Slashdot Mirror
IE7 Separated from Windows Explorer
An anonymous reader writes "Security experts warned Microsoft 10 years ago that putting IE as a component of Windows Explorer was a bad idea, looks like Microsoft finally decided to listen to the advice. According to a short write up in Business Week, Microsoft has decided that when IE7 comes out with Vista it will no longer be a component of Windows Explorer and will be able to replace IE6 even on XP machines."
Surely they mean outwordly replace IE 6 like Firefox etc do, whilst keeping IE 6 tied into the XP system?
I wonder what would happen if you decided to remove IE 7 after installing it. Or will they "upgrade" it like they do with DirectX and Media Player (ie one way upgrades only, essentially no rolling back).
They are talking about Click to activate ActiveX controls as being a security benefit thats been added for the user - I thought it was because of losing the patent dispute?
ps, the guy talking sounds like Farnsworth, its worth listening just for that!
liqbase
I had heard initially that IE7 wasn't going to be available for Windows 2000, and assumed that meant it wasn't going to be for XP either. If it works on XP, what would stop it from running on 2000 other than a Microsoft desire to cripple it so that people have one more reason they must leave 2000 which still works fine for most tasks [as long as it's well patched]?
Oh You POS
Didn't Microsoft engineers claim, in court, to the EU that they couldn't remove Internet Explorer from the Operating System without breaking it?
Interesting seeing as Microsoft are now suddenly able to seperate the two (in reference to Windows XP, not Windows Vista).
Another divorce. Why can't Americans just stay together for the kids?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
This is great news! However, will IE7 on a Win XP box simply be an add-on (a la Firefox) while maintaining the status quo for Windows Explorer and IE being linked?
Will Windows Explorer still be able to function as a web browser once IE7 has been installed separately on XP?
I imagine a lot of users are quite used to typing webaddress.com into Windows Explorer, now. I suppose that should respond by launching the user's default browser with the command line argument webaddress.com, but is that what it will do, or will WinExplore still function as a browser?
Next thing you'll know, maybe they'll realize that running executables out of the browser is a bad idea, and that an arbitrary execution flaw on CD insertion is NOT a feature.
My new blog
I'm sure I'm about to burn karma with this... but in KDE, Konqueror acts as both web browser and file manager. At least it's entirely userspace, but does anyone know how closely the file managing and web browsing aspects of Konqueror are tied?
Did you hear IE7 Separated from Windows Explorer?
Yes, I also heard she is now dating some new guy Winslow Vista.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Will anyone who isn't currently using MSIE6 use MSIE7 on this news?
IE was integrated because the same kind of display used to show files and directories could be used to display web content, and it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.
Today, with people having more horsepower in their computer then they know what to do with, same goes for hard drive space, having a tightly integrated web browser / file browser doesn't make sense, and it has been a source of Microsoft's security problems.
Yes, you will still be able to type a web address in the file explorer in Vista and have a web page display . While explorer and internet explorer are no longer integrated, Vista will transparently switch between the applications and maintain the same window view.
I am sure that I.E. components will still be launched at system startup, to give Microsoft and edge over 3rd party browsers for quick browser launching, but by removing the integration with the file explorer, this will definitely be a welcomed change that should offer better security in the long run, which Microsoft desperitely needs.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Microsoft mentioned it was due to security designs in Vista.
I doubt though that something so integrated into windows explorer can be seperated and reprogrammed into a seperate application within the extra 2 months.
Its alot of work not to mention may break many applications. For example cdroms that use autoplay sometimes display html and javascript in the windows explorer menu in a seperate pane. I suppose you could reprogram windows explorer to just call an IE7.dll to display it.
But Microsoft was found guilty of merging IE into a million libraries so third party apps would not function without IE and infact required it. Even a command prompt program that uses strings requires IE as a result.
Thank god I am not on the windows development team.
http://saveie6.com/
So in other words, now that they've won the browser wars at the expense of OS security, they'll unbundle it now.
It was so much nicer here in hell before it froze over.
You are correct in noting that Konq is entirely userspace, which is why they can make it browse whatever they want it to. If you don't like it, you can use Nautilus or firefox or midnight commander or any number of other things. This is only a big deal for IE/Explorer because it is tied to the OS, and because it is really your only choice for many things.
As for how tightly tied konqueror is to itself, that's pretty much moot. Much of Konqueror's capabilities are provided by kioslaves, which are another layer entirely, and could theoretically be used by other apps. *Shrug*
But considering that I'm actually using the Beta for IE7 on XP now, it seems to be working.
Or are you talking more that it will be tested on XP and all, but the final version won't be available?
By the way, you can download and run the beta now. It's open. Even has an uninstall on it.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Actually if I recall correctly Konquerer isn't either of those. In fact, it is just a holder for Kparts. In turn, there happens to a be a Kpart for file management and one for HTML rendering (KHTML in this case). So...konquerer can also be a music player (there is a Kpart for that), an RSS reader (again...another Kpart)...
So, konquerer really can be anything you want. So this isn't the best example.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
Yes! I can finally completely uninstall it from my system!
Actually, I'll just stick to my Mac.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/featureta
From here
http://forum.pcstats.com/showthread.php?t=35534
He he, "one quirky feature". Way to miss the point. Note that you can disable Download Signed ActiveX controls too, or make at least make it prompt you.
There's a best practices document here
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
I think the basic problem is that they still want to avoid breaking websites that rely on ActiveX as much as possible. You can see lots of stuff in that document which means that some ActiveX controls will still automatically on a webpage. If anyone develops and exploit for them and you run it on XP as an admin, you have a problem. Of course, if the user knows what they are doing they can make it secure, but the default setting is more geared to compatibility than security.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I installed IE7 (let me explain) and the FTP functionality in it is just like directory listings like Firefox has. I use IE for ftp just so I have the ease of a Windows Explorer-like interface for FTP. So I can't do that with IE7. But, if I open windows explorer or any folder, I can put an FTP address in that address bar and it works just like IE6 with the explorer interface. Unintentionally, I found out when I installed that it kept it separate. Interesting...
So does that mean that it will be possible to run windowsupdate from within Firefox (or from any other non-native browser)?
Gee, how long did it take them to figure out what people knew from the beginning? Security and IT professionals have flogged this as a major security risk from day 1.
All I can say is that now that they have done this, I'm beginning to believe that they want to build a decent and secure product for their customers.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I downloaed the IE7 beta 2 for XP yesterday and you can see that explorer is no longer tied at all to the web browser. Going to slashdot.org in an explorer window starts the default browser now.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Just the other day I went to open an HTML page I'd made in IE7, to check that it rendered properly. After fumbling around for a few minutes wondering where they'd hidden the menu bar (yeah, clever one, Microsoft, give your most-used program a UI that flies in the face of 20 years of convention, and don't tell anybody you need to hit the ALT key to bring it up, that'll go down a treat with Joe User), I selected "open", browsed to the file... ...And IE7 opened the page in Firefox, my default browser!
Clever, eh?
I agree with the parent. Wanting to use a web browser as a file manager? Yeeeesh.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Check Program Access and Defaults(under Add/Remove software I believe) in Win2k/XP and you'll easily be able to set IE back to being your default. AFAIK, Firefox does EXACTLY what MS recommends as best practice for setting itself as your default browser. FYI, file associations have NOTHING to do with Program Access and Defaults.
In addition, I just verified in IE 5.5 and 6.0 that there's a checkbox under 'Tools\Internet Options\Programs' that will tell IE to check at startup whether or not it's the default and prompt you for the appropriate actions.
HTH
Another story posted by people that don't get it...
How many of these stories a day are we now going to get?
IE7 replace IE6? WTF, That has always been possible.
Also Explorer uses the IE 'rendering' dlls, it doesn't use Internet Explorer.
There are so many things wrong with this post and story I don't even know where to start and won't.
If you don't get it, don't post it.
IE7 will do a lot of great things for Windows XP, but it won't remove the IE subsystem from the OS. Doing that would require almost a complete rewrite of XP (which is what Vista is moving towards) as everything from the aforementioned file manager to the built-in help file viewer relies on the IE subsystem to render to the screen. What IE7 DOES do for XP is basically implement a lot of the security bonus of using FF, like blocking activeX controls, etc. from automatically running, fixing the stupid BHO (browser helper objects) model, attempt to prevent phising and so on and so forth. The true power of the new approach will be evident when Vista comes out. In Vista, IE7 will now run only in user mode (seperate from the kernel), only allow file access to the temporary internet files folder, and more (which can be found easily by googling for IE7 info). It will truely be a godsend to people who have to deal with the consequences of the stupid way IE is now (read: spyware whore). I've had the beta version of IE7 installed on my XP machine for over a month now and it's actually very nice, of course it is still not as secure as using FF, but it doesn't have the FF memory leak feature, and in terms of functionality it has most of the features you use FF for. It just doesn't have the theme/extension architecture that FF does, which sucks, but will probably change (well the extension part, MS seems to have a penchant for denying user customizable UIs). And yes, you can rollback to IE6 just fine whenever you want.
...but have you seen where the eyes are?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If I recall correctly, previous announcements had indicated that IE7 would only be available for Windows Vista. In other words, users of Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows ME, etc., who use IE6 and wish to upgrade would be SOL.
Today, Microsoft's announcement indicated that Windows XP users would be able to upgrade to IE7. Thus, this is a "new feature" for IE7 that IE7 did not have before today - backward compatibility with older operating systems.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
The problem with MS's version was that the whole freaking system crashed if IE crashed.
This isn't entirely correct. EXPLORER.EXE, which is tied in with IE and is largely responsible for the GUI, can be crashed by IE. This mucks up the GUI to the point where the system is apparently hung. However, the NTOSKRNL.EXE almost never gets faulted by these kinds of crashes and, in reality, continues to run even though the interface is completely hosed. This is analogous to crashing XWindows in Unix in the sense that X can be completely hung but system processes underneath it continue to function normally. The difference is that a Ctrl-Alt-Bksp will kill X and give you a command prompt, whereas Windows has no such option. There has been talk in the past of Microsoft releasing a command-line version of Windows Server (i.e. the GUI is optional), but AFAIK, that's just been talk with no real action.
Note that crashes that do fully lock up a Windows box are almost always caused by faulty drivers, usually video drivers because these run in kernel space. Linux is just as susceptible to faulty drivers as Windows is. I've had a number of servers up and croak with a KERNEL PANIC because of a faulty RAID driver. Dodgy hardware, poor cooling, overclocking, etc. also locks up boxes but this isn't a Windows-only phenomenon by any means.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"ERROR: I refuse to install this piece of shit. Seriously, what the hell are you thinking? Press OK to launch Firefox. Here, I'll even open up some porn for you, just please don't ask me to install that shit again. Oy."
The difference is that a Ctrl-Alt-Bksp will kill X and give you a command prompt, whereas Windows has no such option.
You can always use [WinKey] - [R] for a run dialog, and type in 'explorer' there. Or, use ctrl-alt-del to get to that system menu (reboot, etc), which has a 'Run command' option. I had explorer crash many times and in this way I had it back without rebooting.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
The thing that's always bugged me about #1 is that no one ever seemed to seperate IE the application and IE the HTML rendering/display engine. Most of what the DoJ was looking for could have been remedied by getting rid of iexplorer.exe and making small modifications to any part of the system that expected it to be there.
It'd be similar to saying that Safari can't be removed from OS X because a number of applications and system utilities rely on Webkit. Of course you can get rid of Safari without getting rid of the libraries - just drag the userland app to the trash.
Personally, I think that saying that there was no way to get rid of IE, the application, without breaking Windows was not true at all. People still don't seem to make that distinction.
Yeah, I actually took a graphics class where we had to write a bunch of programs. Java provides no defined behavior for drawing a single pixel on the screen. You could use (and we were told) to use a drawRect() with width and height of 0. (using 1 for both results in a 2x2 rectangle by definition)
The problem is that some OSes and implementations don't draw anything at all. So, on Windows and Linux, you get a pixel, on Mac OSX, and Sun, you get nothing. (I mean, it's a 0 width, 0 height rectangle, that means draw nothing, right?)
The frustrating thing is the first Lab went out, and I designed it on a Linux machine, and I turn it in, and the TA for the course, who was grading them, was grading them on a Sun machine. So the response comes back "Your program doesn't draw anything" Aw... thanks Java.
I've actually written a POSIX compliant web-server that supported CGI/1.1, and enough HTTP/1.1 to be at least useful, and it was far more compatible at the source level than Java was at the binary level.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
That's why you should be running sftp instead of ftp. Konqueror works with sftp:// very well.
If you edit a file with Emacs and save it, you create a file with a '~' at the end of the filename. If it is a remote file, where do you create that? Locally, or remotely?
That's not an issue specific to the browser. If the user has permission to look at the file, they have the ability to create a local copy. The only real solution to the problem you raise is to keep untrusted users off your local machine.
everyone makes mistakes. Did you select the wrong tab and accidentaly send something in the clear, or to the wrong location? What if you can't undo your mistake? (Permission to create a file, but not delete it.) This is one of the dangers of integration - if it is handled the same, and looks the same, how do you avoid mistakes?
Once again, this is not a browser problem but a browser can help. Konqueror is an excellent tool for moving files across machines. Split screens avoid the need to ever drag to tabs. The easiest way to move files around is to split your screen with the localhost and the targethost on the same tab. When things are done this way, it's harder to make mistakes. That's all a good tool can do.
Once you start doing things this way, it's hard to go back. I still use find and tar for archiving and will often sftp by hand, but one day I'll figure out how to do that graphically with konqueror. If I ever figure out how to use konqueror's built in scripting for routine updating, well, things will be much easier. My life is not that routine yet.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.