dump!

Come back next Tuesday by digitaldc · 2006-01-23 04:48 · Score: 3, Funny

IE7 has been leaked according to pcpro.

Microsoft announced that a patch for this leak will be coming out the 2nd Tuesday of next month.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Come back next Tuesday by PhxBlue · 2006-01-23 07:24 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure you mean the second Tuesday of next week.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.

Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2006-01-23 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

IE7 can't possibly leak as much as Firefox. That browser is a memory pig! But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance"

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:58 · Score: 1, Interesting

No shit.

Every time my machine starts to bog I check the process and find Firefox eating about 70MB of memory.

it is fucking awful.

70MB to keep 3 tabs open. WTF is that all about.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Guysmiley777 · 2006-01-23 04:59 · Score: 0, Troll

To leak it would have to not return some RAM after the app is closed. I've not seen that behavior in Firefox at all.

--
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:08 · Score: 0

nice,

now simply reporting technical information is considered flamebait.

I guess slashdot has the motto of

If you don't have anythign nice to say, don't say anything. (and if you do we will call you a troll)
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Dan+Ost · 2006-01-23 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's not how I understand it. A memory leak is when a program doesn't release memory after it is done with it. This is especially bad if the program keeps allocating new memory without releasing/reusing old memory. This results in a program that gobbles up all your system memory.

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by LWATCDR · 2006-01-23 05:30 · Score: 1

"That's not how I understand it. A memory leak is when a program doesn't release memory after it is done with it."
Yes that is close to the right definition. Glibc should always deallocate the memory a program allocates on termination. That goes a long way to eleminate the "classic" memory leak of not deallocation all memory at termination.
Your right in that a program that constantly increases it's memory usage over time can be said to have a memory leak. Glibc will reuse memory if you free it.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by carlislematthew · 2006-01-23 05:31 · Score: 1

To leak it would have to not return some RAM after the app is closed. I've not seen that behavior in Firefox at all.
What you describe may be *one* kind of leak, but it's certainly an OS leak and nothing to do with Firefox. Once an application exits or is killed, all memory will be released by the OS.
The vast majority of what people understand to be memory leaks are the applications leaking memory while executing. Firefox may or may not have this kind of problem - I have never bothered to check.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by carlislematthew · 2006-01-23 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

IE7 can't possibly leak as much as Firefox. That browser is a memory pig! But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance"
Right now on my system Firefox is using 77MB of RAM, which is a pretty huge amount of memory! However, I'm not sure that's it's "leaking" as I am guessing that it is happily using all of it.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2006-01-23 05:45 · Score: 1

To leak it would have to not return some RAM after the app is closed. I've not seen that behavior in Firefox at all.

Nah. When an app exits, the OS reclaims all its resources. Leaked memory gets cleaned up with the rest of it. Memory leaks cause an app to grow bigger and bigger while it's running, but when it quits, it all gets cleaned up.

And yes, Firefox leaks.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by AuMatar · 2006-01-23 06:01 · Score: 4, Informative

That isn't the job of glibc, its the job of the OS. At program termination, the OS knows what memory an app used and simply marks those pages (in RAM and the pagefile) as unused.

glibc is in charge of memory during the running of the program. WHen you call new or malloc, it takes memory from a pool to satisfy the request. If it doesn't have enough, it requests additional pages from the OS. When you call delete or free, it takes that memory and puts it back in the pool. What I'm not sure is if glibc returns memory to the OS if the pool gets big enough. If it doesn't, the program isn't really leaking memory, but memory use will never go down.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by WWWWolf · 2006-01-23 06:16 · Score: 2, Informative

To leak it would have to not return some RAM after the app is closed. I've not seen that behavior in Firefox at all.

No, a memory leak is when an application allocates memory but doesn't free it when it's done with it. For example, load up a document from disk to memory, and when closing it, forgetting to deallocate the used memory.

All memory the application uses should be cleared by the operating system at the time the program is terminated. Otherwise, we'd be in a deeply sticky situation when some applications abruptly die for whatever reason...

Firefox has not been particularly awful at leaking memory; I've not looked at memory usage but around 1.0 series the thing was pretty slow when left open overnight... I restart Firefox every day and I'm happy with the operations =)
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by rbarreira · 2006-01-23 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Close your tabs and see if you still think the same way.

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by carlislematthew · 2006-01-23 06:38 · Score: 1

OK, I've been running Firefox for a few hours now and it's using about 92MB of RAM. I have a few Windows open and I imagine it's cached quite a bit of stuff in memory...
I opened about 10 new tabs and pointed each one to a major site (CNN, MSN, Yahoo, etc). Usage went up to about 110MB. I then closed all the tabs back down again.
I'm now back at 92MB.
I imagine its initially memory hunger is due to the memory caches for various things, that it subsequently reuses (i.e. NOT a leak). I highly doubt that Firefox has large memory leaks in it any more. A significant leak like you describe would be so obvious that it would get fixed quickly. I imagine that it still has rare and/or minor memory leaks that are harder to find and are reported less because they are not obvious to users.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by AeroIllini · 2006-01-23 06:42 · Score: 1

Right now on my system Firefox is using 77MB of RAM, which is a pretty huge amount of memory! However, I'm not sure that's it's "leaking" as I am guessing that it is happily using all of it.

You're right. Firefox keeps pages in your history in RAM so that clicking the "back" button is very fast. If a page has not expired, that page is not rerendered... it's right there in the RAM. Certain server-generated pages require redownloads every time (immediate expire) and Firefox respects that.

AFAIK, there is an option somewhere in Firefox that controls this behavior. The option to disable might only be available in 1.5 (I'm running 1.0.7 right now because that's the only version my workplace has available on my locked-down PC - I'm running 1.5 at home, of course, but don't have the preferences memorized). So if you feel that you want that RAM back, you can adjust the option.

This is a nice option to have, however, because it means that Firefox does not rerun any JavaScripts on a page if it's pulling it from the cache. IE rerenders the page from disk everytime you click "back", which tends to slow things down.

Opera pioneered this behavior (it's what made it one of the fastest feeling browsers around), but pretty much all the non-IE browsers can handle this now.

--
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by rbarreira · 2006-01-23 06:44 · Score: 1

Well, I'm using the latest firefox version - the other day I had only one or two tabs open, and it was at 172 MB of RAM!

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 07:05 · Score: 0

More than half of that RAM used is system-level shared libraries like GTK and libc (among others). That means if you have multiple apps open in GNOME, for example, those libraries are kept in memory once and used by all the running applications. Pinning down the true memory consumption can be tricky. Looking at the virtual memory numbers is usually more telling (i.e., total physical memory used + total swap used).
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by LWATCDR · 2006-01-23 07:15 · Score: 2

GLibc at least when I checked doesn't shrink it's memory pool. Yes you are correct about the OS vs Glibc. My bad.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by BuR4N · 2006-01-23 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

At least on Windows, people have a habit of opening the task manager , look at memory usage and go "OMG !!!!"

Whats really showing in task manager are the WORKING SET, and thats a poor way to tell how much memory an application has currently allocated and are using.

Look at "private bytes" instead, Working set is a soup of memory curently in use or free:d during the whole application life time (until its trimed by the OS).

Working set will continue to grow on a Windows machine until its trimed due to other process needing the memory.

So 77 MB in Working set, big deal, its perfectly normal for such an application to cycle trough that amount of memory.

--
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by X.25 · 2006-01-23 07:40 · Score: 1

IE7 can't possibly leak as much as Firefox. That browser is a memory pig! But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance"

Using AdBlock, aren't we?
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by jesser · 2006-01-23 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

What extensions are you using, if any? Sometimes leaks are due to extensions rather than Firefox itself.

--
The shareholder is always right.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 07:55 · Score: 0

This being so, why is it that Opera uses far less RAM than Firefox? And why is it that Firefox's memory usage will increase just sitting there doing nothing? Try leaving on Opera and Firefox overnight with the same tabs and you'll see what I mean, on Windows at least.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2006-01-23 09:01 · Score: 1

What's the story on AdBlock?

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by VGPowerlord · 2006-01-23 09:02 · Score: 1

When browsing sites that have a lot of images, I've noticed that Firefox gobbles memory up fairly quickly.
On Windows, I've managed to get Firefox up to 758MB of RAM before I shut it down. That's 3/4 of my real RAM used by a single non-computational-heavy application.
The site in question wasn't a porn site, it was Home of the Underdogs and their Hall of Belated Fame.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 09:02 · Score: 0

It's means "it is". Please stop using it incorrectly instead of "its".
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 09:47 · Score: 0

Memory is allocated by the kernel in pages, which are typically 4KB. libc (and malloc/free replacements; there are a lot of them) provide an additional layer of memory management to let programs allocate and free memory in smaller increments. This approach is very good for general memory use because it's pretty easy to manage. The problem is that a single allocated byte on a 4KB page will still keep that entire page in use. The other memory on that page can be reused by libc, of course, but it cannot be returned to the operating system unless libc moves the allocated byte onto another page. In C memory relocation would be so difficult as to be effectively impossible, though pointerless languages could, with significant work, do it. What I've just described is known generally as memory fragmentation.
An example might help explain how memory fragmentation can quickly become a serious problem. Say a program allocates a large number of small blocks of memory: say, 4096 blocks of 512 bytes each (2MB). This will occupy 512 pages. Then the program goes through and frees 3/4 of the blocks (leaving 512KB). Unfortunately, it is leaving every 4th block behind, so every single page still has one 512-byte block on it. Thus the program's RSS will not go down, since from the kernel's perspective the program is using exactly the same amount of memory. Now your program runs through and allocates a smaller number of large blocks, say 16 blocks of 8192 bytes each (128KB). Unfortunately, the largest free memory chunks present are 3.5KB, so they can't be used. libc has to allocate all new memory. And so your program's RSS will be 2176KB (2MB+128KB) even though your program thinks it's only using 640KB (512KB+128KB).
All programs suffer from this to a certain extent but certain use patterns make it much worse. Which is part of why most interpreted languages - i.e. those with a garbage collector - come with their own malloc/free replacements which ostensibly do a slightly better job.
There, more than you've ever wanted to know about memory allocation and why it's even harder to do right than you might've thought.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by bunratty · 2006-01-23 10:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Adblock leaks memory like a sieve and everyone blames the memory leaks on Firefox. The latest nightly supposedly fixes the problem.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by bmalia · 2006-01-23 10:30 · Score: 2, Funny

I suspect its the "Faster Fox" extension.

--
There's no place like ~/
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by lindi · 2006-01-23 11:51 · Score: 1

At least glibc-2.3.2.ds1/glibc-2.3.2/malloc/malloc.c says:

* For very large requests (>= 128KB by default), it relies on system
memory mapping facilities, if supported.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by miro+f · 2006-01-23 11:54 · Score: 1

I must be special because I never really have memory problems with firefox (1.5). it's currently using 40 MB with 4 tabs open (I barely ever close it, I usually hibernate this computer). Explorer is using 27MB and I haven't even got a single window open.

also, I never experience firefox crashing, or any of the other issues people seem to have with it (although it does take a while to start up).

--
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 12:05 · Score: 1

How much of that is memory cache? Fast back and forward require that, or else you get to see the noticable (though not really slow) rebuild from disk cache.

Or at least that's how Opera operates, and IIRC, FF 1.5 is supposed to be similar.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by tqft · 2006-01-23 16:27 · Score: 1

Have a look here:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=3714 80

Ben Goodger 20060122: Battling Firefox Bloat http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009620 .html
David Baron 20060114: Please file good memory leak bugs ! (bug 320915)
http://dbaron.org/log/2006-01#e20060114a
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32091 5

Helping is as easy as following the directions

--
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by typical · 2006-01-23 16:40 · Score: 1

To leak it would have to not return some RAM after the app is closed.

That would be a page leak in the kernel, and while this is not impossible (I remember some rather infamous Linux releases), it is certainly not what people are talking about when they say "leak memory". They're talking about not releasing used memory so that the application can use that memory for other things. (Theoretically, the application could release that memory for *other* applications to use, but since we don't do heap defragmentation these days, the application just reuses some and the rest gets shuffled off to virtual memory where it waits quietly until the application restarts.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 17:07 · Score: 0

If it wasn't firefoxes fault, how is it fixed in the latest nightly?
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by typical · 2006-01-23 17:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Heap defragmentation in languages with pointers kind of sucks, though. The classic Mac OS memory manager did this was *really* aimed at not wasting any memory -- it could move chunks of memory around and even free chunks of memory that you had marked as unimportant. It turned out to be really difficult to program bug-free software for something like this.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by bilgebag · 2006-01-24 00:48 · Score: 1

"That's 3/4 of my real RAM used by a single non-computational-heavy application"

Yes, but were you doing anything else with the rest of it? If not, why do you want more than 1/4 of the RAM you paid good money to buy, to be doing nothing? It's there to be used!
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by Guysmiley777 · 2006-01-24 03:26 · Score: 1

WTF, how is this a troll?? Kudos mods! /sarcasm

--
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by VGPowerlord · 2006-01-24 06:00 · Score: 1

"Yes, but were you doing anything else with the rest of it? If not, why do you want more than 1/4 of the RAM you paid good money to buy, to be doing nothing? It's there to be used!"
What makes you think that I wasn't using the rest of it? I didn't say that Firefox was the only program running, so it seems especially silly to assume that it was.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

big f-ing deal by crimethinker · 2006-01-23 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm trying to imagine why anyone in their right mind would want this. First off, it's IE, and therefore an excellent tool for spreading worms and viruses. Then consider that it is not a release version, and so will have many more bugs than a regular release of IE, many of them probably very exploitable.

I suppose you could say I'm trolling or trying to start a flamewar, but really, do you want MS's latest bit of bugware on your desktop? And who knows what some L337 HAX0R might have managed to graft into the code prior to making it available? Kind of like downloading warez - too risky for any but the most foolish ...

... which is exactly the demographic that IE still has tightly locked up.

-paul

--
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.

Re:big f-ing deal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:57 · Score: 0

Well, it probably does have a lot of exploits, but if you're one of only a handfull of using it people might not be targeting it yet. So if, for the sake of argument, it did have some great features that weren't found in a secure browser like firefox, I would think it might be safe for a while.
Re:big f-ing deal by B1ackDragon · 2006-01-23 04:59 · Score: 1

Well, somebody should at least run it and let us know which CSS bugs we should start learning work-arounds for :D

--
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
Re:big f-ing deal by Malc · 2006-01-23 05:23 · Score: 1

I won't use a leaked version, but I will download the next IE7 Beta from MSDN. Why? Our software uses embedded IE (MSHTML ActiveX control) and it needs to be tested in time before IE7 is released.
Re:big f-ing deal by seanvaandering · 2006-01-23 13:17 · Score: 1

but really, do you want MS's latest bit of bugware on your desktop?

No, but recently moving from Linux to Windows again (GASP!!!), because of compatibility problems that WINE wouldn't or couldn't address, Id have to say that because of forced updates, you can bet your bottom dollar that Microsoft will make this a required update. As well, for those desktops who have downloadable security updates on by default, all those desktops will wake up the next morning with IE 7 loaded and ready to go.

Don't think for a moment that it won't happen. Theres too many people who use computers that simply don't give a rats ass about security fix this and update that - thats for the geeks to clean up after they fuck it up.

pity.. by dotpavan · 2006-01-23 04:51 · Score: 2, Funny

that they could not secure even the release.. sigh!

Wow by Death_Born · 2006-01-23 04:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It's a technological marvel! A Google search bar, tabbed browsing, better security, and a phishing filter! Who would have thought of....wait a second, my browser has the same thing.....and it's called Firefox!

Leaked? by Comatose51 · 2006-01-23 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative

It's been available for some time now legally. I believe you have to be a member of MSDN. I'm using it right now on my work PC. It's like IE 6 with tabs and with some rough edges. The build I'm using doesn't add "http://" for you, which is a bit annoying but might not be a bad security precaution. Tabs pretty much work like FF.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.

Re:Leaked? by superdaver9999 · 2006-01-23 04:57 · Score: 2, Informative

What build are you using? I'm using 7.0.5112.0 on XP (legally from MSDN) and it adds "http://" for me.
Re:Leaked? by Comatose51 · 2006-01-23 05:06 · Score: 1

Weird. Exact same build. I just tried it again and it still doesn't work. Try like "google.com" and then hit enter.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
Re:Leaked? by sockonafish · 2006-01-23 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

The build I'm using doesn't add "http://" for you, which is a bit annoying but might not be a bad security precaution.

How could that be a good thing? It's entirely redundant to have to type in http:/// in a web browser. That's like being required to write MAIL: on every envelope you send out.
Re:Leaked? by dkh2 · 2006-01-23 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Standard ID behavior since 5.5. It will assume http:/// for .com sites but other TLDs get ignored. Thus, if you're looking for a .net, .edu, .cc, .uk, etc. you may be screwed by that 'feature.'

--
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Re:Leaked? by xappax · 2006-01-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Assuming that your browser is exclusively for displaying and navigating pages on the World Wide Web, then yes, the "http://" is redundant. However, as browsers (especially IE) are intergrated more and more into the general operating system, they are expanding to handle all sort of different protocols. Even some of the first browsers were capable of navigating FTP sites (a totally separate protocol), but they were displayed as hyperlinked pages, just like you'd see on the WWW. Difference was, you were using the FTP protocol, and probably wanted to know that. Another example is HTTPS - it looks the same to the user, but it's a different protocol, and one that the user definitely wants to have control and awareness of. Hell, you can even navigate your own local filesystem as a pseudo-web page by typing file:// in most browsers.

I think that most people have agreed that the web browser is a simple, non-threatening, intuitive computer interface, and I think it's good when that interface is expanded to handle different protocols.
Re:Leaked? by Zemplar · 2006-01-23 06:52 · Score: 1, Informative

"How could that be a good thing? It's entirely redundant to have to type in http:/// in a web browser. That's like being required to write MAIL: on every envelope you send out."

Insightful? Come on Moderators. The OP could have likened it to writing POP3 to send mail but typing http:/// is NOT a stupid idea. As another respondent already stated, HTTPS and FTP are also quite common.

If typing http:/// is too much to ask of idiotic users, perhaps we should just have a big green button users press and it takes them to a random site on the internet where they can just "shuffle" to where they need to go (thanks Apple). If its not the site you want, just keep shuffling through the billions of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP pages you desire.
Re:Leaked? by cloudmaster · 2006-01-23 07:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, that addition of http:/// is a big problem for me, too. Often I type in a gopher:// URL and forget to type the protocol part, and other "user friendly" browsers will direct me to a malicious http:/// site which I certainly didn't want to visit.
Re:Leaked? by Zathrus · 2006-01-23 08:12 · Score: 0

typing http:/// is NOT a stupid idea. As another respondent already stated, HTTPS and FTP are also quite common.

So what? That's hardly an excuse. If I go to www.google.com then the browser should be smart enough to open port 80 and connect. If the admin actually wanted it to be https, then they can redirect me easily enough. And if I connect to a site that starts with ftp then connecting to port 23 and prefixing the entire string with ftp:// is easy enough.

Having to type the URI is completely redundant for the vast majority of sites. It adds no security, and it annoys users.

If its not the site you want, just keep shuffling through the billions of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP pages you desire.

Yeah, because saying "www.google.com" is clearly equivalent to saying "just give me a completely random site". All because you left off the URI.
Re:Leaked? by archen · 2006-01-23 08:28 · Score: 1

Actually, you know what would be nicer is if there was a small button on the url bar (like the lock,and rss icons appear in firefox) that is a dropdown list of protocls that the browser supports. by default it has http:/// already there.

This would be especially handy for browsers like konqerer that support tons of stuff from http to sftp and soforth.
Re:Leaked? by TuringTest · 2006-01-23 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

If typing http:/// [http] is too much to ask of idiotic users, perhaps we should just have a big green button users press and it takes them to a random site on the internet where they can just "shuffle" to where they need to go

You could even label it "I'm feeling lucky"...

In a browser session, the protocol is an implementation detail, and implementation details should not be exposed to end users (unless you're browsing with lynx). Even if you want them exposed, they should be mapped to some kind of "channel" metaphor - and definitely the name of the protocol should NOT be typed every time, that's a waste of time.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Leaked? by Koatdus · 2006-01-23 08:38 · Score: 1

ssuming that your browser is exclusively for displaying and navigating pages on the World Wide Web, then yes, the "http://" is redundant.,

Not that I want to start a "my browser is better then your browser" pissing contest but one really nice thing about Konqueror is that you can type things like :

/
www.slashdot.org
http://slashdot.org/
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org
smb://(wifescomputer.lan)
sftp://secureworkserver.com

and KDE will understand what you are trying to do, choose the right connection type, and connect (using your kde wallet so you don't have to keep retyping passwords).

Even nicer, if you have more then one window open, (or have done shift control l to spit your window) you can drag back and forth between smb, sftp, /home/share etc.
This is handy.

--
Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
Re:Leaked? by Zemplar · 2006-01-23 09:31 · Score: 1

"Yeah, because saying "www.google.com" is clearly equivalent to saying "just give me a completely random site". All because you left off the URI."

What modern browser doesn't automatically direct you to "http://www" when supplied with only a domain name, thereby NOT requiring users to type the debated prefix?

My point is by making it completely transparent, the average user will not likely ever get any smarter and just bugger up matters worse down the road.
Re:Leaked? by damiam · 2006-01-23 09:41 · Score: 1

What modern browser doesn't automatically direct you to "http://www" when supplied with only a domain name, thereby NOT requiring users to type the debated prefix?
IE7, apparently.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Leaked? by a.d.trick · 2006-01-23 10:27 · Score: 1

not exactly, because web browsers have traditionally also been able to use other protocols like HTTPS, FTP and probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. Nevertheless, displaying the raw url can lead to homographic attacks sometimes.
Re:Leaked? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 11:28 · Score: 0

displaying the raw url can lead to homographic attacks sometimes.
Is that what they did to Matthew Shepherd?

Is IE7 an internet browser or a pop star? by timtimtim2000 · 2006-01-23 04:52 · Score: 1

The PC Pro article give me the impression that IE7 isnt microsoft internet browser...but that its some kind of pop star. How often do "Windows fans took matters into their own hands" to just get one glimmer of IE7. Lame.

Its been available period for some time. by tgd · 2006-01-23 04:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Its not a big deal, its been available to MSDN members for quite a while. I haven't updated this machine in a month or more and IE on here shows 7.0.5112.0 (Vista Beta 1 5112)

yippee by louden+obscure · 2006-01-23 04:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

i can't find an ie*.deb in unstable, so i got that goin' for me...

--
Serenity now, insanity later.

How can something publicly available be "leaked" by kimvette · 2006-01-23 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Last I checked, MSIE 7 is available via MSDN subscriptions, Action Pack subscriptions, and even Microsoft's own web site . It's not like anyone outside of M$ has not seen MSIE 7.0 already. So a single build got leaked a little early -- this is a) nothing unusual and b) not anything significantly different from what was previously made available through legitimate. This strikes me as: "Oh boy, screenshots of a beta everyone has been able to download for months. Oh wait, this is DIFFERENT because the build number in help-> about is different."

Now if the SOURCE were leaked, that would actually be something newsworthy.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by dysk · 2006-01-23 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry, I know I'll get flamed for that, but I've been hit with a barrage of "IE 7 is/will be better than Firefox" emails lately here at my Microsoft co-dependent workplace.

Maybe it will be. Microsoft isn't incapable of writing bad software, they just usually have no competition so there's no incentive for them to do so.

Wow! by Tezkah · 2006-01-23 04:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Wow! People were right, they really changed the branding of IE6, and man is it full of bugs! Look at how much RAM it uses!

Maybe you should check out IE8.5, you can get it here.

Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 04:58 · Score: 0

Wow, they really screwed up the interface, and the javascript support kinda sucks. I can't use this to test my advanced apps anymore!
Re:Wow! by Milton+Waddams · 2006-01-23 07:16 · Score: 1

Maybe you should just go straight to 9.0 although this new version is so advanced that it only runs on the latest version of Vista.
Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 09:33 · Score: 0

Why bother with 9.0 when 9.1 is already available, and a preview version of 9.2 just came out.
Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 09:54 · Score: 0

Wow, now that is the sittiest version of IE ever! I know Microsoft isn't one for GUIs and usability, but how on earth did they manage to make things EVEN worse?

Might as well go back to IE6 if that is the best Microsoft can offer.

Yay, Slashdot! by BarryNorton · 2006-01-23 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Where there's no irony to berating Microsoft for copying Firefox features in Internet Explorer, nor talking about security flaws in Internet Explorer while praising Firefox.

Grow up!

Yes, Firefox is my default browser too... but I try not to let that make me a hypocrite!

Re:Yay, Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:15 · Score: 0

IE7 copies Mozilla/FireFox - BUT, FireFox and Mozilla copied tons of features from Opera!

Now, that?

That is ironic!

FireFox folks trying to claim features like tabbed browsing as original on their browser of choice's end, when they stole tabbed browsing and yes other features from Opera!
Re:Yay, Slashdot! by BarryNorton · 2006-01-23 05:24 · Score: 1

It's the software patents mindset, and we really need to grow out of it.

It's not even new - for aeons it's been common knowledge that naive Mac folks saying WIMP was stolen by Microsoft is ridiculous (both because they weren't the originators themselves, and because they gladly adopted refinements from Microsoft, as in this case), but still we make the mistake over and over...
Re:Yay, Slashdot! by Salsaman · 2006-01-23 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would it be ironic ? Microsoft with all it's billions SHOULD be leading the pack, not playing catch up to other browsers.

And as regards security, IE is widely know to be the most insecure browser. It should be the most secure, considering all the resources Microsoft has available to throw at it, and considering the relative length of time it's been in development.

I don't get your point.
Re:Yay, Slashdot! by jonesy16 · 2006-01-23 06:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I think what you meant to write is "IE is widely known", which leads to it being an insecure browser. Who's going to work on an exploit for Firefox/Mozilla/Opera in hopes of attacking the sub 10% of the population actually using those. Just because exploits haven't been found / published doesn't mean that Firefox is any more secure than IE.

More so, no matter how many resources Microsoft has to throw at the problem, society is so messed up that there will always be more people out there trying to infect/corrupt/destroy grandma's computer. The real question you should be asking is, "Why do we need a secure browser?" Because the answer is terrifying.
Re:Yay, Slashdot! by CyricZ · 2006-01-23 06:51 · Score: 0, Troll

In the end, Microsoft and Firefox are still drawing features from the truly cutting-edge browsers like Konqueror and Opera.

Indeed, that is because Konqueror and Opera do not have the marketshare of the other browsers. They can afford to implement and test out new functionality on a whim, whereas IE and Firefox often cannot.

In the end, that's perhaps the most beneficial way to do things. Innovative developments such as tabbed browsing, for instance, are conceived and pioneered by Opera and Konqueror. Then Firefox and IE copy, bringing the use of such features to the general public.

--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Re:Yay, Slashdot! by BarryNorton · 2006-01-23 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft with all it's billions SHOULD be leading the pack, not playing catch up to other browsers
Yes, just like you go to McDonald's for varied and experimental cuisine, and to small independent restaurants for a bog standard burger...
Re:Yay, Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 10:13 · Score: 0

I fail to see how this is a "Troll" comment. Yes, Opera was the first browser with tabs. Firefox copied it. Period. Long live the META-moderators.

Re:How can something publicly available be "leaked by kimvette · 2006-01-23 04:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Hmm, jumped the gun, now that I RTFA again. It seems this "leaked" build includes page zooming, where released builds do not, plus a couple of toolbar icons have been updated to be more flashy. Sorry, my bad. This is definitely earth-shattering news that will change our computing world.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by Musteval · 2006-01-23 04:58 · Score: 1

Microsoft isn't incapable of writing bad software

They've proven that time and again.

--
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.

Leaked? by blake3737 · 2006-01-23 05:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Whats so new about that? I hear the previous version leaks too.

I'm surprised as hell by zappepcs · 2006-01-23 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm surprised as hell that anyone would download a 'leaked' copy of IE 7.xx no matter how secure it is supposed to be when released. First, there is the problem of being a beta tester when you don't want to be, and SECOND, there is the problem that it might contain DRM that is equally bad or worse than the Sony 'rootkit' DRM.

AFAIK, 'leaked' software doesn't come with warnings, EULAs, and any other such agreements. I'm willing to bet that 'leaked' or copy-able software in the future will have DRM all over it. That is to say that license keys in the future, if not so already, will have a dual purpose of enabling use of the application AND disabling 'rootkit' type DRM/Spyware easter eggs in the application(s).

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People

5299 is an early build by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:01 · Score: 0

I'd wait for build 31000 to be safe.

Bad Analogy Guy by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2006-01-23 05:01 · Score: 1

Yes, well, to be technically correct at Slashdot is a rare behavior as well! But you're right, I should have left this to Bad Analogy Guy.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Triple meaning by zlogic · 2006-01-23 05:02 · Score: 2, Funny

IE 7 leaked as in sewage pipes :P

Leak? Water broken? by moria · 2006-01-23 05:02 · Score: 3, Funny

So MSFT's water is broken, and the IE7 will be born soon? I guess it is still at the contraction stage.

Re:Leak? Water broken? by Vexler · 2006-01-23 05:05 · Score: 1

No. Think "leaked" as in:

* "compromised"
* "breached"
* "hacked"
* "0wned"

Windows fans? by stunt_penguin · 2006-01-23 05:03 · Score: 2, Funny

"some Windows fans took matters into their own hands when"

Windows having fans? I believe the term is microsoft employees and fanboys

--
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.

Re:Windows fans? by digitaldc · 2006-01-23 06:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Windows having fans?

That's what you get when you simply can't afford the high cost of air conditioning.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Re:Windows fans? by Danimoth · 2006-01-23 08:01 · Score: 1

They were clearly refering to the heatsink fans, which I'm sure prompty shut down upon hearing Microsoft was still releasing software.

--
No smoking sigs indoors.

it was leaked on friday by madnuke · 2006-01-23 05:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Wow it sure does take long for news to filter through, I would stay clear of it though as I nearly had to reformat as it broke AVG and numerous other things. Even when its released I will stick with firefox.

So does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:04 · Score: 0

the World's first negative-day exploit?

Re:So does this mean... by FidelCatsro · 2006-01-23 07:31 · Score: 1

Well with that WMF exploit which has been in windows since 3.0(I believe) , so XP SP 2 had a negative decade exploit

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though

This browser is important by alnya · 2006-01-23 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everyone seems to be making "isn't this firefox" jokes, and yes, some of the features are rather familiar, but this browser is important.

In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share. This browser will be the majority's portal onto the web.
Web developers should care about this browser - how your pages look on it, what CSS version (or subset) it supports. Security experts should care about this browser - what security issues does it throw up, what 'helpful' workarounds does it impliment for Phishing and the like.

I'm sorry, and you may not like, but this browser will be the standard.

Re:This browser is important by pe1chl · 2006-01-23 05:13 · Score: 1

How will that happen? As of now, Windows XP (a prerequisite for this browser) does not even have 60% market share in our website logs...

I agree it will be important to test websites in this new browser; that is why I don't understand why they limit their betas to Microsoft developers.
I would like to check that our company website looks OK in MSIE 7 (it renders OK in a standards-compliant browser and has special workarounds for MSIE 5 and 6 bugs). But I am not a Microsoft developer. How do I get a test version?
Re:This browser is important by mykdavies · 2006-01-23 05:31 · Score: 1

In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share.

I wouldn't bet on it, W3Schools' stats show that they're seeing IE having the lowest share of their traffic for over THREE YEARS - it's been dropping for the past five months.

(Quite where Safari goes in their figures, I'm not sure...)

--
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
Re:This browser is important by westlake · 2006-01-23 05:41 · Score: 1

As of now, Windows XP (a prerequisite for this browser) does not even have 60% market share in our website logs...
That tells us absolutely nothing useful unless we know your target audience.
Re:This browser is important by Kjella · 2006-01-23 05:43 · Score: 1

In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share.

So given that 10%+ use firefox, a few percent use other browsers for a total of 15%, you expect a conversion rate of 70/85 = 80-85% within a year? Maybe if they called it an "extremely critical security patch", and even then I say maybe. Most people are not like you and me, they don't upgrade their computer much at all. They'll happily stick with IE6 for years unless they get pushed to do otherwise.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:This browser is important by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-01-23 05:46 · Score: 1

"In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share."

I would think not. Those who bothered switching use Firefox/Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror/etc. Those who don't - well some of them still use IE5 for god's sake! 70% is ludicrous. It'll have probably 30-40% tops.

"Web developers should care about this browser - how your pages look on it, what CSS version (or subset) it supports."

Web developers should only care about w3c specs in implementing their website. Oh you mean this isn't an ideal world? Then you should have used a more precise wording of what you mean. I'll say that web developers will probably have to care how IE7 renders stuff, but that doesn't mean they should. Personally I can allow myself to code XHTML 1.1 and not care about IE - the best would be if everyone could do that.

"I'm sorry, and you may not like, but this browser will be the standard."

That's a pretty bold statement. Probably not going to be true.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:This browser is important by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:49 · Score: 0

"Everyone seems to be making "isn't this firefox" jokes, and yes, some of the features are rather familiar, but this browser is important. In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser arket share. This browser will be the majority's portal onto the web. Web developers should care about this browser - how your pages look on it, what CSS version (or subset) it supports. Security experts should care about this browser - what security issues does it throw up, what 'helpful' workarounds does it impliment for Phishing and the like.

I'm sorry, and you may not like, but this browser will be the standard." - by alnya (513364) on Monday January 23, @12:04PM

* :)

I'm going to agree with you & especially on the closing line and because of ASP & ASP.NET applications (even Active Document types used on Intranets) - this is a strength of IE (in whatever build) that others here fail to expound upon.

IE excels in business environs for developers.

(What made me laugh the most here though, was the FireFox/Mozilla users here think that features like tabbed browsing were in their browser first... No, no... they were in Opera first, and many other features which the Mozilla/FireFox folks stole from them!)
Re:This browser is important by calgaryjer · 2006-01-23 05:54 · Score: 1

Actually >70% of CORPORATE OFFICES here in Calgary use IE, not Firefox despite recommendations by web developers. Almost every person I've spoken to in this City regarding web design, is that sites/applications are designed FIRST for IE, and for the rest later. Sorry to say.

--
Sig Nature
Re:This browser is important by aralin · 2006-01-23 05:56 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, and you may not like, but this browser will be the standard.
This browser might have 70% market share within a year, but it is still not going to make it 'standard'. The fact that people treat whatever IE can do as a standard is a problem. We have perfectly usable standards defined by the W3C, thank you very much. The word you are looking for is prevalent.

--
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Re:This browser is important by Toby_Tyke · 2006-01-23 06:24 · Score: 1

We have perfectly usable standards defined by the W3C

I would suggest IE is the de facto standard for web developers. Sure, it may not follow the w3c standards, but 80+ percent of the market uses it, so frankly it really doesn't matter what the W3C say.

--
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
Re:This browser is important by tidewaterblues · 2006-01-23 06:30 · Score: 1

"In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share."

70%? In a year? Are you kidding? You're being very optimistic about the rate at which people update their software. Unless Microsoft releases IE 7 as a security update to IE 6 (in other words, unless it is a manditory install on systems with autoupdate turned on) we will be lucky if it sees 30% saturation by Q1 2007. That's assuming a late Q1 or early Q2 2006 release too.

--

...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
Re:This browser is important by rbarreira · 2006-01-23 06:30 · Score: 1

I don't understand why they limit their betas to Microsoft developers.

In order to catch the more severe bugs before the software goes public. Even internal testing at Microsoft (their "eat your own dogfood" principle) proceeds incrementally.

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Re:This browser is important by tbmcmullen · 2006-01-23 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

This could possibly be because "normal" users don't go to W3Schools. Only people who have some kind of interest in learning web development go there. People who have interest in web development are much more likely to be using Firefox/Safari/Konqueror/Opera because they read sites like Slashdot where they are constantly bombarded by anti-IE rhetoric.
Re:This browser is important by tbmcmullen · 2006-01-23 06:45 · Score: 1

IE4 was the standard... IE5 was the standard... IE6 was the standard. What makes you think that IE7 won't be? Because 15% of the internet population don't use IE anymore? Thats great... but that means that 85% STILL DO. "Personally I can allow myself to code XHTML 1.1 and not care about IE" So... I take it that you're not a professional web developer? You would not have many clients for very long. Despite the fact that we love {firefox|opera|safari|konqueror}, the average client does not... and does not care if your site is XHTML 1.1 compliant. They care that the maximum number of people can view and use their site. The internet isn't ideal... far from it... but this is the internet that we live in.
Re:This browser is important by will_hough · 2006-01-23 08:03 · Score: 1

My sites latest stats: Browser - Type Number of requests 1. MSIE - 808,128 2. Mozilla - 244,667 3. Netscape (compatible) - 11,790 4. Opera - 11,215 5. msnbot - 4,521 6. Googlebot-Image - 4,428 7. Googlebot - 2,092 8. Yahoo-MMCrawler - 1,665 9. IRLbot - 1,343 10. Netscape - 1,330 11. psbot - 771 12. Java - 718 13. WebIndexer - 639 14. Konqueror - 484 15. webcollage - 450 16. LinkWalker - 448 17. OmniExplorer_Bot - 417 18. Scooter - 404 19. ConveraCrawler - 395 20. ichiro - 386
Re:This browser is important by dcam · 2006-01-23 11:15 · Score: 1

In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share. This browser will be the majority's portal onto the web.

No way. Where the hell do you get that figure from?

Ignoring the non-Windows market and the alternative browsers on Windows (which is a signifiant proportion of the browsers used, currently somewhere between 10% and 20%). At the moment there are still quite a lot of people on 2000, NT4 and 98 (which will not support IE7). A lot of these people are not going to upgrade. Even if they do upgrade, it will take some time for it to occur (IT dept testing etc). So that eliminates are reasonable chunk of people. Secondly, even if this is made a critical update for Windows XP, a lot of people won't install it. The only thing you can be sure of is that people buying new machines with Vista will have IE7, and that will be released in the second half of this year.

I'd be surprise if Microsoft is able to get 35% of people using IE7 by the end of year.

--
meh

Dangerous! by pyite69 · 2006-01-23 05:11 · Score: 1

The goal is to move beyond Windows, Explorer, Outlook, etc. and have people stop using them. An intentional leak like this is just a way to take mind share away from alternate technologies. I'm sure the strategy will work yet again.

Re:Dangerous! by jonesy16 · 2006-01-23 06:36 · Score: 1

Who's goal? Your goal? The goal of society is often argued to be "to better itself". And in that regard you have fully failed to prove why society should stop using Windows, Explorer, Outlook, etc. I'm not going to even bother awaiting the "windows sucks / linux rocks" response to that. But I will end by saying that the only way we better ourselves is through innovation, and innovation is fueled by competition.

Problems by Feneric · 2006-01-23 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not fully standards compliant. Doesn't run on Mac OS X, Linux, or Solaris. Lame.

Re:Problems by MonTemplar · 2006-01-23 05:29 · Score: 1

Those are not problems... those are features! :)

-MT.

--
-MT.
Re:Problems by one_bad_rover · 2006-01-23 07:02 · Score: 1

While Im sure it will be compliant with other OSes by the time it gets a proper release, I think it would be extremely amusing if they did not support any other OSes, windows only, thats it and thats all. That way everyone who thinks Linux, Mac and others are so "superior" would find out that superiority isnt gained by being different. Sometimes being different just means your wrong or going about things the wrong way. Kind of like those guys that are running bio-diesel. Sure, they are saving .20-.30 at the pumps, but they are also spending countless hours in the garage trying to perfect the mix, so is it really more efficient. I guess I just dont buy into the "microsoft everything they do sucks" theory. IMHO, they brought computers into the mainstream with understandable interfaces and ease of use. Without MS, most of us that work in software engineering would probabaly be out of work right now, or never even gotten into software engineering in the first place.
Re:Problems by CurbyKirby · 2006-01-23 18:10 · Score: 1

FULL standards compliance is a big deal, is it? I hope you're not using anything that uses Gecko, such as Netscape 7, Mozilla, or Firefox.

Firefox/Mozilla doesn't even fully implement HTML 4.0, nor has it done so in any point in its history, nor is there a target milestone for doing so. Just one example is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9101

Ok so they are choosing not to implement support for displaying soft hyphens. If you hate IE6 for not implementing support for max-width (a css thing) or ABBR (an html thing), don't be a hypocrite. At least most of IE6's compliance issues are (claimed to be) solved in IE7: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242 .aspx

Notice that it's been over five years since the bug was reported, and there is no target for its fix. Imagine the fun that Slashdot would have over a 5-year-old IE bug.

I have used Firefox as my primary browser since Phoenix 0.2beta, and I love it. But I'm not going to say it's perfect (or even perfectly standards-compliant).

--

--
"Extra Anus Kills Four-Legged Chick" -- Headline

Is it GPLed? by Jerry · 2006-01-23 05:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It seems that IE7 copied so much functionality from FireFox one has to wonder if Gate's coders merely took FF code and incorporated it into IE7. Since FF is GPL one has to ask: "where's the source?"

Oh, BTW, it you think anyone other than MICROSOFT leaked IE7 you're living in a fantasy world.

--

Running with Linux for over 20 years!

Re:Is it GPLed? by molarmass192 · 2006-01-23 05:27 · Score: 1

Pssst, FF isn't GPL ... it's MPL ... but they'd have to show their cards ... I mean code, nonetheless. That said, I'd shit a brick if IE7 was based on FF, too much of IE is entangled into the core API set for them to rip it out at this point.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Re:Is it GPLed? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't forget where Firefox copied many of its features from.. ahem.
Re:Is it GPLed? by MrP-(at+work) · 2006-01-23 08:25 · Score: 1

Opera

--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Re:terrific ..... not by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:18 · Score: 0

Bad analogy ... source code is more like the "secret recipe" than the nutritional information.

And for most users it makes no sense that the source code is included with the software ;-)

Now if the SOURCE were leaked, that would actually by Peter+Simpson · 2006-01-23 05:19 · Score: 1

...followed quickly, I'm sure, by improved versions of said source, authored by members of the community. Then, a developers' discussion list, and IE9...

(well, I can dream, can't I?)

Re:Oblig. Strong Bad by TheSpoom · 2006-01-23 05:19 · Score: 5, Funny

And the Compy, just peed my carpet.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

So where's the .torrent? by Caspian · 2006-01-23 05:21 · Score: 4, Funny

torrent pls kthx

--
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?

Re:So where's the .torrent? by Caspian · 2006-01-23 06:30 · Score: 1

Holy shit, there actually -IS- a .torrent.

God bless the Internets!

--
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Re:So where's the .torrent? by imsabbel · 2006-01-23 08:20 · Score: 1

You should know that there is a torrent for just about EVERYTHING thats not older than a year or so (and even for a lot that is...)

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:So where's the .torrent? by typical · 2006-01-23 16:27 · Score: 1

You'd install a web browser that has a less-than-stellar reputation, which is tightly tied into your OS, which is currently arriving to you in the form of a leaked beta from a random pirate site?

I mean, are you just bored and looking for more excitement and danger on your computer?

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

IE tied into the OS by mindaktiviti · 2006-01-23 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wonder how big and clunky Internet Explorer would be if it wasn't tied into the Operating System.

Re:IE tied into the OS by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:42 · Score: 0

That is a foolish question.

IE overhead is built into the OS. They are so tied together that IE can't exist as it's own entity.

In that regard there is no IE overhead, all that shit is loaded is regardless of your browser choice.

It would be stupid for IE not to use it.

Why should IE reinvent the wheel?

I personally have high hopes for IE 7.

I have been using firefox for over a year but with tabs on the way I will probably switch back to IE when it is officially released.

I see no reason not to as there will be many pages that will work in IE and not in firefox, especially after Vista ships.

BTW, for any accomplished computer user security is not an issue. It is like going to Kansas and complaining that you see a cornfield. I have never had slashdot hijack my browser, I have never had gmail, hotmail, cnn or google-news hijack my browser either. Shit, none of the sites I read on a daily basis are malicious.

So can you give me a reason that is technical rather then political to continue using firefox after IE7 arrives?
Re:IE tied into the OS by mindaktiviti · 2006-01-23 06:11 · Score: 1

I've seen viruses or whatever hijack other people's IE options. For example, disabling the ability to change the security level etc. Couldn't find a way to fix it quickly (i.e. uninstalling IE) so you have to reformat the entire OS. Whereas if Firefox were hijacked you could just uninstall it and use something else.
Re:IE tied into the OS by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:17 · Score: 0

You reformatted and reinstalled because of a browser hijack?

Ignore my previous questions then. I now know exactly the level of user I am dealing with. In your case, YES use Firfox.
Re:IE tied into the OS by Stan+Vassilev · 2006-01-23 08:34 · Score: 1

"I wonder how big and clunky Internet Explorer would be if it wasn't tied into the Operating System."

Around 10 MB in size and still faster than Firefox.

PS. I'm a Firefox user.
Re:IE tied into the OS by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 09:18 · Score: 0

ok, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this post. IE is tied to the OS only because IE uses the native HTML rendering engine that is already present in the operating system. IE is just a shell on top of that. I generally use a basic browser that I wrote myself, that uses the native rendering engine and only has the features I wanted it to use. Meaning, it has no ActiveX and only basic scripting enabled. Plus I can run 10 instances in the same memory space as firefox. Although with tabs, I don't do that.
Re:IE tied into the OS by Ziviyr · 2006-01-23 09:27 · Score: 1

I'd pull a backup image and "revert". Alas I've ditched windows.

--

Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Re:IE tied into the OS by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-23 10:37 · Score: 1

It's not tied into the operating system. I thought everyone knew that from the antitrust trial.

A lot of Microsoft apps use the IE page rendering libraries, but it's not like IE is tied to the kernel or anything.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Re:terrific ..... not by psgalbraith · 2006-01-23 05:22 · Score: 2, Funny

fags have to be labelled with tar and nicotine content .....

Oh, you meant cigarettes...

old news... by loserhead · 2006-01-23 05:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

IE7 has been circulating for weeks now. you guys are slow.

browser maturity by karzan · 2006-01-23 05:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

doesn't it seem likely that we're reaching a point at which there are just not very many new things that can be done with browsers? most of what the web is about, including user interfaces, has now been integrated into the content of web pages themselves. the job of the browser is fairly straightforward, and browsers have been around long enough to learn to do that job well. i think to call it 'stagnation' implies that we should always expect constant innovation. but maybe browsers are just a tool that has reached maturity.

Re:browser maturity by 74nova · 2006-01-23 08:22 · Score: 1

yup. everything has already been invented. there is nothing more.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:browser maturity by TuringTest · 2006-01-23 08:28 · Score: 1

Far from truth, there are lots of possible basic improvements for web browsers, especially about bookmarks and the task of recovering previously seen information. del.icio.us success was mainly due to the big need that it solved to this respect, but it isn't enough - much more could be done.

Those findings about bookmarks (in the linked article) have been scientifically validated, but browser developers apparently aren't geekish enough to follow that advice and implement those features.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:browser maturity by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 11:55 · Score: 1

Some of those things are good ideas. However one big point Basic meta data is already in Opera, and I love it. Now of course, it could try and do more with metadata, but you might also get overload. One thing that should be implemented is find as you type bookmarks from the address bar.

Opera's already got find as you type bookmarks from manage bookmarks, but that's an entirely separate UI. I should be able to use a accelerator indicator , say "-" or something unusual just like we can do g .

If I type "- f" then all my bookmarks starting with f should be in the dropdown, and as I type out fark I ought to get my bookmark to fark.com. Another nice feature would be more of an autocomplete, instead of haveing to down arrow to get it to go into the address bar.

The thing I don't like is he seems to be advocating XP style start menu type hiding of bookmarks the browser thinks we don't use enough. Many times this is a pita. Search based finding seems to be the best "next step" to lots of navigation that is available now.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

Nearly 100 comments.... by Slashcrap · 2006-01-23 05:27 · Score: 2, Funny

...and not one single request for a link to a torrent.

Come on guys, everyone's going to think we're not interested at this rate.

be the first to be infected by wardk · 2006-01-23 05:28 · Score: 1, Funny

maybe you'll get a couple hours of clear driving, but you and I know you will get infected.

but it will be awesome, because it's on windows, the most popular computer in the world!!

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by filesiteguy · 2006-01-23 05:29 · Score: 1

LOL!

Actually the better question is, when have they actually written their own software? Everytime I look at a piece of MS Software, I find a litany of code from aquired companies. Ahh well, the world can go on bending over for bill...

--
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy

Main question from developers... by Denyer · 2006-01-23 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

...is this leaked version using any new rendering components? If so, has anyone dissected the differences between it and IE 6 yet?

--
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Screenshots Posted Resembled Flock by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:32 · Score: 0

The screenshots I saw posted on the site Friday resembled the Flock browser which is a mozilla based one.

I think most of this is bogus hype.

Cowardly posted,

JFC

{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by OverDrive33 · 2006-01-23 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sadly, I don't think Firefox is any more secure than IE - there are just more published exploits for IE because it's the largest user base. I'd bet we'll start seeing more and more of Firefox's security issues as it becomes more popular. I shouldn't need to post this, it should be common knowledge.
In fact because there will be even less users using IE7 than Firefox, one could stand to reason that IE7 is more secure than Firefox because there sure aren't any published bug exploits for IE7 yet.

I had IE7 installed a few months back, and it just felt like IE6 with tabs... I might give this version a try ...

--
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers

Re:{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by theurge14 · 2006-01-23 06:49 · Score: 1

Well then I suppose apache must be less secure than IIS.
Re:{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 07:00 · Score: 0

Well then I suppose apache must be less secure than IIS.

Depends on which IIS... The one that comes with Windows Server 2003 (IIS 6.0) is a darn secure web server, unlike IIS 5.0, which came with Windows 2000 and was a nice replacement word for "crap".

I've never had an Apache or IIS 6.0 machine pwn3d. I dare guess that I wouldn't have even had an IIS 5.0 breach if I knew something about Windows and IIS.
Re:{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by OverDrive33 · 2006-01-23 07:09 · Score: 1

Well then I suppose apache must be less secure than IIS.
By your logic I suppose so.

I should have put a note in the parent comment - I am a Firefox user myself, and that it wasn't meant to be a flame, or a troll, it was merely an observation. Although I should have known better based on Slashdots audience demographic.

--
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
Re:{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by theurge14 · 2006-01-23 07:18 · Score: 1

Actually, it was your logic.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to be snarky at all, I wrote a one line response because I was afraid we would rehash the whole security-through-obscurity argument all over again.

My point was your observation isn't necessarily valid. Currently Apache has 67.11% of the market share in comparison to IIS at 20.61%. Does this mean Apache is that much less secure than IIS?
Re:{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by OverDrive33 · 2006-01-23 07:44 · Score: 1

My assertion - key phrase in bold: "In fact because there will be even less users using IE7 than Firefox, one could stand to reason that IE7 is more secure than Firefox because there sure aren't any published bug exploits for IE7 yet."

I didn't state it as fact, because I have nothing to back it up. That's why asserting that Apache is (or isn't) that much less secure than IIS based on what I said is an ignoratio elenchi logical fallacy, because the orignal post has nothing to do with Apache or IIS.

At any rate, I feel this thread deteriorating along with my karma (I'm no troll, silly moderators!).

--
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
Re:{Witty Generic FireFox is Better Comment} by theurge14 · 2006-01-23 07:47 · Score: 1

My apologies. This is what happens when I get bored at work on a Monday.

Re:terrific ..... not by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2006-01-23 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except that food doesn't have to be distributed with a recipe telling you when to mix what and how long to bake it for, clothes don't generally come with the patterns and instructions you need to recreate them from whole cloth, beer doesn't tell you how long it's been fermenting, and aside from tar and nicotine, god only knows what's in these Camel Lights I smoke.

My point is, (almost) no product comes with detailed instructions on how to recreate it yourself, modifying it how you please to suit your likes and dislikes. Why should software be any different?

Yes, I agree that in many situations it is beneficial for software to have publicly-availably source code (look at my uid - I've been here a long time, and I've heard all the arguments). But as for the government mandating that I release my source code publicly? Even if it's not practical to do so, as in the case of a multiplayer game, whereby releasing the networking code for all to see is a free pass to all the script-kiddie cheaters? No thanks. Heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all government policy, especially on topics that they don't understand, never benefits anybody.

Re:terrific ..... not by gentimjs · 2006-01-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Cue all the libertarians and other far right wingers that seem to be so populous on slashdot to cry and fuss about said requirements for labeling food in regards to its contents .... In general, I agree with the parent.

Funny story by kadathseeker · 2006-01-23 05:42 · Score: 0, Troll

I was on a program pirating spree recently, and had maybe two dozen progs to try before I bought any. One program was labled IE7 beta. But lo and behold, I open up the IE7 beta and Norton comes screaming VIRUS! VIRUS! VIRUS! and I just burst out laughing - of course a M$ product is a virus (technically though, Windows is a bug, according to one joke). Now, I was pretty sure that several of these .rar files were viri, but it was a school pc so I didn't think about it much. I also noticed after this that most of these file were 851.7KB exactly, too small for most proggys and a clear indicator of a virus, so I wiped them all. But man oh man my webmastering class thought it was funny.

--
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson

Re:Funny story by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 12:11 · Score: 0

You're simply a n00b. If they had WinZip icons, I'm switching to IE7 and dropping Firefox for the rest of my *gasp* child lifetime.

Re:terrific ..... not by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:42 · Score: 0

Why? Can't a user just decide not to use closed source software?

I think the marketplace can actually work this one out. Many people have decided that the Open Source nature of Linux and BSD are strong points and have used OSS for that reason. This is why both are very successful.

Convince Joe Sixpack why its better. Don't shove your political ideologies down his throat. Chances are he really doesn't care about seeing the code to MSIE.

Recruting by vrta · 2006-01-23 05:43 · Score: 1

Obviously MicroSoft needs beta testers... fast. :)

--
Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Re:terrific ..... not by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Ingredients label for Program:

0 bits (50%), 1 bits (50%)

Re:terrific ..... not by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:47 · Score: 0

When is the last time a libertarian has cried about the labeling requirements on food? Maybe some strange one that I have never seen, but I demand you cite a post to back up your claim.

Your analogy is flawed. Seeing the source code is not like seeing the ingrediants to food or its daily values of fat/calories/vatimins/etc. Do you get a detailed instruction sheet on how the food was made? Nope. The ingrediants of softare are equivalent to the binary code you get. You can disassemble the program yourself and see how it runs.

I like Open Source as a philosophy but I see no reason why it should be some sort of requirement. There is no legitimate reason why this needs to be shoved down everyone's throats.

Still needs work... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 05:48 · Score: 2, Funny

I saw IE 7 the other day. They need to fix the "7" sticker they slapped on, part of the "6" was still visible underneath.

Re:Still needs work... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 07:55 · Score: 0

I saw a similar problem in the latest version of "Vista", the XP logo was still faintly visible from beneath the shiny new label. Reminds of when Window 95 cames out and some of the labels still read "MS-DOS", or when win98 came out, or when ME came out, or....

Re:terrific ..... not by carlislematthew · 2006-01-23 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

every computer owner has the right to view the source code of any program running on a computer that they own

Wow - extreme viewpoint, although shared by many. I agree that there is a place for opensource software, but I would also say that there is a place for proprietary software. Companies (the things that supply most software in the world) simply would not bother to spend so much time and money making software if someone could just come along and copy it. You may not like that, but that's the way it is.

Food has to be labelled with its ingredients list

But they don't need to list the procedure for making the food.

Clothing has to be labelled with its fibre composition.

What has roughage got to do with this? ;)

Cosmetics have to be labelled with their ingredients. Beer has to be labelled with its alcohol content

Again, the value of the products here is not in the contents, but in the procedure for making them. The secret part of a beer is not in the alcohol content, but in the preparation: the water, the hops, the fermentation - there are hundreds of variables. Beer makers keep these variables and procedures a big secret because otherwise people could steal their secrets they spent time and money developing.

Coral Cache by Frankie70 · 2006-01-23 05:51 · Score: 4, Informative

here

The original seems to be slashdotted.

Re:Coral Cache by typical · 2006-01-23 17:13 · Score: 1

I have a Greasemonkey script that adds a second, Coral Cache-ized link to all the off-site links on Slashdot.

It's awfully handy, and I'd recommend that any FireFox users out there give it a shot.

The only drawbacks I've found: every now and then, you'll get many "[CC]" coral cache links in comment headers, and if you want to copy text to paste in a response, you're liable to have [CC] after each link in the original text in your pasted text.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Best "screenshot" of all by Salsaman · 2006-01-23 05:53 · Score: 1, Funny

http://www.ie7.com/

Firefox just isn't very optimized yet by Alwin+Henseler · 2006-01-23 05:57 · Score: 3, Informative

"But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance""

No, that's the price for using a largely un-optimized application. Compared with IE, Firefox is like the 'new kid on the block'. Around for some time now, but not as long as IE. And probably a lot less men-hours of development effort, compared to what must have been poured into IE over the years. Firefox has reached 'feature-complete stage', but it's not heavily optimized or in a 'mature' state, where there's only small improvements left to do.

Does it matter? Not much, Firefox is plenty useful NOW. And what would you rather waste: megabytes of your computer's memory (only till you close the app), or countless hours of your (human) time, cleaning out malware that leaked in? I'll take the 'waste memory' option anytime.

Re:Firefox just isn't very optimized yet by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 12:11 · Score: 1

Or there's always Opera which has lots of man hours poured into it, and the no malware. Though I'm convinced the "memory leaks" that get reported about both Opera and Firefox stem from a misunderstanding of how RAM is meant to be used, and a different priority than the devs on fast back and what that requires.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

Translation by beforewisdom · 2006-01-23 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

"IE7 has been leaked according to pcpro. From the article: '...last Friday it was revealed that a build of the new browser - version 5299 - along with numerous screenshots, was available online.' "

Translation:

Companies pretend to have details about a new or upgraded product "leaked" to generate anticipation/excitement for the release of the aforementioned product. Somebody in Microsoft's marketing department is not aware that most people have caught on this.

Re:terrific ..... not by ajs318 · 2006-01-23 05:58 · Score: 1

Well, it may not make sense to most users, but that is not the point. Nobody who installs a fire extinguisher ever expects to have to use that either. They're just glad of it when they need it.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:terrific ..... not by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:00 · Score: 0

"...far right wingers that seem to be so populous on slashdot."

Are you fucking kidding me?

Re:How can something publicly available be "leaked by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:01 · Score: 0

now that I RTFA again

Wait, isn't this Slashdot? I thought everyone either didn't read the articles or tried to but the site was down.

Well... by gallwapa · 2006-01-23 06:02 · Score: 0, Redundant

This is one download I won't be rushing to get...or try. Firefox does what I need and I haven't lost faith (yet) We'll see though. My NOIA theme is getting boring and 'same old' - may have to spice things up.

Meanwhile... by BlueScreenOfTOM · 2006-01-23 06:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Meanwhile, Steve Ballmer has vowed to Fucking Kill(TM) any unauthorized person who comes in contact with the IE7 beta. After speaking with the development team, he decided to save his energy to help Fucking Kill(TM) the next threat that comes along, as the buggy code is expected to (regular) Kill anyone who installs it anyway.

In the sense that lots of people will have it... by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-01-23 06:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Heart disease is also important. But I'm not going to download it.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Re:terrific ..... not by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:05 · Score: 0

If you're expecting software to be as reliable as fire extingiushers, then prepare for massive amounts of government regulation on the creation and maintainence of open source software too. I can tell you right now, there are lots of OSS that I wouldn't trust my life to.

Just remember, it works both ways here.

They're up to 7? by saboola · 2006-01-23 06:07 · Score: 0

I am still using the copy of internet explorer that came with my Windows 95 plus pack.

oops... by MikeTheMan · 2006-01-23 06:07 · Score: 5, Funny

"some Windows fans took matters into their own hands"

I think they misspelled captives

Re:terrific ..... not by Sarisar · 2006-01-23 06:07 · Score: 0, Troll

So, the beer contains 5.5% Alcohol, ingredients water bla bla bla.
Cigarettes contain.. oh wait it's a US pack it doesn't tell me (but would in the UK). X mg tar, nicotine etc etc.
Windows contains... what 35% virus installation routines, 20% kill competitors code, 40% report back to microsoft what you're doing, 1% usefull stuff and 99% profit for microsoft (and yes that is more then 100% because we all know windows is bloated!)

Did it get out... by TimTheFoolMan · 2006-01-23 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny

...via the WMF Backdoor?

Tim

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by Salsaman · 2006-01-23 06:10 · Score: 1

Well, they certainly didn't write the original code for IE. It was based on the Mosaic browser by Spyglass Software.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Internet_E xplorer

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by Kippesoep · 2006-01-23 06:12 · Score: 1

And exactly how much of that do you think is still in the codebase today?

Re:terrific ..... not by SneezyKevinA · 2006-01-23 06:13 · Score: 1

This is just what we need, the government telling everyone how to do business. It's bad enough the things you have to do to keep them happy, but have them tell me to release my code? I don't think so.

I am a software developer and I will never let my source code be public. There is no reason for it at all. The last thing I need is for my competitors to start using our ideas. While it is good for some software to be open source, that does not apply to all software.

Information and programs does not leak! by julie-h · 2006-01-23 06:17 · Score: 3, Funny

I am an engineer for a very large mobile company, and take it from me. Programs and information does NOT leak. Everybody knows what each workers knows, and if anything should leak, the source is know before the day is over. If such case should happen, the person will get fired, and every competitor will know about this person. Eventhought a competitor could profit greatly from the leak caused by this person, even they would NEVER hire this person. Because, they know they can't trust him. So telling it had leaked is plain PR to make it more interesting. Leaks does NOT happen.

Re:Information and programs does not leak! by JSBiff · 2006-01-23 10:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, I suppose you are mostly correct.

BUT, that being said, sometimes leaks aren't from within the company. Sometimes they are from partners, reviewers, or beta testers who've been given early access to the product, but who have no legal right to give it to anyone else. . . but do anyhow.

Not new by 4D6963 · 2006-01-23 06:22 · Score: 1

Already messed around with IE7 in Vista Beta 1.

What's new? Does it imitates Firefox less than on Vista Beta 1? Is it less sluggish than on Vista Beta 1? No?

OK people, move along there's nothing to see here

--
You just got troll'd!

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by fredclown · 2006-01-23 06:24 · Score: 1

If you're gonna bash MS for buying code, then bash Google too ... Google Earth, Google Analytics, Gmail, etc. Buying a product and rebranding it is not a crime. It's smart buisiness.

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by Salsaman · 2006-01-23 06:27 · Score: 1

Ik weet niet.

I can't seem to find the sourcecode anywhere.

Does it pass the ACID test? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:29 · Score: 0

I'm almost afraid to ask, but does it pass the ACID test?

Re:Does it pass the ACID test? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:39 · Score: 1, Informative

No.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6083/ie7acid23f s.png
Re:Does it pass the ACID test? by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2006-01-23 06:46 · Score: 1

Does it matter?

I mean, with exception to IE for Mac and I think Safari, most Browsers fail the Acid test. Obviously the standards the ACID test tests for are out of touch with how web browers and web developers are using the web.

So, does it really matter that it doesn't pass the Acid Test? Firefox doesn't, Opera doesn't, why should IE?

If you set your standards too high, and nobody can pass muster, then your standards are simply too high. But considering that there are millions of web pages out there that work on IE, firefox, opera, etc, who cares.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Re:Does it pass the ACID test? by pomo+monster · 2006-01-23 08:01 · Score: 1

Nobody can pass muster? But as you said yourself, Safari passes the test. KHTML too, after the changes were backported from WebKit.

But then, we Mac users have always had high standards. Sorry you don't demand as much from your work environment.
Re:Does it pass the ACID test? by greyrose111 · 2006-01-23 08:37 · Score: 1

Uh, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? The only browsers that have passed ACID2 as far as I know are Konqueror, Safari (your one correct statement) and I think that's it... no wait, iCab and Prince http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2>. When you say IE for Mac, I think you're reffering to CSS, a different standard (although I don't remember what it does). Opera was CSS complient.
Re:Does it pass the ACID test? by 10537 · 2006-01-23 10:56 · Score: 1

It's not just "pass" and "fail", though -- there's a significant difference between "doesn't quite pull it off, but makes a reasonable stab at it" (like FF), and "throws up all over the monitor" (like IE)...

--
This sentence no verb.

Try IE7 without updating by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 06:29 · Score: 0

Step 1. Download IE7 Beta 2 Preview build 5299.

Step 2. http://daydream.wordpress.com/2006/01/20/try-ie7-w ithout-updating/

FF memory leaks aren't leaks! by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-23 06:32 · Score: 4, Funny

It's merely that Firefox is so fantabulous that the computer just can't let it go. Get with the fanboy program, dude, you're slacking, and not in a good Slackware kind of way!

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by rbarreira · 2006-01-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Gmail? Where did that come from?

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F

How are you "trolling"? by CyricZ · 2006-01-23 06:36 · Score: 1

You're obviously not "trolling" in any way. Your point is completely backed up by fact, and thus is valid. Indeed, numerous versions of Internet Explorer are known to suffer from many sorts of security flaws. Often times these flaws have been easily exploited, causing millions (if not billions) of dollars in damages. To say that you will avoid this software based on your past negative experiences with earlier versions is not "trolling" in any way.

If anyone takes offense to your statements, the problem is not with you. It is with those who cannot, will not, or choose not to see the situation as it is.

--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.

I guess it has been... by zogger · 2006-01-23 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

...blown out of proportion a lot...well.. except for the TENS OF MILLIONS of machines that have gotten infected and owned over the years because of it. And let's look at the BILLIONS of dollars in basically lost productivity and resources wasted on "fixing" malwarez once folks get nailed. It doesn't matter if theoretically 1% (whatever, a small number) of the computer using population can keep a windows box secure, what matters is, for whatever reasons exist today, 99% (again, whatever, a very large number) CAN'T. That's an example of "broken" in any practical true sense, as opposed to academic theory.

Re:I guess it has been... by dave420 · 2006-01-28 15:06 · Score: 1

So now it's windows causing the problems and not Internet Explorer? Can we at least keep the claims straight? :)
If you have a firewall, your windows box will be secure. If you don't download and run any random executables, you'll be secure.
Bring on the troll modding. I'd expect nothing less.

Re:How can something publicly available be "leaked by Cl1mh4224rd · 2006-01-23 06:48 · Score: 1

Last I checked, MSIE 7 is available via MSDN subscriptions, Action Pack subscriptions, and even Microsoft's own web site.

I just wanted to point out that there is no download link on that page, so it's technically not "available".

--
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.

Crappy interface by DanaGoyette · 2006-01-23 07:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Okay, so it has tabs... now give me back my menus! It was bad enough when the menu bar was BELOW the tabs, but to not have one at all? Also, the New Tab button actually BEING a tab is just silly. It's quite unintuitive to me.

Re:terrific ..... not by HermanAB · 2006-01-23 07:05 · Score: 1

Software is not a product. Software is merely a branch of mathematics. The computer is a product.

--
Oh well, what the hell...

Re:Cool, does it run under KDE? by HermanAB · 2006-01-23 07:09 · Score: 1

I would guess that 95% of the original Mozaic code is still in there. That would be the 5% of the IE code base that doesn't have bugs...

--
Oh well, what the hell...

Re:terrific ..... not by Dr.+Sp0ng · 2006-01-23 07:13 · Score: 1

No, software is quite clearly a product. How is it not?

An algorithm is pure mathematics, yes, but a complete software product consists of many separate algorithms, put together in novel ways, along with other content (text, images, sounds, whatever). At that point, it is far removed from the world of pure mathematics.

What a coincidence... by stastuffis · 2006-01-23 07:23 · Score: 1

...that this "new and improved MS browser" looks very similar to Firefox.

Installation Instructions by michelcultivo · 2006-01-23 07:29 · Score: 1

* emove Linux from you computer (detectable) * Have more than 512Mb of RAM (300 for Windows) * Free disk space (20Gb (only IE)) * Dual Xeon 3.6GHz with HT enabled

--
http://www.michel.eti.br

Usability by Blink+Tag · 2006-01-23 07:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's a little thing, but indicative of a larger usability problem:

In the "Tabbed Browsing Settings" (from one of the screenshots), is the phrase: "Do not warn me when closing multiple tabs."

It's a check box--checked means "do", unchecked means "don't". Even the most cursory usability review would likely suggest the label be reworded to have the negative removed. It's simpler for the user, and it might make things clearer for the programmers too. (Avoid messy code like "!dontDoIt")

Like I said it's a little thing, ... but one of many that when combined give the feeling of a poor product.

Re:terrific ..... not by HermanAB · 2006-01-23 07:48 · Score: 1

Software has no substance. It is neither matter, nor energy. It cannot be a product. If you think it is a product, then I would like to buy it by weight.

--
Oh well, what the hell...

Why IE and Outlook are considered harmful by tepples · 2006-01-23 07:58 · Score: 1

And in that regard you have fully failed to prove why society should stop using Windows, Explorer, Outlook, etc.

Other than that such software has historically made it easier for miscreants to hijack PCs and either disable them or send spam from them?

Re:Why IE and Outlook are considered harmful by jonesy16 · 2006-01-23 09:16 · Score: 1

I understand the mental thinking that leads to that sort of speculation. But how about looking at it from the opposite side? Let's assume that everyone switched from Windows to Linux today. How would our security world change?

The complexity of Linux installs could lead to insufficient firewalling / disabling of services, besides, passwords are just as easy to guess on Linux as they are on Windows. Hijackers would begin focusing their efforts on an operating system whose source code is readily available. Kiss goodbye the days of packet sniffing and byte decoders to find holes in software, they can look through all of the source code and find their own holes. Or worse, put holes into software in the form of cleverly written patches. The larger distributions might be able to keep up with security updates assuming you're running the most recent releases and have figured out how to use their native "software update" programs. But then again, it may not be readily apparent that my friend Teddy should install the latest patch against OpenSSL, I mean, what the hell does he care if some package called OpenSSL is up to date or not. But that doesn't begin to tackle the hundreds of distributions that have no form of automated software updates, nor does it begin to address the instant loss in functionality that most users would experience in shifting from Windows to Linux.

You may think this is some flame from a Windows fanboy, but all that I run IS Linux. I'm just trying to point out that it is impossible to predict that the world would be a better place without the likes of Microsoft. Although that paperclip can kiss my . . .

Countless / countless = ? by tepples · 2006-01-23 08:02 · Score: 1

Kind of like those guys that are running bio-diesel. Sure, they are saving .20-.30 at the pumps, but they are also spending countless hours in the garage trying to perfect the mix, so is it really more efficient.

True, but these countless hours are spread over countless biodiesel fans.

I guess I just dont buy into the "microsoft everything they do sucks" theory. IMHO, they brought computers into the mainstream with understandable interfaces and ease of use.

Microsoft != Apple. In principle, Windows 9x aimed to be a clone of Mac OS 7.x with rudimentary memory protection.

Re:Countless / countless = ? by one_bad_rover · 2006-01-24 09:45 · Score: 1

"Microsoft != Apple. In principle, Windows 9x aimed to be a clone of Mac OS 7.x with rudimentary memory protection. " While this may be true (although Im not convinced) that still leaves the fact that Apple's marketing department sucked so bad that they couldnt get the thing out the door to the masses. Microsoft did that, they aimed to put a computer in every house in America and through whatever wizardry (deals with satan, etc...) they used, it worked. Jeez, if we had waited around for apple we would all still be making little line drawings in art class talking about the days when computers would perform complex tasks for us...

Re:terrific ..... not by Zarquil · 2006-01-23 08:05 · Score: 1

This program sold by weight, not volume.

Some settling of bits may have occured during shipping of this program.

Because it's not for win9x, win2k, linux, or mac by tepples · 2006-01-23 08:07 · Score: 1

What makes you think that IE7 won't be?

Because it requires Microsoft Windows XP or newer. This excludes people who are stuck on IE 6 because they're stuck on old but paid-for PCs that came with a paid-for OEM copy of Windows 98se, Windows Millennium Edition, or Windows 2000 Professional. It also excludes people who(se employers) have switched to Linux or *BSD.

XP and Vista only by tepples · 2006-01-23 08:10 · Score: 1

Sure, it may not follow the w3c standards, but 80+ percent of the market uses it, so frankly it really doesn't matter what the W3C say.

Eighty percent of the market uses operating systems other than Windows XP. IE 7 is available only for Windows XP and Windows Vista, not Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000, Mac OS X, any Linux OS, or any FreeBSD OS. Do you claim that these excluded operating systems total fewer than 20 percent of home and business desktop computers?

Re:XP and Vista only by Toby_Tyke · 2006-01-23 09:09 · Score: 1

Eighty percent of the market uses operating systems other than Windows XP

Wrong. I hardly ever see a desktop PC running anything else, but I hate anecdotal evidence, so lets look at some figures. Type "XP market share" into google, and one of the top hits is this:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 2

Which give a figure of 78% for XP. Now when I said "has 80+ percent of the market" I was talking about the current version of IE, which is available for 9x, so yes, I do claim that the excluded operating systems (Mac OS, any Linux OS, or any FreeBSD OS, or NT 4 or Win 3.1. Or Amiga OS, for that matter) total less than 20 percent of the market. If you claim different, please provide some figures

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.websidestory.com/news-events/press-rele ases/view-release.html?id=160

Which shows XP managed oa 20% market share of web browsing machines in less than a year. This is hardly surprising, as virtually every store bought PC sold in that time period came with XP pre-installed. The same will be true of Vista. It will achieve market share very rapidly, because every new home PC sold will have it already on the hard drive.

Now, given XP has about %80 of the market, and Vista will have IE 7 pre-installed, I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. Here it comes:

Within 1 year of the release of Vista, all independent figures will show IE7 as having the largest market share of any browser.

Feel free to prove me wrong. But I'll need to see figures, sir!

--
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks

I call bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 08:11 · Score: 0

Firefox 1.5 running on WinXP = 33528K. Outlook 2003 on the other hand is using 73560K. If Firefox is taking up 150MB of RAM, for the love of God turn off some extensions. If you're running the X-Windows version of Firefox, then all I have to say is welcome to statically compiled executables.

Re:I call bullshit... by syousef · 2006-01-23 08:56 · Score: 1

So you start FF and it has a small memory foot print. Try actually USING it then look at the footprint again. I have screen shots of it taking 500Mb after half a day of intensive browsing then being left running overnight. Killed Firefox and the computer which had slowed to a crawl came back to life. Not the first or last time it happened, not even unusual. I usually kill FF twice a day at least now. As for whether or not it's plugins I haven't tested, but there should be a way to limit the memory available to plugins anyway.

FF was the bomb and then the team got wind of this and dropped the ball. I've had no end of trouble with it and only really continue to use it for a handful of features not available on IE (tabbed browsing and a couple of those pesky plugins mostly).

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer

Tri-license by tepples · 2006-01-23 08:13 · Score: 1

Pssst, FF isn't GPL ... it's MPL

Nitpicking your nitpick: Firefox source code is made available under the Mozilla Tri-license, a disjunction of MPL, GPL, and LGPL. This license is the successor to the Netscape JavaScript license (described here).

This happened a long time ago... by bynary · 2006-01-23 08:32 · Score: 1

How is this news? I know for a fact that the IE7 beta has been floating around the net since at least the release of the Longhorn (now Vista) beta last year.

--
http://www.bynarystudio.com

Market share by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 08:45 · Score: 0

In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share.

Windows XP is the longest cycle version of Windows in history. It has been the latest version of Windows longer than any other version has ever been. It does not have 70% market share. What makes you think that IE7 will have higher adoption rate than WindowsXP?

Must be a HUGE download by gentlemen_loser · 2006-01-23 08:58 · Score: 1

I wonder if Vista has been leaked with IE7? I mean, given how closely the underlying operating system has becomed bundled with the browser - one can only draw the logical conslusion.

:)

Re:Must be a HUGE download by jofi · 2006-01-23 09:14 · Score: 1

~12MB

--
Blame the user, not the software.

Re:terrific ..... not by domj00 · 2006-01-23 09:05 · Score: 1

Warning, may contain traces of 2s.

My Mileage May Vary.... by Radical+Moderate · 2006-01-23 09:07 · Score: 1

Running XP SP2 Firefox: 67,320 K Outlook: 16,828 K There's no other process with anything close to Firefox's footprint on my machine. I love it, but it is a hog. To be fair, I probably use it more than any other app ususally.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.

Not much bigger or clunkier by apankrat · 2006-01-23 09:07 · Score: 1

Firefox's problem is not the size of its code (which you *can* reduce by tying to the host OS), it is a bloat of its run-time data. This is an indication of a poor memory management, no user control over run-time cache and/or fundamental flaws in datamodel or engine design.

The bottom line is that a single Firefix instance showing yahoo.com should NOT consume 180MB of memory, this is just ridiculous.

--
3.243F6A8885A308D313

Re:Not much bigger or clunkier by bunratty · 2006-01-23 09:58 · Score: 1

You should run, not walk, to the Memory usage thread at MozillaZine. Nobody can seem to demonstrate any memory problems with Firefox. Show them how just yahoo.com consumes 180 MB of memory and finally convince those guys there's a problem!

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier by mikerozh · 2006-01-23 11:26 · Score: 1

Below is the top output sourted by memory usage. There is absolutely no reason why a browser with 4 tabs opened: two are to a low bandwidth bug tracking intranet website, another is a /. and fedex.ca should use 183m of virtual memory. If I leave the firefox to run for a week it's memory usage will grow even more. And because I don't like it I have to restart it every two days. It is firefox 1.0.7 that comes with debian sarge, but I can't believe it is debian issue.

And while I still prefer this over IE on windows I totaly agree with the previous post about poor quality of mozilla.

top - 15:20:43 up 26 days, 5:37, 16 users, load average: 0.62, 0.50, 0.32
Tasks: 146 total, 1 running, 145 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 15.3% us, 2.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 82.7% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 483808k total, 474244k used, 9564k free, 13984k buffers
Swap: 1060248k total, 255488k used, 804760k free, 137576k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
17961 root 15 0 183m 83m 21m S 18.9 17.7 15:24.24 firefox-bin
12456 root 15 0 175m 72m 43m S 0.0 15.3 0:37.42 soffice.bin
12877 root 15 0 191m 66m 20m S 0.0 14.1 5:20.07 mozilla-thunder
5407 root 4 -11 103m 45m 6992 S 13.6 9.6 437:50.30 XFree86
21328 root 15 0 70488 20m 6980 S 0.0 4.3 61:56.81 skype
5513 root 15 0 22708 15m 5600 S 0.0 3.2 28:22.61 metacity
28827 root 15 0 28432 14m 10m S 0.0 3.1 2:44.60 gaim
5535 root 15 0 24360 12m 6048 S 0.0 2.7 11:59.13 wnck-applet
5517 root 15 0 31704 12m 7284 S 0.0 2.6 2:17.64 gnome-panel
5548 root 15 0 19380 8940 6912 S 0.3 1.8 0:24.97 gweather-applet
22597 www-data 16 0 23744 7820 2952 S 0.0 1.6 0:00.04 apache2
12331 root 15 0 55120 7148 3852 S 0.0 1.5 0:12.30 xmms
5519 root 15 0 24668 6780 5764 S 0.0 1.4 0:54.68 nautilus
5558 root 15 0 19328 6740 5656 S 1.0 1.4 75:11.36 gtik2_applet2
1242 root 15 0 82160 6592 5696 S 0.0 1.4 0:03.24 artsd
17018 root 16 0 9032 6276 2256 S 0.0 1.3 0:00.22 xterm
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier by bunratty · 2006-01-23 11:30 · Score: 1

That's really interesting, because over in that MozillaZine thread, no one can seem to demonstrate any problems. Maybe you should inform them of your findings.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier by mikerozh · 2006-01-23 12:01 · Score: 1

I'll take a loot at your link. But from what I can see, all firefox instances that I have seen so far eat lost of memory.
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier by jp10558 · 2006-01-23 12:07 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure it has to do with caching web pages for fast back. I know that Opera regularily will use 333,000K of virtual memory for that on my 1GB machine. Though it doesn't appear to slow down my machine or my browsing any, so I really don't care. As I bought my RAM for it to be used, and my total memory usage is usually around 50% or less of available VM and Physical RAM, it doesn't bother me.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-24 09:36 · Score: 0

Except in Opera you have a control over max cache size. In Mozilla you don't, and I suspect it's not just a GUI issue.

CSS Support in IE by SeinJunkie · 2006-01-23 09:08 · Score: 1

If you're really interested in which bugs IE7 will not have, you should read Dave Shea's post on the first beta. Also of interest is MS IEBlog's post listing which CSS bugs have already been fixed after the first beta. A list of the major ones follows:

Peekaboo bug
Guillotine bug
Duplicate Character bug
Border Chaos
No Scroll bug
3 Pixel Text Jog
Magic Creeping Text bug
Bottom Margin bug on Hover
Losing the ability to highlight text under the top border
IE/Win Line-height bug
Double Float Margin Bug

Re:terrific ..... not by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2006-01-23 09:19 · Score: 1

he secret part of a beer is not in the alcohol content, but in the preparation: the water, the hops, the fermentation - there are hundreds of variables.

Wow, hops, next time I'm guzzling a beer, I can write it off as a network expense. Tracert -h 12pack www.mmmmbeeer.com

Spaghetti String IE? by Danger+Stevens · 2006-01-23 09:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wasn't aware that IE could be 'released' - previous versions were so spaghetti-string coded and tied into Windows that all you could do was try to 'integrate' it into your system and PRAY that it didn't render your OS inoperable.

It's hard for me to imagine that there's an IE7 package out there that has all the files and configuration required to run it and doesn't choke every system it's installed on. If there is, MS has come a long way.

--
World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet

Priorities... by winphreak · 2006-01-23 09:27 · Score: 0

Once the IE7 torrent completes, debuggers and fuzzers are next!

--
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."

using IE7 by brlewis · 2006-01-23 09:33 · Score: 1

Can you check if the "This page contains secure and nonsecure items" warning can be suppressed? Use this test page. That unsuppressable warning is the biggest reason I steer users clear of IE6. Encrypting every JPEG just isn't worth it, even if encrypting login information is. Hopefully IE7 lets users make this judgment themselves rather than endlessly haranguing them about it as IE6 does.

Re:using IE7 by Comatose51 · 2006-01-23 19:14 · Score: 1

Still the same. IE7 feels a lot like IE6 with tabs... but then again tabs is also why I use FF.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.

Re:IE7 ver 5299 by rcamans · 2006-01-23 09:53 · Score: 1

No, That is the 5299th version of IE 7.
Some versions fix several exploits.
And some versions create many new exploits.
So number of exploits >> number of fixed exploits >> number of IE7 versions.
Silly boy.

--
wake up and hold your nose

Re:This was posted on digg.com on friday. by Risen888 · 2006-01-23 10:12 · Score: 1

It's alwasy nice to ready about the news a few days late.

It's also nice to usey the previewy button. Y.

--
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!

Re:How can something publicly available be "leaked by Tim+C · 2006-01-23 10:16 · Score: 1

Last I checked, MSIE 7 is available via MSDN subscriptions, Action Pack subscriptions, and even Microsoft's own web site

The page you linked to doesn't allow downloading of the IE 7 beta, you have to be an MSDN subscriber (and must log in as such) in order to download it.

Bottom line is that I (as a non-subscriber, non-MS partner, etc) have no official way to obtain a copy of this beta; in every sense of the word, this is a leak.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Re:terrific ..... not by imthesponge · 2006-01-23 10:30 · Score: 1

Software takes energy and time to create, so it is a product. Data is "substance" in itself. It's a pattern that is worth more than the jumble it would otherwise be.

Re:terrific ..... not by shutdown+-p+now · 2006-01-23 10:48 · Score: 1

Companies (the things that supply most software in the world) simply would not bother to spend so much time and money making software if someone could just come along and copy it.

You don't need the source code for the program to copy it, or even to sell it afterwards - Windows has been successfully "pirated" for years without it. You only need the source code if you want to improve or fix something, and is there anything wrong with either?

Again, the value of the products here is not in the contents, but in the procedure for making them.

Which is why we don't ask for their complete version history, planning and design documents etc. We only want the end result - that is, the code as it was used to make the release build.

Re:IE7 ver 5299 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 11:15 · Score: 0

More likely that they simply continued to increment the build numbers from the IE6 codebase (which left off at either build 2900 or 2180, I'm not sure which number in the Help/About box to quote).

They must be building multiple times per day, however, to increase the build count that quickly (copyright on IE6 is 2004).

Re:IE7 ver 5299 by AutopsyReport · 2006-01-23 11:17 · Score: 1

It was a joke, silly boy.

--

For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

Re:terrific ..... not by dhakbar · 2006-01-23 12:00 · Score: 1

Are you mentally retarded?

six minutes late... by miro+f · 2006-01-23 12:05 · Score: 1

you were 6 minutes late with this comment

--
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...

Re:six minutes late... by Slashcrap · 2006-01-23 23:18 · Score: 1

you were 6 minutes late with this comment

Yes, I know. I actually noticed that someone had in fact requested a torrent link right at the bottom of the comments, but I went ahead and posted it anyway. Do you know why? Just to piss you off.

Yes it DOES matter by miro+f · 2006-01-23 12:15 · Score: 1

the reason there are millions of web pages that work on all browsers is because web developers have a hell of a time writing webpages that work on all browsers

if instead all browsers actually followed the standards, then there wouldn't be so many issues doing this. This goes for ALL browsers, even Konqueror and Safari, passing the Acid2 test does not mean compliance, the Acid2 test is only relevant for browser versions released before the test.

--
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...

Re:terrific ..... not by ajs318 · 2006-01-23 12:23 · Score: 1

Software developer my backside. You're probably just some snot-nosed whining kid who fails it. Do you honestly imagine your "competitors" are any less smart than you are? Or that you could gain nothing of worth from a look at their code, which they would be obliged to show you? If you really are a software developer, you're going nowhere with that attitude. It's not the 1980s anymore, pal.

The Government is there exactly to tell people how to do business. We -- well, those of us who actually have jobs, that is -- pay taxes to the government precisely to stop unscrupulous people exploiting unfair advantages. Software developers keeping the source code from users are misusing an unfair advantage, by preventing users from exercising their natural rights to study the software they use and adapt it to their needs. Nobody ever tried to stop you from taking a clock to pieces to see how it worked, or shortening the legs on a table to make it more comfortable -- why should it be any different with computer software?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:IE7 ver 5299 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-23 12:51 · Score: 0

It was a JOKE you fuckwad

Link by GodGell · 2006-01-23 13:55 · Score: 1

http://www.mininova.org/tor/207244

--
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10

On Purpose... by PhYrE2k · 2006-01-23 15:07 · Score: 1

Of course this isn't 'leaked' but on purpose. Release it, people find the exploits and badmouth it. Banks and other organizations test compatibility with the software. More importantly, you get the exploits. Of course they fix it, say it's pre-release and was never intended to be released.

Of course we know better, but the general public blames hackers for it being leaked and hackers for making exploits for it. So hackers are bad. Microsoft is just the victim. But they have a free beta test and free security test.

+1 for microsoft
+1 for 'hackers' in the media as evil
-1 for society.

Yet another piracy act by M$ by hemantm · 2006-01-23 16:20 · Score: 1

Another copycat act by thew worlds biggest software pirate.
M$ pirates Mozilla GUI into IE7.
Those dumb guys at M$ just can't innovate :(

--
Say NO to Monopolies BOYCOTT Micro$oft

Netscape, Anybody? by theproff · 2006-01-23 17:52 · Score: 1

Interesting how no one here seems to have even mentioned Netscape 8.0 Seems kinda odd, because NS8 has all the feature of Firefox, plus Site Controls that verify the legitimacy of websites before you even browse to them, and it stops you and warns you of a known malicious site. Scrolling RSS feeds, built in Webmail & Mail Client links, and it's based on Mozilla. I've never had any problems with it, and I can't make it use 180 megs of RAM with 20 tabs open, including flash apps and java loops, and https.

OSS strengths and weaknesses by typical · 2006-01-23 17:58 · Score: 1

I agree that there is a place for opensource software, but I would also say that there is a place for proprietary software.

Open source software does well at:

* Production of development tools. The open source world has first rate, free development tools. Emacs+gdb+valgrind+gcc+splint+gprof+oprofile+GNU make+doxygen is one powerful toolset, and it doesn't cost a dime. Every software developer out there develops software, so the "my development tool can't do X" itch has been thoroughly scratched.

* Production of small components. (This fits nicely with the Unix methodology.) Commercial software packages often suffer from feature creep -- the developers have to keep earning their keep, and if the company has a product, it keeps getting features. On the other hand, if I'm a GIMP developer and some feature would be better suited for inclusion in ImageMagick, I can just pop over the the ImageMagick project and add my feature there.

* Security tools. Lots of paranoid crypto-types play around with open source.

* Things with a security and/or performance aspect. It's generally a lot easier to sell features to a customer than security or some (difficult to measure) performance difference. Open source developers aren't necessarily trying to sell features, so they put a higher percentage of time into security and performance work (IMHO, of course).

* Honesty. I've found that open source projects tend to be more straighforward about the failings in their code than traditional software projects are.

* Writing software with sane resource requirements. I'm boggled by the size of commercial software packages. A large Linux distribution is maybe five CDs and includes a *huge* range of software packages. A single typical commercial software package is probably at least half a CD.

The open source world does badly (most of the time) in the following areas:

* Games. Most developers don't want to work on something that *they* don't get to play themselves. If you make an adventure game yourself, it's no fun to play it. The few games that have done really well in the open source world have almost perfect replayability factor (i.e. you could play them for five years and they wouldn't lose their value). However, cinematics, flashy graphics, scripted sequences, and high-quality music are almost unheard of in the open source world -- these things are fun for a short period of time, but don't help the replayability of the game that much, so there's little benefit to the developers. There are whole genres of games that just don't really go anywhere in the OSS world because they have limited replayability -- adventure games (except for the notable exception of text-based adventure games), plot-oriented RPGs (not dungeon crawlers, which the open source world does do well), and single-player FPSes.

* Software that developers don't use. Developers are pretty advanced users. Software designed exclusively for newbies, like effective basic help systems, doesn't see much work in the open source world (unless there's some research value and some grad student's decided to do a prototype, or unless some company decides to donate some labor).

* Usability. Software companies can afford to hire some guy to devise studies to see exactly what people are doing wrong when they try to use the software, and then come up with fixes. The problem is that this sort of stuff isn't (IMHO) nearly as much fun as developing software -- and since people are generally expected to implement their own ideas, a UI guy has to also be able to code with the best of them to contribute ideas. Sun needed to fund some folks in this area for GNOME because the open source world wasn't handling these problems themselves.

* Big software packages. Okay, there are some -- xorg is big, the Linux kernel is big, and so forth. But looking at some of the big OSS packages (notably Open Office and Mozilla), you discover that these had development heavily funded by traditional software comp

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Not Quite... by MonTemplar · 2006-01-23 23:14 · Score: 1

That would be the Alpha Test.

The Beta Test begins when it is released. :)

-MT.

--
-MT.

Re:This was posted on digg.com on friday. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-24 10:43 · Score: 0

Digg duped it about 7 times too.

Make 'em ALL "QUICK TABS" Now. by thomasxstewart · 2006-01-24 16:52 · Score: 1

"QUICK TABS" are another IE 7 feature, with tabs opening up inside other displayed tabs. YIPPIE! SP3 & VISTA BETA: http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

--
WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html

In Soviet Russia... by tod_miller · 2006-02-01 20:29 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russian, Mafia Murders You!

To true to be funny. But you might just get roughed

In North Korea, IE7 is only for old people.

please type the word in this image: roughed
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

--
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com

408 comments