If Firefox is searching google from the address bar, then it is going to the "I Feel Lucky" option.
Opera, by comparison, just does a regular search, showing the results in the main window. Furthermore, Opera supports a number of search engines in this manner, having different codes for each one and is extensible, too.
I had been a huge fan of Opera since I discovered it in 1995. I happily tolerated the rigid CSS implementation that would make it "incompatible" with other sites designed with IE's bugginess and broken features in mind. I've since left Opera for Firefox with nary a look back. I only wish that a search extension similar to Opera's would be made available. I'm not sure, however, that an extension can intercept requests from the address bar (just glanced over the API - I might be wrong about that).
It's unfortunate that Opera has to go free. They have a great product. They're just in the wrong market. Here's hoping that they don't suffer the same fate as Netscape.
In related news, oil jumped $5.50 a barrel today on speculation that the disruption to cell phones, caused by the flairs, would prevent people from checking GasBuddy.com as they drive around town looking for who has the cheapest gas. Congress is expected to wave its arms in helpless frustration, shouting out "Oh, look, An Eagle!"
Interesting. You were modded as a Troll. Methinks some boarish, obnoxious, inconsiderate, soccer-mom driving, ghetto-thug-bangin', Boost mobile-using, louder-than-a-boom-box-talking, commuter-train-riding moderator doth protest too much.
>>Everything you love about fortran with none of the hype.
I read that as "Everything you love about fortran with none of the hope."
Fortran? Seriously, what's the matter? Was Emacs not available?
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 0
>>But now I'm tempted to use it and uninstall firefox just on principle, because I don't want to be associated with a bunch of whiny, superior, arrogant, miscreants.
By all means, please, go ahead. Then, once your machine has been riddled with trojans and spyware so badly that you can't even connect to dar interwebs, we won't have to listen to your pissant little ranting any more.
>>But you have to promise to stab yourself in the eye for being so dense and missing the point
Looks like you're the one that's missing the point. The complaint here isn't that IE7 is borrowing from other browsers. It's very clear that these are features that the market wants given the rising popularity of Opera, Firefox, etc.
The complaint is that Microsoft (and the Pavlovian media that slobbers at the company's feet at the merest hint of a product announcement) is presenting this as the end-all be-all second and final coming of browsers. They're touting it as their latest and greatest innovation irrespective of its predecessors. In the end, I don't care, as long as it's more secure. Then I wish the best of luck to Microsoft in getting it adopted. There are too many boxes getting "0wn3d". If this grandstanding helps get people off of the older versions of the "big blue 'E'", all the better.
Then again, Microsoft has always been good at marketing -- it's their biggest seller.
You have to be proven to have known that the goods were stolen, otherwise there is no crime.
What the GP is talking about isn't someone buying the PC out of the back of a truck. It is someone who buys the computer from a retailer, in **good faith**, and the retailer, unknown to the purchaser, is using pirated copies of Windows. This is a common occurance with white box PCs and isn't limited to EBay sales.
The people affected by this aren't the ones buying and installing XP themselves. They are the ones that bought "no-name" PCs with XP pre-installed where the retailer is not a valid OEM licensee.
the big difference between being hardcore at chess and being hardcore at mmorpg's is that with chess you get better when you train your brain while for mmorpgs you just have to do mindless stuff a lot.
Oh?
Push the pawn...Push the pawn...Push the pawn...Push the pawn. OOOOH!! Move the Knight!! Push the pawn...Push the pawn...Push the pawn....
The RSS enclosure tag (which contains the url to download) is associated with MIME types, not an iPod. You can use RSS for distributing software updates, for example, and it is certain that it will be used for this purpose. It is moronically easy to put an executable (or similar) into an RSS feed. Given that the majority of people that get podcast feeds have little to no understanding of how it actually works, you can bet that this will be exploited. They might be safe using their run-of-the-mill RSS feed consumer, but that's not what the article is about.
The story here isn't that the protocol can be exploited, it's that RSS processing is being embedded into the **operating system**. Once more, we see a vendor (Microsoft) including superfluous functionality into an application system that should not be there.
From the article:
Microsoft plans to embed an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) platform to automatically distribute feeds into Windows applications, both its own and those from developers. The plan is for Longhorn to provide a common feed list of subscriptions and a common feed store of data in Longhorn, which will be available to applications through Windows APIs.
One compromised source server, be it Microsoft's or a 3rd party's, will immediately push out malicious code and do more damage than any email-based trojan or website-installed spyware could ever hope to do. And while some folks like to think that their servers are impervious to attack, we all know that is simply not the case.
It's is not a question of "IF" [sic] but "when". By bringing these issues to light now, rather than after the fact, it is hoped that Microsoft can be pressured into reversing their decision to integrate RSS-based APIs into the OS.
So let's just chase around every vendor's implementation? The issue here is that Microsoft is trying to push through yet another non-standard protocol. I'm all for SPF if it conforms to a standard, but SenderID is not a standard. It's an arbitrary modification.
Hotmail people will have to check their spam folder so regularly for for things that aren't actually spam that Sender-ID will just annoy them so much that they'll abandon Hotmail.
That's not how SenderID works. The emails that fail validation will be refused. They will not be forwarded to a user's spam folder.
Microsoft can push SenderId all that they want. All that they will accomplish is excluding their domains from useful communication. This will be rolled back in under 60 days, if it is implemented at all.
I can't think of any companies that are going to make considerable modifications to their email systems just to please Microsoft (or any other for that matter). Furthermore, the use of SenderId/SPF breaks some email delivery features (such as forwarding).
I think that it's great that a company like pobox.com is financing the implemntation of SPF on the OSS side, but I don't expect a wide-spread adoption given the administration costs. Also, I feel compelled to ask, is Microsoft truly doing this to combat spam or do they want to force people to upgrade to Exchange 2006? And SenderId itself will never become a standard protocol as long as M$ owns it. There is too much concern that they would try to lock out OSS from implementing a protocol that they own the rights to.
It's a valid cause but the implementation is flawed and doomed for failure.
Outlaw India and they'll just come up with another replacement. Rumor has it that projects are already in the works with names like "Malaysia", "Philippines", and "China".
Where I look at automobiles and aeroplanes and pharmaceuticals think Wow! How did they make all that progress in such a short period of time
Oooooh, bad example.
The automobile has had ZERO innovations in the past 30 years. Seat belts and anti-lock brakes hardly count. The internal combustion engine has seen little improvement save fuel-injection, and that's been around since the the 1890's. It was introduced into wide production in the 1920's. Patents have kept the status quo in place with respect to automobiles since.
Airplanes are still pretty much using the same design as they have for 70 years.
Phamaceuticals are probably the absolute worst example you could have cited. The patents granted to the drug companies have zero benefit to humanity. For all of the crying about RIO and research dollars, the fact is that a lot more could be achieved if the medical industry worked together to find cures, as opposed to against each other to find dollars. And medicine would not be as horrifically expensive and out of reach of the majority of people that need it the most, if it were not for patents. The lack of a patent on drugs would permit fierce competition into the marketplace and result in more economical remedies, wider available healthcare and lower medical practioning and insurance costs.
I was hoping that you were just kidding with your post, but reading your following posts, I can see that is not the case.
So tell me, QuantumG...how long have you been a patent attorney?
Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
My, oh my....how did we ever manage to watch movies at home before the Internet came along? I'm not surprised that the industry is blaming (or suggesting) that the downturn in attendance is due to downloading (as seen in countless articles). That explanation must be so much more reassuring to them than the fact that they've been putting out nothing but crap for the past several years.
Going forward, these vulnerabilities will remain for a very simple reason: Microsoft is not about to alienate its installed user base by breaking compatibility with older applications. They're smart enough to realize that if moving to a new platform means losing not only your investment in your current OS, but in all of the applications running on it as well, very few people will upgrade. Add to this the size and complexity of present-day Windows (2000 and XP), and you can understand that a complete re-design is out of the question. Despite the flaws, this is a sound business decision on their part.
Since Win95, each iteration of Windows has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. You could easily argue that 95 was an evolutionary step from Win16 and the loss of compatibility was worth the advances (32bit processing chief among them). 98 and ME were little more than 95 with service packs and updated drivers. XP brought a good amount of stability by incorporating many of the more robust features of NT 4 and NT 5 (aka Windows 2000).
Longhorn is promising to bring "trusted computing" but I'm not holding my breath for a lot of success. It's one thing to come out with a consumer OS like XP and break some games. It's another thing entirely to break business applications. If they're not going to break compatibility, then they will have to retain a lot of the existing code base and/or design, thus retaining a lot of the vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
In all fairness, Linux has its share of problems (just as every other OS), but the popularity of Windows makes it the preferred target. So we will be hearing about exploits for many years to come.
The only truly secure system is the one not plugged in.
>>is there any hope that all the bad things that are happening with Windows (and Microsoft), that they will change their ways and actually anticipate some of these problems that are occurring?
As great and infallible as non-Windows OSs are, these same problems exist with Linux, Mac et al, just on a much smaller scale. Having some 95% of all desktops, Windows is the natural target here.
The problem isn't Windows or Microsoft. The problem is the **users**. They open email attachments without questioning the source. They don't run anti-virus software (or don't maintain the subscription). They don't employ firewalls. They don't update and patch their systems. They don't scan their systems for adware.
Yes, IE allows adware to be installed. Yes, Windows has the RPC hole. Yes, the windows kernel is, has been, and most likely will always be, insecure. But there are steps that a user can take to protect themselves. I have used Windows since Win286 and I have never been infected with a virus, never been compromised by a worm and never been the victim of spyware. I'm not an anti-MS person but I don't blindly use their software. I have more *nix servers than Windows servers but you could hardly consider me a fanatic.
True, I'm an IT professional and have a greater knowledge of PCs than 99% of users out there (just like the rest of us here), but it's not rocket science to keep yourself protected.
If the Penguin Dream of taking over the desktop ever comes true, you can bet that viruses, trojans, adware, etc will become an epidemic on Linux just as it is on Windows.
I'll back up Taevin on this one. I buy a *ton* of games and the first two things that I do after installation is download the patch and the NO-CD fix. Piracy has nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you try doing that? I'm guessing that you didn't.
Typing "g firefox" as you suggested lands me on http://firefox.g.hatena.ne.jp/popona/ <-- don't click on it
If Firefox is searching google from the address bar, then it is going to the "I Feel Lucky" option.
Opera, by comparison, just does a regular search, showing the results in the main window. Furthermore, Opera supports a number of search engines in this manner, having different codes for each one and is extensible, too.
I had been a huge fan of Opera since I discovered it in 1995. I happily tolerated the rigid CSS implementation that would make it "incompatible" with other sites designed with IE's bugginess and broken features in mind. I've since left Opera for Firefox with nary a look back. I only wish that a search extension similar to Opera's would be made available. I'm not sure, however, that an extension can intercept requests from the address bar (just glanced over the API - I might be wrong about that).
It's unfortunate that Opera has to go free. They have a great product. They're just in the wrong market. Here's hoping that they don't suffer the same fate as Netscape.
In related news, oil jumped $5.50 a barrel today on speculation that the disruption to cell phones, caused by the flairs, would prevent people from checking GasBuddy.com as they drive around town looking for who has the cheapest gas. Congress is expected to wave its arms in helpless frustration, shouting out "Oh, look, An Eagle!"
This might help to explain why SACD and DVD-A titles are just flying off the shelves.
JBoss doesn't claim to have invented JMX. They merely utilize it in their implementation.
"Microkernel" refers to the architectural pattern around which JBoss was designed. You can read up on it in the POSA book by Buschmann et. al.
Nevermind div tags. How about a line-break now and then?
Interesting. You were modded as a Troll. Methinks some boarish, obnoxious, inconsiderate, soccer-mom driving, ghetto-thug-bangin', Boost mobile-using, louder-than-a-boom-box-talking, commuter-train-riding moderator doth protest too much.
>>Everything you love about fortran with none of the hype.
I read that as "Everything you love about fortran with none of the hope."
Fortran? Seriously, what's the matter? Was Emacs not available?
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
>>But now I'm tempted to use it and uninstall firefox just on principle, because I don't want to be associated with a bunch of whiny, superior, arrogant, miscreants.
By all means, please, go ahead. Then, once your machine has been riddled with trojans and spyware so badly that you can't even connect to dar interwebs, we won't have to listen to your pissant little ranting any more.
>>But you have to promise to stab yourself in the eye for being so dense and missing the point
Looks like you're the one that's missing the point. The complaint here isn't that IE7 is borrowing from other browsers. It's very clear that these are features that the market wants given the rising popularity of Opera, Firefox, etc.
The complaint is that Microsoft (and the Pavlovian media that slobbers at the company's feet at the merest hint of a product announcement) is presenting this as the end-all be-all second and final coming of browsers. They're touting it as their latest and greatest innovation irrespective of its predecessors. In the end, I don't care, as long as it's more secure. Then I wish the best of luck to Microsoft in getting it adopted. There are too many boxes getting "0wn3d". If this grandstanding helps get people off of the older versions of the "big blue 'E'", all the better.
Then again, Microsoft has always been good at marketing -- it's their biggest seller.
>>Recieving stolen goods is also a crime
You have to be proven to have known that the goods were stolen, otherwise there is no crime.
What the GP is talking about isn't someone buying the PC out of the back of a truck. It is someone who buys the computer from a retailer, in **good faith**, and the retailer, unknown to the purchaser, is using pirated copies of Windows. This is a common occurance with white box PCs and isn't limited to EBay sales.
The people affected by this aren't the ones buying and installing XP themselves. They are the ones that bought "no-name" PCs with XP pre-installed where the retailer is not a valid OEM licensee.
Yeah, VOIP will kill off traditional telephony just as soon as Comcast figures out how to make my connection stop cutting o^^^^NO CARRIER^^^^
the big difference between being hardcore at chess and being hardcore at mmorpg's is that with chess you get better when you train your brain while for mmorpgs you just have to do mindless stuff a lot.
Oh?
Push the pawn...Push the pawn...Push the pawn...Push the pawn. OOOOH!! Move the Knight!! Push the pawn...Push the pawn...Push the pawn....
The RSS enclosure tag (which contains the url to download) is associated with MIME types, not an iPod. You can use RSS for distributing software updates, for example, and it is certain that it will be used for this purpose. It is moronically easy to put an executable (or similar) into an RSS feed. Given that the majority of people that get podcast feeds have little to no understanding of how it actually works, you can bet that this will be exploited. They might be safe using their run-of-the-mill RSS feed consumer, but that's not what the article is about.
The story here isn't that the protocol can be exploited, it's that RSS processing is being embedded into the **operating system**. Once more, we see a vendor (Microsoft) including superfluous functionality into an application system that should not be there.
From the article:
Microsoft plans to embed an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) platform to automatically distribute feeds into Windows applications, both its own and those from developers. The plan is for Longhorn to provide a common feed list of subscriptions and a common feed store of data in Longhorn, which will be available to applications through Windows APIs.
One compromised source server, be it Microsoft's or a 3rd party's, will immediately push out malicious code and do more damage than any email-based trojan or website-installed spyware could ever hope to do. And while some folks like to think that their servers are impervious to attack, we all know that is simply not the case.
It's is not a question of "IF" [sic] but "when". By bringing these issues to light now, rather than after the fact, it is hoped that Microsoft can be pressured into reversing their decision to integrate RSS-based APIs into the OS.
So let's just chase around every vendor's implementation? The issue here is that Microsoft is trying to push through yet another non-standard protocol. I'm all for SPF if it conforms to a standard, but SenderID is not a standard. It's an arbitrary modification.
I'm sorry but this approach is not the answer.
This must be a new record.
;)
Actually, he was going for "First Post".
Hotmail people will have to check their spam folder so regularly for for things that aren't actually spam that Sender-ID will just annoy them so much that they'll abandon Hotmail.
That's not how SenderID works. The emails that fail validation will be refused. They will not be forwarded to a user's spam folder.
Microsoft can push SenderId all that they want. All that they will accomplish is excluding their domains from useful communication. This will be rolled back in under 60 days, if it is implemented at all.
I can't think of any companies that are going to make considerable modifications to their email systems just to please Microsoft (or any other for that matter). Furthermore, the use of SenderId/SPF breaks some email delivery features (such as forwarding).
I think that it's great that a company like pobox.com is financing the implemntation of SPF on the OSS side, but I don't expect a wide-spread adoption given the administration costs. Also, I feel compelled to ask, is Microsoft truly doing this to combat spam or do they want to force people to upgrade to Exchange 2006? And SenderId itself will never become a standard protocol as long as M$ owns it. There is too much concern that they would try to lock out OSS from implementing a protocol that they own the rights to.
It's a valid cause but the implementation is flawed and doomed for failure.
Outlaw India and they'll just come up with another replacement. Rumor has it that projects are already in the works with names like "Malaysia", "Philippines", and "China".
Where I look at automobiles and aeroplanes and pharmaceuticals think Wow! How did they make all that progress in such a short period of time
Oooooh, bad example.
The automobile has had ZERO innovations in the past 30 years. Seat belts and anti-lock brakes hardly count. The internal combustion engine has seen little improvement save fuel-injection, and that's been around since the the 1890's. It was introduced into wide production in the 1920's. Patents have kept the status quo in place with respect to automobiles since.
Airplanes are still pretty much using the same design as they have for 70 years.
Phamaceuticals are probably the absolute worst example you could have cited. The patents granted to the drug companies have zero benefit to humanity. For all of the crying about RIO and research dollars, the fact is that a lot more could be achieved if the medical industry worked together to find cures, as opposed to against each other to find dollars. And medicine would not be as horrifically expensive and out of reach of the majority of people that need it the most, if it were not for patents. The lack of a patent on drugs would permit fierce competition into the marketplace and result in more economical remedies, wider available healthcare and lower medical practioning and insurance costs.
I was hoping that you were just kidding with your post, but reading your following posts, I can see that is not the case.
So tell me, QuantumG...how long have you been a patent attorney?
So what you're saying is like "I enjoy chocolate, I'm just not entitled to it". Being a bit literal, aren't we?
From dictionary.com:
Enjoy:
v. tr.
1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.
I believe that the intent of the Chinese Constitution is under definition #2.
You know how everyone knows that US congressmen take bribes? Well, here in Australia, it's illegal for politicians to take bribes.
It's illegal here in the US, too....It's just condoned.
Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
My, oh my....how did we ever manage to watch movies at home before the Internet came along? I'm not surprised that the industry is blaming (or suggesting) that the downturn in attendance is due to downloading (as seen in countless articles). That explanation must be so much more reassuring to them than the fact that they've been putting out nothing but crap for the past several years.
That's all right. I have karma to burn.
I find it amusing, tho, that the only thing people like less than a critic is someone that criticizes a critic.
Ahh, sweet, sweet irony.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, blog.
Past and Present
Going forward, these vulnerabilities will remain for a very simple reason: Microsoft is not about to alienate its installed user base by breaking compatibility with older applications. They're smart enough to realize that if moving to a new platform means losing not only your investment in your current OS, but in all of the applications running on it as well, very few people will upgrade. Add to this the size and complexity of present-day Windows (2000 and XP), and you can understand that a complete re-design is out of the question. Despite the flaws, this is a sound business decision on their part.
Since Win95, each iteration of Windows has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. You could easily argue that 95 was an evolutionary step from Win16 and the loss of compatibility was worth the advances (32bit processing chief among them). 98 and ME were little more than 95 with service packs and updated drivers. XP brought a good amount of stability by incorporating many of the more robust features of NT 4 and NT 5 (aka Windows 2000).
Longhorn is promising to bring "trusted computing" but I'm not holding my breath for a lot of success. It's one thing to come out with a consumer OS like XP and break some games. It's another thing entirely to break business applications. If they're not going to break compatibility, then they will have to retain a lot of the existing code base and/or design, thus retaining a lot of the vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
In all fairness, Linux has its share of problems (just as every other OS), but the popularity of Windows makes it the preferred target. So we will be hearing about exploits for many years to come.
The only truly secure system is the one not plugged in.
>>is there any hope that all the bad things that are happening with Windows (and Microsoft), that they will change their ways and actually anticipate some of these problems that are occurring?
As great and infallible as non-Windows OSs are, these same problems exist with Linux, Mac et al, just on a much smaller scale. Having some 95% of all desktops, Windows is the natural target here.
The problem isn't Windows or Microsoft. The problem is the **users**. They open email attachments without questioning the source. They don't run anti-virus software (or don't maintain the subscription). They don't employ firewalls. They don't update and patch their systems. They don't scan their systems for adware.
Yes, IE allows adware to be installed. Yes, Windows has the RPC hole. Yes, the windows kernel is, has been, and most likely will always be, insecure. But there are steps that a user can take to protect themselves. I have used Windows since Win286 and I have never been infected with a virus, never been compromised by a worm and never been the victim of spyware. I'm not an anti-MS person but I don't blindly use their software. I have more *nix servers than Windows servers but you could hardly consider me a fanatic.
True, I'm an IT professional and have a greater knowledge of PCs than 99% of users out there (just like the rest of us here), but it's not rocket science to keep yourself protected.
If the Penguin Dream of taking over the desktop ever comes true, you can bet that viruses, trojans, adware, etc will become an epidemic on Linux just as it is on Windows.
Remember: dumb users are platform-independent.
I'll back up Taevin on this one. I buy a *ton* of games and the first two things that I do after installation is download the patch and the NO-CD fix. Piracy has nothing to do with it.