Microsoft Edge, HTML5, and DRM

An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft is building its new browser, Edge, with the intention of avoiding many of the flaws that plagued Internet Explorer over its long and tumultuous life. Part of this involves moving away from plug-ins, and Edge will not support ActiveX. Instead, they're focusing on interoperable media, and that means non-plug-in video players that meet HTML5 specs. Of course, not all video players want to disseminate their content for free, which means: DRM. Microsoft's Edge team has published a new post explaining how they'll be handling support for DRM and "premium media" in the new browser.

They say, "Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge support DASH, MSE, EME and CENC natively, and other major browsers ship implementations of MSE and CENC compliant EME. This support allows developers to build plug-in free web video apps that runs across a huge range of platforms and devices, with each MSE/EME implementation built on top of a different media pipeline and DRM provider. In the days when DRM systems used proprietary file formats and encryption methods, this variation in DRM providers by browser would have presented a significant issue. With the development and use of Common Encryption (CENC), the problem is substantially reduced because the files are compressed in standard formats and encrypted using global industry standards. The service provider issues the keys and licenses necessary to consume the content in a given browser, but the website code, content and encryption keys are common across all of them, regardless of which DRM is in use."

Comments

obligatory Good Luck With That

[turkeydance]

DRM and all that.

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[ganjadude]

they spend all this time on writing DRM code... which will be blown out within a week anyway why not better spend that money and time working on actually making the browser better????

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[Z80a]

They must pretend the thing is safe to placate the fury of the big studios, or else.
Of course, this don't mean the thing must actually work, just sound harsh enough.

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[lgw]

they spend all this time on writing DRM code... which will be blown out within a week anyway why not better spend that money and time working on actually making the browser better????

No one's going to bother breaking the DRM on a video stream. Why bother? If you want the content without paying, torrent it, rather than messing with streams with quality/bitrate that can change for reasons outside your control.

Plus, since normal people don't care at all about DRM nerdwhining, they just want it to play when they click, arguably MS is improving the user experience here. Ideally, they'd include a native module letting you right-click on any DRMd stream and automatically torrent it while you watch, but I somehow doubt they're that forward thinking.

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[Anne Thwacks]

Me too.

Lately I keep having a popup saying "this site contains flash and your add-on needs an update because the version you have is insecure" but the update mechanism does not actually work (Iceweasel, Debian).

This has the fortunate side effect of making the site load faster, and much easier to to navigate, because it does not keep refreshing! (The worst offender is "The Independent" which I often had to abandon reading because of constant redraws - why the hell do people build these unuseable websites?)

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[Bert64]

People will crack streamed DRM if there is content that's either only available there, or is available there first... If you look at most torrent sites these days you will see all kinds of content that has been ripped from streaming media sites, all of which used DRM and yet still got cracked and made available in a more convenient form via torrents.

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[lgw]

Fair enough, I wasn't thinking about TV shows, and obviously that's how a lot of people still watch GoT, after HBO so cleverly spent years forcing a bunch of people who wanted to pay to instead torrent. How common is that though? I'm struggling to think of other examples.

Re:obligatory Good Luck With That

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's going to bother breaking the DRM on a video stream. Why bother?

I would imagine there are plenty of people who are willing to pay for the service, but:

- want (for any number of reasons) to use their preferred video player rather than the site's lousy Javascript interface
- want to cache the entire video before watching it, rather than having it interrupted by unpredictable network delays
- want to watch it in higher quality than is possible for their network connection to stream in real time

That's without counting people who want to time-shift (download a whole season of a TV show to watch later, so that they'll be able to see the entire thing even if the site's license expires) as well as those who don't care about legality but prefer not to deal with angry letters from their ISP / getting sued / getting kicked off the campus network.

No way in hell

[stevez67]

What they're glossing over with their review is that adblocker extensions, password managers, extensions that prevent video from autoplaying and etc. will not be available. And I won't use Edge because if I can't control the behavior of my web browser I won't use that web browser.

Re:No way in hell

[Lennie]

How do you mean no extensions ?

Now I don't know what Edge will support or does support, but the first article I found looking on Google for Microsoft Edge extensions tells me they support:
http://imacros.net/microsoft-e...

"Edge will have extensions, “Javascript and HTML based” – essentially very much like Chrome. No C# support."

This means, similar model to Firefox and Chrome. Actually, many extensions work in both.

Maybe you are confusing plugins with extensions.

Plugins are like Flash, Java applets, Acrobat Reader all that stuff.

You know the stuff that is usually the least secure in most currently deployed browsers.

Re:No way in hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC as I'm not sure this is public, but MS has told their corporate partners that the plugin APIs will not be ready when Windows 10 releases, and they have given no date other than 'after release.'

Re:No way in hell

[Anonymous Coward]

All the stuff that needs weekly security updates, even though they are just for browsing the web..

Re:No way in hell

[mlts]

Here is the big question: How do the plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java, Acrobat, DRM video players) run? Are they running in the same context as the browser (like current IE), run in a separate process (like Firefox), or run in a more isolated VM where each tab and window is in its memory space (Chrome)?

The Web browser is the first source of attack, and one of the primary means for malware to get on a system. Even with the low security context that IE had starting in Vista, that wasn't sufficient for isolation. It almost takes running the browser in a sandbox (sandboxie) or a complete VM (with its own filesystem) to protect a machine against browser weaknesses, just because a browser is always in constant contact with untrusted code.

I hope MS designs Edge with a lot more isolation (so a compromised add-on in one window can't attack another window or tab), because when designing a new browser is the only real time that they can do it right with security, as opposed to reactively fight fires, as with IE.

Re:No way in hell

[jonwil]

What hasn't been said by Microsoft is whether or not all extensions need to go through the official Windows store (and be approved by Microsoft) or whether it will be possible to produce extensions that can be installed directly from non-MS websites and hence not need approval from MS.

Re:No way in hell

[Anonymous Coward]

The web is increasingly moving away from the need for such plugins and schemes, so that browsers can simply have ONE good security context in ONE runtime that can run anything you need it to, similar to how PNaCl was supposed to work (only actually designed in such a way that you can migrate your existing browser tech over rather than having to adopt everything Chromium). Things like the sandboxing model JS uses, CORS, various hardware-accessing standards, and the upcoming WebAssembly are all the direction we're going in, thankfully. Thus we won't need to worry about this crapola anymore, and software can leverage almost-native speeds with the security and standard APIs of a browser engine (and those APIs will continue to improve).

Re:No way in hell

[bmo]

He didn't say "no extensions". He said,

adblocker extensions, password managers, extensions that prevent video from autoplaying and etc. will not be available

That may as well be "no extensions" for most people, because those are the most useful ones that get installed first with a new browser.

So fuck him, and fuck his browser. And fuck his company. No, really, if he wants to be that user-hostile, he can take his stuff and shove it straight up his own arse.

--
BMO

Re:No way in hell

[PopeRatzo]

So fuck him, and fuck his browser. And fuck his company.

Oh, I'm with you. I learned long ago with Microsoft that you use what parts work, jettison the rest. It's actually taught me a good lesson about technology: Never fall in love with a company. Also, when it comes to technology, "ABS": Always Be Suspicious.

Re:No way in hell

[mlts]

I hope that is the case. The fewer plug-ins, the better. Right now, if I wanted to watch a video on a web page, it may be in HTML5, it might be HTML+DRM, it may be in Quicktime, it might be in Silverlight, Java, RealAudio, or of course, Flash.

Even if we dispensed with all the plugins and the world magically ran on standards built in all browsers, there are always still security issues. Especially if they give any website it touches full access to hardware, which means it has the option of reflashing firmware or other nefarious tasks. All malware needs is a user context, or just the web browser's context (so it can use the browser for keylogging info in all windows.)

Browsers have to have more thought about security than even firewalls, because they have to deal thoroughly with untrusted, if not hostile code that can try to do anything (jam the CPU, spam dialogs.) The browser in itself really can't do it. It really needs help from the OS for separation, either via policies like SELinux or IE's Low context, or be placed in a sandbox or VM where all writes are virtualized safely away from the rest of the machine.

Re:No way in hell

[ganjadude]

well those specific extensions are the first ones I install so if i cant use them, edge will not even be an option on my radar

Re:No way in hell

[bondsbw]

This was announced a few months ago at BUILD.

http://www.windowscentral.com/...

Re:No way in hell

[jones_supa]

Never fall in love with a company.

Well said. The only love we should be giving companies is the money we use to pay for their products. At the same time we should always demand the best quality possible for that money.

Re:No way in hell

[Blaskowicz]

Not direct hardware access per se, but we'll end up with OpenGL and even OpenCL code running if all goes like planned, under other names such as WebGL, WebCL. That may effect a pseudo denial-of-service through driver crash or overheating, or lead to a web page increasing your power consumption by 100 watts. Perhaps some javascript you automatically run will steal your CPU/GPU cycles for someone to profit from.

I don't know about security issues, seems like the GPU, its firmware and its driver are security choke points? One trivial example would be javascript malware grabs your GPU framebuffer or surfaces to be composited and sends them somewhere.

Re:No way in hell

[exomondo]

What they're glossing over with their review is that adblocker extensions, password managers, extensions that prevent video from autoplaying and etc. will not be available.

And what you're glossing over is that extensions will be available, just not immediately at release. You're criticising somebody for telling a half-truth and then doing exactly that yourself.

They have even detailed the process for creating extensions for Edge.

And I won't use Edge because if I can't control the behavior of my web browser I won't use that web browser.

Ok. You're a minority, most people don't worry about controlling Safari (OSX or iOS) or Chrome or Firefox, they just use the vendor binary.

Re:No way in hell

[exomondo]

I am not a GPU designer, but as far as I know, GPUs do not have much security compared to CPUs, thus the issue of keyloggers and malware that run just on that processor, and since nothing checks the GPU out, it is an effective way to hide processes.

The GPU is not a general purpose processor like the CPU, you can offload certain tasks to it that suit its processing and data model but you can't take processes like keyloggers and malware and run them on the GPU.

Hand the Web browser control of the GPU... which has full access to RAM

No the GPU does not have access to RAM.

and it wouldn't be farfetched to see malware be able to modify memory, add itself into the CPU's kernel space, or just do its dirty work from the GPU, perhaps flashing the firmware on a vulnerable device so it has the ability to reload again.

No this sort of capability simply isn't possible on a GPU.

On a less lethal level, a GPU-based botnet has the ability to do not just DDoS attacks, but be used for distributed items like cryptocurrency mining.

In a botnet the bottleneck is the network, not the CPU, I'm not quite sure what a the GPU component of a GPU-based DDoSing botnet would even do. You can already do cryptocurrency mining on the CPU in the browser, having the CPU offload the applicable elements of the mining process to the GPU isn't going to make it any more clandestine.

Overall, why does the Web browser need this much access to low level hardware? A browser should have -no- hardware access, and be limited on CPU/RAM/GPU/disk resources by the OS.

It already is limited, even access to the GPU is not some direct thing. You don't just get some system control or ability to control what is displayed on the screen just because you can run shader programs on the GPU.

Re:No way in hell

[KGIII]

I'd thought I had read (maybe here?) about a proof of concept GPU malware authorship recently. I took a quick trip to Google.

https://www.google.com/search?...

I am going to grab the study and give it a quick read. There are a number of very interesting links that result from that search. I think you may be a bit out of date with your info that it can not be done. It looks as if it can be done and has been done including malware that effects both Linux and Windows. I am not sure if it would also effect OSX. I will read some more about it though but I figured I would share the search link with you so that you could check it as well. Disclaimer: I am a mathematician and an EE and not a security specialist.

Re:No way in hell

[KGIII]

That is one thing that Microsoft has usually been pretty good about. They will let you install stuff from anywhere you want. They have not really had much of a walled garden approach to anything except things that they have, themselves, hosted on behalf of third parties. So I suspect the various add-ons will be available (and probably directly through Microsoft's site) even if you have to go to a third party site and download them.

Re:No way in hell

[jonwil]

Windows RT and Windows Phone both have walled gardens and only let you install from the Microsoft store.

Re:No way in hell

[KGIII]

That is why I said "pretty good" instead of "ideal" or "perfect." Also, I thought you could tick a box and install outside apps with Windows Phone? I never bought one so I have no idea if that is true. I could have sworn it was just a checkbox and it opened it up like Androids usually have.

Re:No way in hell

[exomondo]

I'd thought I had read (maybe here?) about a proof of concept GPU malware authorship recently.

You can certainly get it to perform some of the malware tasks but you still need a process running on the CPU that has access to the requisite data. So you still need CPU-based malware that has access to all the data you need, you can just obscure what your process does with that data by passing it to the GPU.

The first or second link in your results had a diagram that shows this.

I think you may be a bit out of date with your info that it can not be done.

What cannot be done is to just take a process and have it run on the GPU, you must have a CPU-side process that has access to all the data and then offloads that to the GPU for processing. Point is if your CPU process already has all the access to the data then generally you can obfuscate what it's doing enough to be able to avoid detection by anti-virus software already anyway.

usual crap summaries

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, not all video players want to disseminate their content for free"

  The usual crap, since when does a video player decide whether content is free or not? supporting DRM playback is not the same as forcing DRM on content. The video player plays no part in whether the content is free or not, that is the content providers, the player just supports the playback.

Re:usual crap summaries

[tepples]

If not on the Internet, then on what means of delivery does video produced for profit belong?

Re:usual crap summaries

[savuporo]

Youtube, mostly

But will content be HTML5?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a few years ago how Netflix,Hulu and Amazon were all going big time to HTML5 but so far its not been a fast as they claimed. About the only one embracing HTML5 in a big way has been YouTube. You even see plenty of Flash content around and Silverlight even though Google Chrome has basically snubbed Silverlight in Chrome and even Microsoft says Edge won't use Silverlight. One has to wonder how this will frustrate some users who are not tech savvy and wonder why their content won't work? All browsers are now capable of HTML5 so what's the holdup? Well the holdup is that not everyone is on the same page of maturity of developing HTML5 streaming and while everyone has been talking about it for years. Its still moving at a snails pace.

Re:But will content be HTML5?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's stewardship of web video has been the primary reason for these delays and frustrations. Not only have they been dicking around with HTML5 video, changing how it works every 6 months and screwing with YouTube in ways that make other browsers often look bad "just 'cause", they also paid Adobe to make a Chromium-specific version of Flash on their new plugin API, despite knowing full well that plugins were on the way out, and nobody in their right mind would adopt their plugin interface. So now most browsers have either a shit Flash version that Adobe doesn't care about anymore, or flaky HTML5 video support that requires implementing several immense new APIs like MSE, EME, and others. Google basically has a serious "not invented here" problem with web technology that leaves everyone that doesn't have a huge Google banner over their heads cold, and for every person believing they're making the web better, the actual developers in the trenches are increasingly frustrated with their efforts to rush features out in Chrome that no one else could sanely adopt for months or years - and trust me, others like the Webkit and Firefox team have been working closely to try to make heads or tails out of their specs and adopt them all along.

Re:But will content be HTML5?

[MadMaverick9]

... flaky HTML5 video support ...

huh?

<video width="512" height="297" controls autoplay style="outline: none;">
  <source src="video.webm" type="video/webm">
  <source src="movie.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
  <source src="movie.ogg" type="video/ogg" />
</video>

The above has worked for several years now.

The default video tag supports full screen view.

Youtube's thingy does not. Why not? What's the problem?

Re: But will content be HTML5?

[cyber-vandal]

You need to learn that a lot is two words.

Re:But will content be HTML5?

[Blaskowicz]

HTML5 video is some kind of moving target? I remember how years ago on slashdot it was about some raw video streaming with the universal ability of doing a right-click and "save as". But then it needed DRM. And then, it sucks because you want the ability to change video stream on the fly depending on bandwith. So you have "MSE", which is bleeding edge. Meaning unfinished, not supported, perhaps has the potential to up the CPU hungriness again.
Whatever, give me something that works in flash 11.2, it "only" requires an old 3GHz PC to play (if you don't have h264 hardware)

Will it also support the NSA Protocol ?

[Anonymous Coward]

July 31, 2012

Microsoft (MS) began encrypting web-based chat with the introduction of the new outlook.com service. This new Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption effectively cut off collection of the new service for FAA 702 and likely 12333 (to some degree) for the Intelligence Community (IC). MS, working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal with the new SSL. These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012. The SSL solution was applied to all current FISA and 702/PRISM requirements - no changes to UTT tasking procedures were required. The SSL solution does not collect server-based voice/video or file transfers. The MS legacy collection system will remain in place to collect voice/video and file transfers. As a result there will be some duplicate collection of text-based chat from the new and legacy systems which will be addressed at a later date. An increase in collection volume as a result of this solution has already been noted by CES.

March 15, 2013

SSO's PRISM program began tasking all Microsoft PRISM selectors to Skype because Skype allows users to log in using account identifiers in addition to Skype usernames. Until now, PRISM would not collect any Skype data when a user logged in using anything other than the Skype username which resulted in missing collection; this action will mitigate that. In fact, a user can create a Skype account using any e-mail address with any domain in the world. UTT does not currently allow analysts to task these non-Microsoft e-mail addresses to PRISM, however, SSO intends to fix that this summer. In the meantime, NSA, FBI and Dept of Justice coordinated over the last six months to gain approval for PRINTAURA to send all current and future Microsoft PRISM selectors to Skype. This resulted in about 9800 selectors being sent to Skype and successful collection has been received which otherwise would have been missed.

March 7, 2014

PRISM now collects Microsoft Skydrive data as part of PRISM'S standard Stored Communications collection package for a tasked FISA Amendments Act Section 702 (FAA702) selector. This means that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this - a process step that many analysts may not have known about. This new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response from SSO for our Enterprise customers. This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established.

Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[Anonymous Coward]

The XBox One has been out, nothing approaching a break, and the XBox 360 will get killed off XBL the second someone sticks a modded ROM on there.

As for Windows, seen an activation crack for W2012 R2 or W2012, or even W8? Even fake KMS servers don't last long (a few hours at most).

MS in the DRM department is doing quite well.

Re:Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[ganjadude]

what are you talking about??? ive been running my original xbox modded for like 10 years now

Re:Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[ganjadude]

sorry, you were talking about the xBONE, not the OG xbox. apologies

Re:Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[ArmoredDragon]

The XBox One has been out, nothing approaching a break, and the XBox 360 will get killed off XBL the second someone sticks a modded ROM on there.

As for Windows, seen an activation crack for W2012 R2 or W2012, or even W8? Even fake KMS servers don't last long (a few hours at most).

I've been playing copied games on xbox live for a while on the xbox 360. You just use an xk3y and make sure to run the ripped ISO image through abg360. It's been working perfectly for over 3 years, and Microsoft is well aware of it yet hasn't been able to do anything to stop it.

Re: Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[Bert64]

When people started doing that it was the current generation console, and it's not a lot of effort to install an xk3y (which costs about the price of a single game) and then copy downloaded iso files to a usb hdd... In fact, being able to hook up a large portable hdd containing hundreds of games is far more convenient than sorting through a pile of dvd media.

Re:Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[exomondo]

Right, when they lock down the entire system. Who would want an x-box anyway?

About 80 million people, much the same with the Playstation 3 which also around 80 million and the XB1 and PS4 are already on around 20 and 12 million respectively. So the answer is that lots of people want these systems despite the lockdown.

Re:Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[KGIII]

Just ten years ago do you think we'd have even thought that Microsoft would be outselling Sony in the console department? Wow. The times have changed.

Re:Umm... their DRM code works quite well...

[exomondo]

Whoops that's backwards...which you can obviously see in the link.

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[ChunderDownunder]

Dupe

Copied and pasted from a comment yesterday.

Please think before you moderate this FUD up. An article on Microsoft is no license to Mozilla-bash.

"Edge"

[PopeRatzo]

Who comes up with these idiotic names? Why not "Microsoft Nail" or "Microsoft Lance" or "Microsoft Thing That Penetrates"?

"Microsoft Edge" is a very '90s name to my ears, but maybe it's just the fact that I've been sitting on the porch drinking, eating barbecue and watching fireworks for the past several hours. But Microsoft was never really good at names, although I did once have a three-legged dog named "Clippy" (that's actually true).

Re:"Edge"

[neilo_1701D]

They wanted a name starting with "E", to keep a stylized blue "e" as an icon. Given that Windows 10 windows are essentially frameless, the browser viewing area is edge-to-edge, hence "Edge".

The idea was to keep the icon as familiar as possible.

Re:"Edge"

[PopeRatzo]

They wanted a name starting with "E", to keep a stylized blue "e" as an icon. Given that Windows 10 windows are essentially frameless, the browser viewing area is edge-to-edge, hence "Edge".

Then I think "Microsoft E" would have been a better name, invoking the drug that you'd have to be high on to want to use that browser.

Re:"Edge"

[Anonymous Coward]

Then that is a fail right there. They wanted to change the name from IE because of its bad reputation but if they still want people to relate back to the icon it's not going to get them very far.

Re:"Edge"

[iampiti]

I updated the Windows 10 preview to the last build and saw an icon that looked very much like that of Internet Explorer. Turns out is the icon of Edge.
I find it funny they've worked so hard so as not to alienate the users who think the "blue e" is the Internet but thought it was ok to radically change the interface in Windows 8. In Windows 10 they've half-backtracked by including a stripped-down Start Menu but that would also completely confuse someone who's confused if the Internet changes its icon from a blue e.
Sorry for the rant and semi offtopic comment but I'm really pissed of at Microsoft for the changes to Windows starting in 8

Re:"Edge"

[neilo_1701D]

I find it funny they've worked so hard so as not to alienate the users who think the "blue e" is the Internet but thought it was ok to radically change the interface in Windows 8.

Windows 8 was lead by Steven Sinofsky, described as someone with the maniacal power and force of will of a Steve Jobs ... lacking Jobs' best gift: An innate understanding of good design.

After Windows 8, Sinofsky didn't work at Microsoft anymore. Now Microsoft have to deal with his legacy: some good and some bad. The result is Windows 10, led by Gabe Aul.

I actually don't mind the Windows 10 Start menu. It's a good compromise between the Windows 95 - Windows 7 concepts and the Windows 8 Start screen. It could be better, but it's good enough.

Re:"Edge"

[bloodhawk]

It's no worse than the rest of the browser names. Except for Internet Explorer and Netscape they are all bloody aweful, Who the fuck thought of names like Opera, firefox, lynx, Safari, chrome (actually while I hate the browser it is about the best name of the rest considering you can sort of associate the web as a safari).

Re:"Edge"

[Phroggy]

Then that is a fail right there. They wanted to change the name from IE because of its bad reputation but if they still want people to relate back to the icon it's not going to get them very far.

They only want people who are at least slightly tech-savvy to think it's a totally new browser. They want stupid people who don't know anything to think it's the same old browser they're already familiar with. Changing the name while keeping the icon seems like a good way to accomplish these goals.

Exclusives and ease of use

[tepples]

Who would want an x-box anyway?

To play games that are exclusive to an Xbox platform or games that are released on Xbox and PlayStation platforms but not PC. Or because a video game console can be cheaper and easier to operate than a comparable gaming PC.

Pirating software means having to make a bit-for-bit copy with enough changes that it runs without DRM.

The video game Mino was not a bit-for-bit copy of Tetris but was still ruled pirated.

Re:Exclusives and ease of use

[cHiphead]

Lifelong gamer here, with kids and wife who also game. Nobody actually cares about consoles anymore, the world has moved on, Tablet/phone games and pc games are where the safe money will be. Xbone and PS4 are just computers that are locked in to their titles. Once the xbox360 goes out, we'll never go back to consoles.

Re: Exclusives and ease of use

[cyber-vandal]

Apart from the tens of millions of people who've bought them of course.

One advantage of static typing

[tepples]

.net is inferior to javascript

In what way?

One advantage of the .NET Framework is static typing. In a fully dynamic language such as PHP, Python, or JavaScript, you need to put unit tests into your program to make sure the correct types are getting passed in and out of functions. A language with static typing, such as C#, already ensures type safety. So it's like the compiler writes a lot of your unit tests for you.

The .NET Framework used to have the disadvantage of being a non-free platform, which put .NET programs in what FSF calls a "Java trap". But nowadays, a lot of the interesting parts of the .NET Framework are released under a free software license.

Re:One advantage of static typing

[savuporo]

So it's like the compiler writes a lot of your unit tests for you.

And i have a bridge to sell you.

Re: One advantage of static typing

[cyber-vandal]

It isn't unless you're an zealot twisted by pointless hatred. Or maybe he's stuck in 2001 and thinks that .NET is all Winforms in VB.

Re:One advantage of static typing

[tepples]

By no means does a static proof of type safety substitute for all unit tests, but it still substitutes for some. Or could you explain why it doesn't?

Vector animation

[tepples]

You even see plenty of Flash content around

That's in part because it took so long to make visual editors for animated SVG and HTML5 Canvas that were comparable to Flash MX, let alone Flash CS. And Edge Animate, the HTML5 animation tool from the maker of Flash, is available only on a rental model, not a purchase model. So things like animutations and Weebl's Stuff still tend to depend on Flash.

Re:Vector animation

[MadMaverick9]

People still use flash? How quaint.

I uninstalled flash almost 2 years ago now. Haven't missed out on anything.

Re:Vector animation

[CaptQuark]

How would you know? If the page substitutes static content when if finds you don't have Flash installed, how do you know what you are missing?

Re:Vector animation

[Anne Thwacks]

I think you misunderstand - for most people, static content is far preferable. We dont want anything that moves unless we click on it, and probably not even then!

Re:Vector animation

[exomondo]

I think you misunderstand - for most people, static content is far preferable. We dont want anything that moves unless we click on it, and probably not even then!

No, you misunderstand. There's a lot of middle ground between static content and bombastic, flamboyant advertising.

The name originates in IE 8

[tepples]

Who comes up with these idiotic names?

I don't know who, but I do know when. IE 8 introduced the X-ua-compatible header. "Use the following value to display the webpage in edge mode, which is the highest standards mode supported by Internet Explorer."

Re:The name originates in IE 8

[exomondo]

Oh great. IE8. That's some special lineage on which to base the identity of their new browser.

And I'm sure so many people are going to get hung up on that!

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[ArmoredDragon]

As distasteful as I find DRM, at least we see Microsoft trying to improve their web browser. With Edge they're actually succeeding in creating something that average users do want to use!

Not exactly. Microsoft's Edge browser is still in fourth place in terms of being standards compliant, which is what I think average users want because it makes the browser actually compatible with modern content. Yes, it's a tad ahead of IE, but it's still quite behind Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.

http://html5test.com/results/d...

In fact most web browsers for mobile devices are doing better than Edge: It's behind Android WebView, BlackBerry's web browser, Chrome for Android, Firefox for Android, Safari for iOS, Opera Mobile, Tizen's web browser, Amazon Silk, Jolla Sailfish, and the now discontinued Nokia X browser.

http://html5test.com/results/m...

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[ganjadude]

to be fair, its not even out officially yet, its in pre release.

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[KingMotley]

Not a real big fan of html5test.com. The weight they assign things are very chrome favored. Just as an example, they list stupid things like :read-only, :read-write twice, and 2d blend modes (7 points) which favor Chrome, but useful things like video track and audio track selection are weighted very little (4 points).

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[ArmoredDragon]

It's all of about 25 days from release. I doubt they are going to be adding features at this point, more likely they're just bug fixing.

Re:U2 reviews Edge

[MadMaverick9]

Thank you for pointing out what is wrong with video on the web these days.

If I want to play this with SMPlayer (w/ MPlayer), I get a "Server returned 403: Forbidden" message.

I do not care why this is happening. I simply move on to other pastures.

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[bondsbw]

This would be a reasonable concern if this release of Edge was the final release, ever.

Even if you only see bug fixes between now and July 29, new features will come to some post-RTM release.

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[Daltorak]

As distasteful as I find DRM, at least we see Microsoft trying to improve their web browser. With Edge they're actually succeeding in creating something that average users do want to use!

Not exactly. Microsoft's Edge browser is still in fourth place in terms of being standards compliant,

Err.... standards? Look, HTML5Test leans heavily on W3C working drafts which are nowhere near finished. Edge doesn't implement Web Components, streams, service workers, web notifications, speech recognition and speech synthesis. These account for about 10% of the total HTML5Test score, but they're all drafts or proposals!

The fact that some browsers are implementing these drafts without a prefix is a PROBLEM, not a good thing. Library & web site developers end up taking dependencies on things that may very well change over time.

Meanwhile, if you want to stick to stable, published specifications, Edge is currently the leading browser for ES6 support in terms of percentage of features implemented. As for CSS, have a look at the list of CSS features Edge doesn't support and note that for most of them, at least one of Firefox and Chrome hasn't implemented them either..... and/or they're a working draft.... or other browsers have just implemented them in the last few months.

Re:U2 reviews Edge

[perryizgr8]

It's youtube, you can just click on it and it'll play. Why do you wanna use another player?

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Dear coward,

It's not a "dupe". "Dupe" implies that it's a "duplicate". That is, an exact word-for-word copy. Anyone who can read can clearly see that there are significant differences between the two. Yes, the general idea is the same, but it's obviously not a "dupe". Besides, it's actually very relevant to this discussion. Microsoft is on the ascendancy again with Edge. If Mozilla doesn't shape up then everything good they've accomplished with Firefox in the last decade will be rendered totally irrelevant. Instead of just an IE monoculture like we used to have, we're now heading into a Chrome monoculture, with the only other viable alternative being Edge. It doesn't have to be this way, of course, if Mozilla just did the right thing and stopped screwing around with Firefox. All they need to do is go back to giving us a good, usable browser.

Yeah - you changed a couple of words, so it's not a dupe. Right.

Recent browser market share stats [caniuse.com] show that all versions of Firefox Desktop are only around 8% of the market. Firefox 38 is only at 7.45%, so we can expect Firefox 39 to be below that, possibly forever. Firefox for Android is at 0.14% (yes, that's a leading 0!), and Firefox isn't really a viable option on iOS. [--vitriolic rant--predictions of imminent doom--]

And it's still bullshit. Did you spend long trying to find figures that support your Mozilla hate? What's you association with that site which plucks it's bullshit figures out of it's arse?

I've previously pointed at reliable, undistorted figures. And shown why the figures you point to are,um, distorted - that you base your claim of 8% on are bullshit, real life figure is 12 - 20% - but you keep spewing the big lie like you've an agenda, or some organic problem.

Re:U2 reviews Edge

[smittyoneeach]

This is /.
At least he didn't say: "I follow the link in Lynx, but it no worky-worky,"

what a waste

[lophophore]

what a ridiculous waste of effort. The DRM will be broken by pirates within months, if not weeks, of release, and eventually rendered useless, but meanwhile, regular users will get screwed when the shoddy implementations make the user experience suck.

Re:Aww, that's a bummer.

[westlake]

Sadly, I'm not compatible with DRM so I guess I can't use that new browser.

It's not about you.

The mainstream browser that doesn't support protected media play is damn near extinct.

The browser itself is under threat of being eclipsed by the walled gardens of the mobile, app-oriented, world. Imagine if Netflix began adding live news and sports feeds to its streaming media content.

Re:Aww, that's a bummer.

[unixisc]

I am a Windows 10 Preview User. I got a separate app to download the music I want. I then play it offline under Microsoft Video. I even transfer it to my other tablets, in case I want to watch it there.

I don't use the browser itself for DRM stuff, and I'm glad that Edge is a good lightweight alternative. For Windows 10, I'd use both Edge and IE.

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[ArmoredDragon]

Even in other tests, Edge is still dead last among the four.

http://caniuse.com/#compare=ie...

Also run the acid3 test in Edge and compare to Chrome. In Edge it stutters a bit, so it doesn't *fully* pass the test.

Re:Why isn't Mozilla panicking?

[KGIII]

I dunno. We often use an article about Mozilla to bash on Microsoft. We will use an article on solar panels to bash on Microsoft.