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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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.
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.