Looking at what Firefox has become, I'm not so sure. Sure, there are some good open source products, but they're usually backed by huge corporations like Google or Apple. They both contribute to Webkit and Chromium. Firefox comes from Netscape and is currently a joke. Apache is backed by huge companies.
Apart from those, are there actually open source projects that can compete with proprietary counterparts? Especially on less popular niches like industry products or games (even though games is a popular niche, but there still isn't any good open source games or game engines).
As for the reasoning behind this big about-turn, it could be down to Microsoft trying to soften the blow of its Android patent litigation — or maybe Redmond is just trying to differentiate itself from Apple, which famously restricts open source-licensed apps from being sold in its iOS and Mac App Stores.
Or what about if Microsoft just doesn't have anything against open source projects? They have several ones themselves, have helped writing some Linux code and in every other way have softened themselves about open source.
Microsoft has never really locked down their desktop OS either. It has always been open in a way that it lets you run anything you want. Be it open source or proprietary code. Microsoft doesn't care - they're primarily selling their OS, and their OS has always came with the promise of you're being able to run anything you want. That is also why Windows has such a large market place for all kinds of applications and games. Being able to run anything you want, from any vendor you want, has always been one of the largest selling points of Windows.
Allowing open source programs isn't really problem for Microsoft..
- Linux still cannot compete on desktop. Much larger competitor to MS is OSX, and even then MS does programs for Mac too.
- As far as mobiles go, Microsoft already gets lots of money for every Android device sold. Microsoft wins in either case, be it Android or Windows Phone that is selling better.
- OpenOffice is a toy compared to MS Office. It's missing lots of features, isn't user friendly, it's slow and generally just works badly.
- Visual Studio is much better programming IDE than open source ones, especially when you add visualAssist to it.
- There isn't any open source competitors for Xbox 360. None.
It isn't about "softening the blow" or anything to those lines. Microsoft has just seen that open source really cannot compete with quality products.
They obviously can't get information about who uses what IP at what times. But don't worry, when court orders come and you're going to be sued, your ISP has that info and will be able to find you.
MPAA? It's just some russian guys. Besides, all of that data is already visible and copyright infringement companies are probably gathering much more data than some guys who made that site.
It's not scare tactics to let you know what data there is out about you. Unless you want to be ignorant and feel happier if you don't know it.
Your company is just starting up and probably isn't established in the industry. Giving away everything you have done better than your competitors is not going to end well. Remember that they are already established in the industry, and way more known than you. You're already at disadvantage there. Don't give away the one thing you have - technological advantage.
Since you work in a very specific industry and not with something that has everyday uses for everyone or at least lots of people, open sourcing your code won't spark interest in your company or get you a community that helps you develop it. Less specialized software already doesn't get contributors, and if they do, it takes insane amount of time to look over the contributions. You work in a very niche industry - you won't get either one of these, but instead you will give away whatever advantage you have.
Now is not a good time to open source it. Maybe later if you grow to a large company, but not now. You will probably see most comments suggesting open sourcing it, but they are only saying so because of the community of slashdot. They aren't thinking it in business sense.
There are plenty of alternative shells for Windows. Quite frankly I've never found any that feels better than the default ones, but they're still out there.
Re:The article is a bit over the top really...
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 1
That's because he doesn't really hate the feature changes. He just wants it to look the way he got used to, ie. Win95.
I hate "pinned" apps. If it's not open I don't need it "pretending" to be open on my task bar. It's already got a desktop shortcut.
In turn, this is one of the things I love about it most. I rarely see my desktop. In fact, the only time I do is when I boot up my computer. If I have to minimize everything to start a desktop shortcut it messes up my workflow and the window orientations. I pin my most used programs to taskbar and they're quickly there if I need them, and they're out of way when I'm actually using them already. If it wasn't for that I would have to go to start menu, write part of the programs name and run it there. I also do have separate pinned programs in start menu, but they're ones I'm not constantly running. In task bar I have those that are almost always running. That combination makes things much faster and nicer.
It's more ignorant to think that users need to know the underlying system or how URL is formed to use computer or internet. Truth is, no one wants to have to learn things they don't care about. While you may think it's essential for everyone to know how computers operate, many people think otherwise. Likewise, I bet you don't have to learn things you don't care about just to enjoy them. We have almost 7 billion people on earth - we can specialize in things and enjoy all the things world offers but someone has to simplify it for the rest of us so that we have the time to enjoy and use everything. You can't learn everything, and for majority of people computers are just something they want to use, not something they want to learn to understand.
This is why it should be important to have something like Google Analytics for applications. There's already several such solutions for games, like Playtomic, but there only seems to exist such for mobile applications. This could give app developers and UI designers great information on how exactly users use their application.
But truth is, users need clear interfaces and sometimes they really need help doing even simplest things. This is why Ribbon is better for new users, and design goal Apple has too. I own several websites and we use heatmaps to determine how users navigate and where they click on site, collectively. Things like that provide good information on how optimize applications or services.
Re:Has he ever actually talked to users?
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't think he has. He sounds like grumpy old guy who just wants to do things the old, especially since he is talking about how Windows Classic theme "just feels right" because he knows how it functions. He just wants to use something he has got used to it, and doesn't even think if it's really better for other users. Having used both, Windows 7 theme is still much better than classic one, especially since it groups windows in task bar and only show icons with a hint of the windows title. When you hover your mouse over the icons, it quickly shows all windows. This is much better design than in the Windows Classic theme where everything was just dumped together.
Many people like how easy and straightforward Mac OSX is. I didn't like Ribbon first either, but after getting used to it I like it much more than the previous Office UI's. It does take some adjustment if you've used the old ones, but that's true for every kind of change. And people don't like changes, but the truth is, Ribbon is much better interface. It would be stupid to drag using bad interface because old users hate change. Everything is displayed much more clearly. I noticed this especially when I used Office products I haven't really used much before. If I had used them, it was always more work adjusting. But when they were new to begin with, there was no problem. I think Ribbon is still a great idea, especially for non-geeks. I guess they could include both interfaces though, like Opera does (not with Ribbon, but with hiding menu).
No one said it's difficult. It's just pain in the ass because it breaks lots of sites by default and you have to activate those scripts if you want functional sites. The worst thing is that if some site uses JavaScript as part of some form. At best the form doesn't function after filling all the details, in worst case scenario you write some large text and lose the whole reply.
Doesn't this "omg he must be a paid shill!" stuff never get old in Slashdot? It's even more telling that you get modded up for that instead of coming up with any arguments about the actual topic.
He made the initial argument that IE has somehow had way more vulnerabilities than Chrome and Firefox, and then backed that argument with invalid data. I just pointed out that.
Most people don't use AdBlock or NoScript. That's what matters. You can disable scripting and plug-ins in other browsers too, and get practically the same results. But it's not a real world scenario, not how 99.9% users use their browsers.
The links you showed lists new vulnerabilities for:
Chrome 15.0.874.121 (really minor version number)
Firefox 8.0 (FF 11.0 is in the works already!)
IE 9.0 (now we suddenly have a major version number)
Both Chrome and Firefox use insane version number schemes which really doesn't make that comparison valid. Because of that you have to compare the vulnerabilities within some time frame, for example one year or two years. But I suspect you knew that.
Yes. But 99% of people are going to keep their Flash and PDF readers. But if you download PDFs and read them locally later, you can still be exploited if you use vulnerable reader. All of them have had exploits too, but Adobe's is the most targeted one.
And yes, these exploits work for Linux too, if someone just remakes their payload to target them. In many cases you don't even need root access to most malware, so Linux security doesn't really offer much. However, in that case it actually needs the malware author to create separate payload for Linux.
Opera is the most used browser in many CIS countries, having almost 50% market share in some and beating all IE, Chrome and Firefox. Maybe you wanted to say that Opera has no market share in the US.
The PDF contains all the things they tested, and goes to very technical details. I also doubt Google would want to make Microsoft look better than Mozilla.
If you browse the same site for Chrome, you'd notice that the list is about same length for the latest version. And the total vulnerability count is huge for Firefox compared to Chrome and IE.
You would only gain additional security if the exploits actually targeted the browsers. They don't - most of them target plug-ins and work in every browser. Now, both Chrome and IE sandbox them and have extra security layers for plug-ins just so that even if plug-in is vulnerable, you can't actually gain access to system. Since Firefox doesn't offer any of these options, you gain access directly after compromising the plug-in.
More surprising is that Internet Explorer was rated nearly as secure as Chrome, while Firefox is described as lacking many modern security safeguards.
How is this surprising? Apart from some ignorant cases on Slashdot who believe Microsoft is the devil and should die, it's not a new fact that IE has been a really secure browser for a long time. Both IE and Chrome offer sandboxing, JIT hardening and ways to make vulnerable plug-ins less easy to exploit and gain access to system. Firefox offers none of these.
Currently, it's not even often that you find a vulnerability directly in the browser. Most of the attacks target either plug-ins like Flash or PDF reader, and if someone does find an exploit in the browser, the extra security layer makes it much harder to exploit. Yes, you can use something like NoScript in Firefox (and other browsers), but majority of people don't. In fact even I don't because frankly, it's pain in the ass to use. This is the reason why extra security layers provide so much better overall security.
Anyone who still says that IE is insecure browser just doesn't know what he is talking about. On top of that, this study doesn't really bring anything new to table (but it is really well done with comprehensive disassemblies and exploit testing), it just confirms what has been known for a long time now - both Chrome and IE are really secure browsers, followed by Opera. The one that is lagging behind is Firefox. I don't know what happened to them, but they seem to copy the aspects of Chrome that no one actually cares about (UI and version number scheme) while completely forgetting what Chrome and IE do underneath and what actually counts - sandboxing, JIT hardening, auto-updating browser and plug-ins and separating different tabs to different processes.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at what Firefox has become, I'm not so sure. Sure, there are some good open source products, but they're usually backed by huge corporations like Google or Apple. They both contribute to Webkit and Chromium. Firefox comes from Netscape and is currently a joke. Apache is backed by huge companies.
Apart from those, are there actually open source projects that can compete with proprietary counterparts? Especially on less popular niches like industry products or games (even though games is a popular niche, but there still isn't any good open source games or game engines).
As for the reasoning behind this big about-turn, it could be down to Microsoft trying to soften the blow of its Android patent litigation — or maybe Redmond is just trying to differentiate itself from Apple, which famously restricts open source-licensed apps from being sold in its iOS and Mac App Stores.
Or what about if Microsoft just doesn't have anything against open source projects? They have several ones themselves, have helped writing some Linux code and in every other way have softened themselves about open source.
Microsoft has never really locked down their desktop OS either. It has always been open in a way that it lets you run anything you want. Be it open source or proprietary code. Microsoft doesn't care - they're primarily selling their OS, and their OS has always came with the promise of you're being able to run anything you want. That is also why Windows has such a large market place for all kinds of applications and games. Being able to run anything you want, from any vendor you want, has always been one of the largest selling points of Windows.
Allowing open source programs isn't really problem for Microsoft..
- Linux still cannot compete on desktop. Much larger competitor to MS is OSX, and even then MS does programs for Mac too.
- As far as mobiles go, Microsoft already gets lots of money for every Android device sold. Microsoft wins in either case, be it Android or Windows Phone that is selling better.
- OpenOffice is a toy compared to MS Office. It's missing lots of features, isn't user friendly, it's slow and generally just works badly.
- Visual Studio is much better programming IDE than open source ones, especially when you add visualAssist to it.
- There isn't any open source competitors for Xbox 360. None.
It isn't about "softening the blow" or anything to those lines. Microsoft has just seen that open source really cannot compete with quality products.
They obviously can't get information about who uses what IP at what times. But don't worry, when court orders come and you're going to be sued, your ISP has that info and will be able to find you.
MPAA? It's just some russian guys. Besides, all of that data is already visible and copyright infringement companies are probably gathering much more data than some guys who made that site.
It's not scare tactics to let you know what data there is out about you. Unless you want to be ignorant and feel happier if you don't know it.
Your company is just starting up and probably isn't established in the industry. Giving away everything you have done better than your competitors is not going to end well. Remember that they are already established in the industry, and way more known than you. You're already at disadvantage there. Don't give away the one thing you have - technological advantage.
Since you work in a very specific industry and not with something that has everyday uses for everyone or at least lots of people, open sourcing your code won't spark interest in your company or get you a community that helps you develop it. Less specialized software already doesn't get contributors, and if they do, it takes insane amount of time to look over the contributions. You work in a very niche industry - you won't get either one of these, but instead you will give away whatever advantage you have.
Now is not a good time to open source it. Maybe later if you grow to a large company, but not now. You will probably see most comments suggesting open sourcing it, but they are only saying so because of the community of slashdot. They aren't thinking it in business sense.
There are plenty of alternative shells for Windows. Quite frankly I've never found any that feels better than the default ones, but they're still out there.
That's because he doesn't really hate the feature changes. He just wants it to look the way he got used to, ie. Win95.
I hate "pinned" apps. If it's not open I don't need it "pretending" to be open on my task bar. It's already got a desktop shortcut.
In turn, this is one of the things I love about it most. I rarely see my desktop. In fact, the only time I do is when I boot up my computer. If I have to minimize everything to start a desktop shortcut it messes up my workflow and the window orientations. I pin my most used programs to taskbar and they're quickly there if I need them, and they're out of way when I'm actually using them already. If it wasn't for that I would have to go to start menu, write part of the programs name and run it there. I also do have separate pinned programs in start menu, but they're ones I'm not constantly running. In task bar I have those that are almost always running. That combination makes things much faster and nicer.
It's more ignorant to think that users need to know the underlying system or how URL is formed to use computer or internet. Truth is, no one wants to have to learn things they don't care about. While you may think it's essential for everyone to know how computers operate, many people think otherwise. Likewise, I bet you don't have to learn things you don't care about just to enjoy them. We have almost 7 billion people on earth - we can specialize in things and enjoy all the things world offers but someone has to simplify it for the rest of us so that we have the time to enjoy and use everything. You can't learn everything, and for majority of people computers are just something they want to use, not something they want to learn to understand.
This is why it should be important to have something like Google Analytics for applications. There's already several such solutions for games, like Playtomic, but there only seems to exist such for mobile applications. This could give app developers and UI designers great information on how exactly users use their application.
But truth is, users need clear interfaces and sometimes they really need help doing even simplest things. This is why Ribbon is better for new users, and design goal Apple has too. I own several websites and we use heatmaps to determine how users navigate and where they click on site, collectively. Things like that provide good information on how optimize applications or services.
I don't think he has. He sounds like grumpy old guy who just wants to do things the old, especially since he is talking about how Windows Classic theme "just feels right" because he knows how it functions. He just wants to use something he has got used to it, and doesn't even think if it's really better for other users. Having used both, Windows 7 theme is still much better than classic one, especially since it groups windows in task bar and only show icons with a hint of the windows title. When you hover your mouse over the icons, it quickly shows all windows. This is much better design than in the Windows Classic theme where everything was just dumped together.
Many people like how easy and straightforward Mac OSX is. I didn't like Ribbon first either, but after getting used to it I like it much more than the previous Office UI's. It does take some adjustment if you've used the old ones, but that's true for every kind of change. And people don't like changes, but the truth is, Ribbon is much better interface. It would be stupid to drag using bad interface because old users hate change. Everything is displayed much more clearly. I noticed this especially when I used Office products I haven't really used much before. If I had used them, it was always more work adjusting. But when they were new to begin with, there was no problem. I think Ribbon is still a great idea, especially for non-geeks. I guess they could include both interfaces though, like Opera does (not with Ribbon, but with hiding menu).
Yes, at least Opera does. And it's built-in.
No one said it's difficult. It's just pain in the ass because it breaks lots of sites by default and you have to activate those scripts if you want functional sites. The worst thing is that if some site uses JavaScript as part of some form. At best the form doesn't function after filling all the details, in worst case scenario you write some large text and lose the whole reply.
Doesn't this "omg he must be a paid shill!" stuff never get old in Slashdot? It's even more telling that you get modded up for that instead of coming up with any arguments about the actual topic.
Yes, because that AC obviously was me.
He made the initial argument that IE has somehow had way more vulnerabilities than Chrome and Firefox, and then backed that argument with invalid data. I just pointed out that.
So credit card theft isn't serious offense now? And yes he has done illegal things after that. You know, the whole insider trading thing.
Most people don't use AdBlock or NoScript. That's what matters. You can disable scripting and plug-ins in other browsers too, and get practically the same results. But it's not a real world scenario, not how 99.9% users use their browsers.
The links you showed lists new vulnerabilities for:
Chrome 15.0.874.121 (really minor version number)
Firefox 8.0 (FF 11.0 is in the works already!)
IE 9.0 (now we suddenly have a major version number)
Both Chrome and Firefox use insane version number schemes which really doesn't make that comparison valid. Because of that you have to compare the vulnerabilities within some time frame, for example one year or two years. But I suspect you knew that.
Yes. But 99% of people are going to keep their Flash and PDF readers. But if you download PDFs and read them locally later, you can still be exploited if you use vulnerable reader. All of them have had exploits too, but Adobe's is the most targeted one.
And yes, these exploits work for Linux too, if someone just remakes their payload to target them. In many cases you don't even need root access to most malware, so Linux security doesn't really offer much. However, in that case it actually needs the malware author to create separate payload for Linux.
Opera is the most used browser in many CIS countries, having almost 50% market share in some and beating all IE, Chrome and Firefox. Maybe you wanted to say that Opera has no market share in the US.
The PDF contains all the things they tested, and goes to very technical details. I also doubt Google would want to make Microsoft look better than Mozilla.
If you browse the same site for Chrome, you'd notice that the list is about same length for the latest version. And the total vulnerability count is huge for Firefox compared to Chrome and IE.
You would only gain additional security if the exploits actually targeted the browsers. They don't - most of them target plug-ins and work in every browser. Now, both Chrome and IE sandbox them and have extra security layers for plug-ins just so that even if plug-in is vulnerable, you can't actually gain access to system. Since Firefox doesn't offer any of these options, you gain access directly after compromising the plug-in.
More surprising is that Internet Explorer was rated nearly as secure as Chrome, while Firefox is described as lacking many modern security safeguards.
How is this surprising? Apart from some ignorant cases on Slashdot who believe Microsoft is the devil and should die, it's not a new fact that IE has been a really secure browser for a long time. Both IE and Chrome offer sandboxing, JIT hardening and ways to make vulnerable plug-ins less easy to exploit and gain access to system. Firefox offers none of these.
Currently, it's not even often that you find a vulnerability directly in the browser. Most of the attacks target either plug-ins like Flash or PDF reader, and if someone does find an exploit in the browser, the extra security layer makes it much harder to exploit. Yes, you can use something like NoScript in Firefox (and other browsers), but majority of people don't. In fact even I don't because frankly, it's pain in the ass to use. This is the reason why extra security layers provide so much better overall security.
Anyone who still says that IE is insecure browser just doesn't know what he is talking about. On top of that, this study doesn't really bring anything new to table (but it is really well done with comprehensive disassemblies and exploit testing), it just confirms what has been known for a long time now - both Chrome and IE are really secure browsers, followed by Opera. The one that is lagging behind is Firefox. I don't know what happened to them, but they seem to copy the aspects of Chrome that no one actually cares about (UI and version number scheme) while completely forgetting what Chrome and IE do underneath and what actually counts - sandboxing, JIT hardening, auto-updating browser and plug-ins and separating different tabs to different processes.