Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Expensive JavaScript Ever?

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-their-best-work dept.

ekran writes "A while ago Opera Software needed more servers. Not just a few servers either — they were planning Opera Mini's growth, implementing Opera Link, and My Opera was also growing quickly. Most of the major hardware vendors grabbed their specs and came back with offers and sample servers shipped all the way to Oslo for testing. One of the biggest vendors, however, did not do their homework. They shipped the server, but when the Opera sysadmins started up the web-admin interface, they were met with a JavaScript statement that managed to piss off the whole company including the CTO. The script, apparently, locked out the Opera web-browser."

7 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. So who was it ?? by ls671 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I browsed the comments on the Opera blog and I could not find any definitive answer although HP and Dell are mentioned as possible culprits.

    So who was the culprit company ??

    Now that it is on /., I am sure that a member of the Slashdot intelligence community could come up with the answer. I offer a reward that will be paid in SMP currency, not in NOK. Sorry about that but I do not have any NOK at my disposal.

    currencies:
    NOK = Norwegian krone
    SMP = Slashdot Mod Points

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:So who was it ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I browsed the comments on the Opera blog and I could not find any definitive answer although HP and Dell are mentioned as possible culprits.

      Funny story. I have a large Dell LTO tape array, and it has a web-based management tool. Part of the management web pages generate on-the-fly images in XBM format. IE had a security flaw in the parsing of XBM images, and since XBM images are so rare, Microsoft simply disabled XBM images entirely.

      So, I am forced to use firefox to manage the tape array.

  2. HP probably by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Had the same thing on the webadmin interface for one of their ILO's. Or more precise, it wouldn't work on anything but IE. Hadn't seen that for quite a while.

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  3. let me take a guess by Zashi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having tested web based software for IBM before, I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess it was IBM. Anyone here ever use SCM (Storage Configuration Manager)? It's utter shite; slow, buggy, and unsupported on anything other than firefox and IE.

    Remember kids, IBM Hardware = Good. IBM Software = Kill it with fire.

    --
    Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
    1. Re:let me take a guess by phoebe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess it was IBM.

      The IBM Blade Chassis management software works perfectly fine in Opera with no popups or warnings at all. It's actually nicer to use in Opera than Firefox.

  4. You think the code is bad? Take a look at page 5! by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.digi.no/504306/her-kjores-egentlig-opera-mini&bid=5

    Notice anything odd about the large 48v DC power cables? Like the '+' and '-'... on the wrong lines...

    Forget a javascript issue, that there is a pretty huge installation issue.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  5. Why "fire" and "moz", not "gecko"? by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've already found a defect in the revised sniffer. The variable names "fire" and "moz" appear to indicate that the code above this line would fail on Iceweasel, IceCat, SeaMonkey post-renaming, Fennec, K-Meleon, Epiphany, and other browsers using the same HTML/CSS/JavaScript engine as Firefox. Why is it testing for "fire" and "moz", not "gecko"? Having an alert() pop-up on (I'm guessing) every page is an improvement against immediate redirection to an error page, but it's still an annoyance.