Slashdot Mirror
IE7 Leaked
lju writes "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.' "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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
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
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 ...
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
Not fully standards compliant. Doesn't run on Mac OS X, Linux, or Solaris. Lame.
I wonder how big and clunky Internet Explorer would be if it wasn't tied into the Operating System.
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
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.
Don't forget where Firefox copied many of its features from.. ahem.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.