There's no excuse to have to go to reduiculous means to prevent spoofing, and manually typing in URL's is excessive, in fact I'd say the vast majority of people in here that use IE at home out of choice are doing it because they're too lazy to try alternatives (I can't think of any other reason why they'd prefer IE) so they're not gonna type URL's manually either - and the non tech literate public won't even know to do this.
So it's upto the browser makers to take action if this is really a security risk.
The simplest solution to me would be to not allow multiple charsets to be displayed in the URL bar making this not possible.
Personally I'd say Mozilla Firebird but it's a matter of preference. The Mozilla's are free and Opera is free if you don't mind a banner ad (or pay them for the ad free version), so just download them all and give them a go, they all have their good points. But one thing, if you do use Opera, please go into preferences and stop it 'Identifying as IE' that doesn't help people with flawed stats programs realise people are using alternative browsers.
Also if you can also educate others into non-IE browsers that will help marketshare and make more sites develop to the standards and not to MS only HTML/JS. Although to be honest I know of very few IE only sites, and I never need to use them anyway, YMMV.
The point is there's a bug in IE that even with JavaScript turned off people can give the impression that you're going to a different URL than you really are, the worst thing is it also affects the address bar. Be safe, don't use IE
Yeah the first time I read the review I never paid attention to what it said the publisher was so it thought it was an O'Reilly book based on UNX Power Tools, presumably the publisher named theirs similarly so people would think it was connected to this popular oreilly unix book.
Some people have a habit of making everything they send "URGENT, or HIGHEST" priority, which is rapidly becoming annoying. I suppose its' the way it has to be, but I don't think a little color box is the best way of incorporating the idea of structuring by type...
The feature mentioned here is basically the same as the message labels feature in Mozilla and Thunderbird. Basically, it's not the sender that sets the label, it's the recipient.
Mozilla will also show the priority of the message that the sender has slected FWIW
They've only got those 'special' NPL rights for code that they've actually written, all other code is licensed under the MPL (which gives no special rights to Netscape) usually under an MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence.
Even Netscape developers started writing most code under the MPL more recently.
So even if Netscape don't relicence all their code then it's only a very small percentage of it that's affected, definitely not enough for Netscape to make a whole browser out of.
the other 75% of the market could be between Opera, IE and the KHTML browsers
Considering the success of Google just by word of mouth then it shows that sometimes the better product can be the most successful (comparing MSN and Google search - not wanting to start a discussion on whether there's other search engines superior to Google) but fighting the Microsoft marketing machine can be terrible.
So to rip off someone elses idea (I seen it in a blog post somewhere - sorry can't remember the source) it'd be good to see Google getting involved with the Mozilla project because one of Microsoft's current targets is Google.
Look at it this way - many people download the Google toolbar for IE, now what happens if in Longhorn MS make it difficult for Google to make addons for IE like that, and in fact have an MSN toolbar that looks and functions almost identically to the Google one?
If Google made a customised version of Mozilla Firebird (once Firebird is ready for the prime time) that has all the features of the Google toolbar as well as all the cool features we expect from Mozilla based browsers then this could help with Mozilla's marketshare as well as reducing Google's dependence on their richest rival. It would also suddenly make the official Google toolbar available on more platforms.
Yes, I know there's an unofficial Google toolbar or two for Mozilla, and for many people (me included) the built in search bar is more than good enough, however, making it official and publicised on Googles pages would do the marketshare of Mozilla the world of good and hopefully help Google too
I'd like to know that too. Most people seem to believe they've ditched Mozilla entirely, but I'm not complaining as they did give the Mozilla Foundation $2million. It also says in that original press release "We're grateful for the past and ongoing support of America Online, and we look forward to continuing to work with AOL over coming years.", so does AOL still have some plans for Mozilla or was that just usual politeness in press releases. Perhaps they're interested in the technologies but needed to cut costs significantly - if this is the case, it'd also give MS a false sense of security.
Anyway, that's speculation, the foundation is formed so whatever happens Mozilla is now totally independent of AOL which is a good thing, but I'd like to see them still use Mozilla products.
Mozilla can relax about things like CSS2 for a while. Since IE can't render that stuff anyway, there won't be websites that use it.
To me that seems like a good idea to get top class support for the standards not supported by IE, it helps make more web developers wake up and realise how useless IE is. I know some people who think they're web developers who still think 'Netscape' is version 4.x and those that tried 6.0 gave up on it altogether. Netscape 7.1 was a fine browser (and probably the last Netscape) as it was based on Mozilla 1.4.
Anyway, I'm drifting, the point is, if Mozilla can get the marketing right and get the word spread about its capabilities, web developers will wake up to how useless IE's standards support is and may start helping push the alternatives (although I doubt in the near future they'd do anything to break rendering in IE - but they might take advantage of some features that'll look better in a modern browser). Basically, the more advantages Mozilla has over IE the better, and if KHTML and Opera can support the same standards then great.
Personally I'd like to see Mozilla's (all Gecko based browsers) share around 25% which would be enough to make web developers code to the standards, but not enough that Mozilla developers would get the temptation and do a Microsoft (unlikely), the other 75% of the market could be between Opera, IE and the KHTML browsers.
Although it might not be the most important issue in the world, the fact is to guarantee that in the future we're able to have choice in the marketplace then we need to invest in alternatives, whether that's by donating to the Mozilla foundation, buying an Opera licence, etc.
$50,000,000 may sound a lot, but that's pocket change to Microsoft and Microsoft make their money by people paying for Windows (often as part of the cost of a PC) and other software like Office. Your argument makes no sense, at least with free software you've got the option to donate, with commercial software people are wasting billions with no other option - therefore should Microsoft be stopped from selling software so we can give the money to the poor instead?
Just because IBM hired Daniel Glazman doesn't mean they have any interest in Mozilla
Daniel Glazman isn't hired by IBM, he actually runs his own company, that's contracted to work on various enhancements to Mozilla Composer, including Nvu, funded by Lindows.com
Maybe the best thing Mozilla developers can do now is to leave it alone and work on Safari
You mean KHTML? Safari itself isn't open source, but all the work that involes KHTML source is, however, I agree that's just picking at slight details.
But, no, I don't think Mozilla is done - it's currently the best browser around IM (and many others) HO, but there's still a lot of things that could be improved and bugs needing to be fixed. So Mozilla needs to keep on improving, we don't want Mozilla to turn into another IE - where it's almost stagnant and new features take ages to appear.
Rumour has it that there's going to be a 'service pack' (hate that term) for IE released next year which will feature pop-up blocking to finally bring IE users into the 21st Century.
Between now and then we need to convert people to alternatives if the alternatives better suit their needs.
Although it's good to see a lot of Mozilla developers still getting paid to work on Mozilla development, there's also a lot of former Netscape people that have went to work on other browsers but still occaisionally keep up involvement with Mozilla. e.g. Ian Hickson now works for Opera software but still has some involvement in the Mozilla community as does David Hyatt who left Netscape to work with Apple on Safari.
There's also more volunteers than the early days, not just with coding and testing, but with user support too, such as the excellent Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird Help sites.
But in reality to the end user, it does not matter how many people are developing it, it's the quality of the product that counts, and I think that with recent releases there's nothing that can beat Mozilla in all round usefulness. If you've not tried it for ages then it's worth a try now, features like type ahead find, tabbed browsing and of course pop-up blocking make it an excellent product and make using IE a painful process. The fact is on any platform IE looks like the third rate choice, if you don't like Mozilla then there's always Opera, although personally I hate the interface to it - but others will disagree, choice is good, and having a situation where more people try alternative browsers is good for making sure we don't get tied into a Windows (i.e. IE) only web.
...too many choices are bad. My Linux desktop doesn't resemble any other around because I like to customise everything possible, so I like the choice of applications, the freedom to choose different window managers, etc. I don't think that this choice will ever go away, because there's always a demand for that particular amount of customisability, in fact that's why some people liked Linux in the first place.
But many people choice is a scary thing. Last time I installed a Linux distribution for scratch there was loads of applications installed and the average user would have a hard job guessing what these applications did just by their name and icon, many apps were complete but some were obviously alpha quality.
I think a choice of distributions is a good thing, but any aimed at the end user should avoid trying to include everything including the kitchen sink 0.0001a!
Users that want to learn more and try out new apps can easily be directed to documentation to do so, either paper, on the machine, or by carefully chosen bookmarks, some users will want to learn more and explore the full choice of linux, others will want to stick with the apps they need in an environment they're used to.
(As I've not installed a linux distro from scratch for a while so things may have changed since then, plus I am no usability expert)
The problem is not many people look further than Microsoft products because they know no better, and the mainstream press doesn't do much to help this. Microsoft throwning money into the pot to catch criminals is unlikely to solve the problem, in the UK there's a lot of schemes that offer rewards for finding criminals, but although they often catch people, it doesn't seem to deter people. I mean we can't tell people in the UK that they can install new Windows and doors in their house and not bother to lock them, and installing an MS OS (and to be fair many Linux distributions) without doing a 'lock down' is just as stupid, but most people don't know how to go about securing their PC.
We know that other products aren't perfect but variety in software does do something to reduce the dramatic effect of these worms.
So the more people we can educate about alternatives to Microsoft products such as Mozilla Firebird, Thunderbird and Seamonkey (the app suite) will help to restore some balance and will hopefully reduce the number of email viruses. Commercial alternatives such as Opera should also be mentioned because although I think the interface is awful, other people like it and choice is good. Many home users just use thier computers for web browsing and simple documents, so Mozilla + OpenOffice would do all they need.
Then on the desktop you have various options as well as Windows, although unfortunately for most people they may be depending on it for certain applications. MacOS X is ok, but would require buying new hardware if you currently have an ix86 PC.
The problem with mobile phones on long distance train services in the UK has made most UK train operators introduce a quiet coach where you can't use mobile phones, leaving people in other carriages free to use their mobile phones. Most UK long distance trains are over 5 carriages long so providing a mobile free carriage ain't too much of a problem.
However on an aircraft it'd not be feasible to separate the seating in such a way so many people will just get annoyed listening to people on the phone as well as the annoying ringtones going off all the time.
As for total cost of ownership, it's always a case of your mileage will vary, it depends on where your staff has most skills. Personally I consider maintaining unix systems a lot easier and a lot less effort so that would cut down the TCO in that case. Get a bunch of McSE's and the results would be different, as would getting someone with an equal balanced knowledge in windows and unix.
Phoenix (now renamed Mozilla Firebird) uses its own menus (defined in XUL) rather than using the native menus of GTK or any other Linux toolkit. Changing to a different theme will get rid of the shadows if the theme in question doesn't use shadows. You can download new themes from Mozilla Firebird Help
The only OS where Mozilla based XUL apps use native menus is on Mac OS because on the Mac the menus are displayed at the top of the screen not at the top of the application like they are in Windows and Linux apps.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's upto the browser makers to take action if this is really a security risk.
The simplest solution to me would be to not allow multiple charsets to be displayed in the URL bar making this not possible.
Also if you can also educate others into non-IE browsers that will help marketshare and make more sites develop to the standards and not to MS only HTML/JS. Although to be honest I know of very few IE only sites, and I never need to use them anyway, YMMV.
The point is there's a bug in IE that even with JavaScript turned off people can give the impression that you're going to a different URL than you really are, the worst thing is it also affects the address bar. Be safe, don't use IE
You also have the chance to give them your feedback on the resulting 404 page - you wouldn't wanna miss out on that chance would you :)
BTW don't say anything that could be twisted to use against the free software community.
The title of the page will display whatever you put in the path name
Yeah the first time I read the review I never paid attention to what it said the publisher was so it thought it was an O'Reilly book based on UNX Power Tools, presumably the publisher named theirs similarly so people would think it was connected to this popular oreilly unix book.
Being able to get info in whatever form you prefer is a good thing.
But they did say the target audience is intermediate to advanced, although the reviewer disagrees with that.
So it's a good title for their target audience.
However, the most likely effect is beginners feeling they're advanced users a bit too early!
The feature mentioned here is basically the same as the message labels feature in Mozilla and Thunderbird. Basically, it's not the sender that sets the label, it's the recipient.
Mozilla will also show the priority of the message that the sender has slected FWIW
They've only got those 'special' NPL rights for code that they've actually written, all other code is licensed under the MPL (which gives no special rights to Netscape) usually under an MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence.
Even Netscape developers started writing most code under the MPL more recently.
So even if Netscape don't relicence all their code then it's only a very small percentage of it that's affected, definitely not enough for Netscape to make a whole browser out of.
Considering the success of Google just by word of mouth then it shows that sometimes the better product can be the most successful (comparing MSN and Google search - not wanting to start a discussion on whether there's other search engines superior to Google) but fighting the Microsoft marketing machine can be terrible.
So to rip off someone elses idea (I seen it in a blog post somewhere - sorry can't remember the source) it'd be good to see Google getting involved with the Mozilla project because one of Microsoft's current targets is Google. Look at it this way - many people download the Google toolbar for IE, now what happens if in Longhorn MS make it difficult for Google to make addons for IE like that, and in fact have an MSN toolbar that looks and functions almost identically to the Google one?
If Google made a customised version of Mozilla Firebird (once Firebird is ready for the prime time) that has all the features of the Google toolbar as well as all the cool features we expect from Mozilla based browsers then this could help with Mozilla's marketshare as well as reducing Google's dependence on their richest rival. It would also suddenly make the official Google toolbar available on more platforms.
Yes, I know there's an unofficial Google toolbar or two for Mozilla, and for many people (me included) the built in search bar is more than good enough, however, making it official and publicised on Googles pages would do the marketshare of Mozilla the world of good and hopefully help Google too
Anyway, that's speculation, the foundation is formed so whatever happens Mozilla is now totally independent of AOL which is a good thing, but I'd like to see them still use Mozilla products.
To me that seems like a good idea to get top class support for the standards not supported by IE, it helps make more web developers wake up and realise how useless IE is. I know some people who think they're web developers who still think 'Netscape' is version 4.x and those that tried 6.0 gave up on it altogether. Netscape 7.1 was a fine browser (and probably the last Netscape) as it was based on Mozilla 1.4.
Anyway, I'm drifting, the point is, if Mozilla can get the marketing right and get the word spread about its capabilities, web developers will wake up to how useless IE's standards support is and may start helping push the alternatives (although I doubt in the near future they'd do anything to break rendering in IE - but they might take advantage of some features that'll look better in a modern browser). Basically, the more advantages Mozilla has over IE the better, and if KHTML and Opera can support the same standards then great.
Personally I'd like to see Mozilla's (all Gecko based browsers) share around 25% which would be enough to make web developers code to the standards, but not enough that Mozilla developers would get the temptation and do a Microsoft (unlikely), the other 75% of the market could be between Opera, IE and the KHTML browsers.
Although it might not be the most important issue in the world, the fact is to guarantee that in the future we're able to have choice in the marketplace then we need to invest in alternatives, whether that's by donating to the Mozilla foundation, buying an Opera licence, etc.
$50,000,000 may sound a lot, but that's pocket change to Microsoft and Microsoft make their money by people paying for Windows (often as part of the cost of a PC) and other software like Office. Your argument makes no sense, at least with free software you've got the option to donate, with commercial software people are wasting billions with no other option - therefore should Microsoft be stopped from selling software so we can give the money to the poor instead?
Daniel Glazman isn't hired by IBM, he actually runs his own company, that's contracted to work on various enhancements to Mozilla Composer, including Nvu, funded by Lindows.com
You mean KHTML? Safari itself isn't open source, but all the work that involes KHTML source is, however, I agree that's just picking at slight details.
But, no, I don't think Mozilla is done - it's currently the best browser around IM (and many others) HO, but there's still a lot of things that could be improved and bugs needing to be fixed. So Mozilla needs to keep on improving, we don't want Mozilla to turn into another IE - where it's almost stagnant and new features take ages to appear.
Between now and then we need to convert people to alternatives if the alternatives better suit their needs.
There's also more volunteers than the early days, not just with coding and testing, but with user support too, such as the excellent Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird Help sites.
But in reality to the end user, it does not matter how many people are developing it, it's the quality of the product that counts, and I think that with recent releases there's nothing that can beat Mozilla in all round usefulness. If you've not tried it for ages then it's worth a try now, features like type ahead find, tabbed browsing and of course pop-up blocking make it an excellent product and make using IE a painful process. The fact is on any platform IE looks like the third rate choice, if you don't like Mozilla then there's always Opera, although personally I hate the interface to it - but others will disagree, choice is good, and having a situation where more people try alternative browsers is good for making sure we don't get tied into a Windows (i.e. IE) only web.
...too many choices are bad. My Linux desktop doesn't resemble any other around because I like to customise everything possible, so I like the choice of applications, the freedom to choose different window managers, etc. I don't think that this choice will ever go away, because there's always a demand for that particular amount of customisability, in fact that's why some people liked Linux in the first place.
But many people choice is a scary thing. Last time I installed a Linux distribution for scratch there was loads of applications installed and the average user would have a hard job guessing what these applications did just by their name and icon, many apps were complete but some were obviously alpha quality.
I think a choice of distributions is a good thing, but any aimed at the end user should avoid trying to include everything including the kitchen sink 0.0001a!
Users that want to learn more and try out new apps can easily be directed to documentation to do so, either paper, on the machine, or by carefully chosen bookmarks, some users will want to learn more and explore the full choice of linux, others will want to stick with the apps they need in an environment they're used to.
(As I've not installed a linux distro from scratch for a while so things may have changed since then, plus I am no usability expert)
The problem is not many people look further than Microsoft products because they know no better, and the mainstream press doesn't do much to help this. Microsoft throwning money into the pot to catch criminals is unlikely to solve the problem, in the UK there's a lot of schemes that offer rewards for finding criminals, but although they often catch people, it doesn't seem to deter people. I mean we can't tell people in the UK that they can install new Windows and doors in their house and not bother to lock them, and installing an MS OS (and to be fair many Linux distributions) without doing a 'lock down' is just as stupid, but most people don't know how to go about securing their PC.
We know that other products aren't perfect but variety in software does do something to reduce the dramatic effect of these worms.
So the more people we can educate about alternatives to Microsoft products such as Mozilla Firebird, Thunderbird and Seamonkey (the app suite) will help to restore some balance and will hopefully reduce the number of email viruses. Commercial alternatives such as Opera should also be mentioned because although I think the interface is awful, other people like it and choice is good. Many home users just use thier computers for web browsing and simple documents, so Mozilla + OpenOffice would do all they need.
Then on the desktop you have various options as well as Windows, although unfortunately for most people they may be depending on it for certain applications. MacOS X is ok, but would require buying new hardware if you currently have an ix86 PC.
Because people like shouting loud on their mobiles :)
HELLO
However on an aircraft it'd not be feasible to separate the seating in such a way so many people will just get annoyed listening to people on the phone as well as the annoying ringtones going off all the time.
Sounds like MS Marketing BS, but 1 and 2 are possible on most UNIX systems, Linux and pre-.net versions of Windows, so that's not new.
.net affect ping times? If it did, was this compared to older versions of Windows, Linux or Solaris?
Why would
A few weeks uptime is nothing to brag about.
As for total cost of ownership, it's always a case of your mileage will vary, it depends on where your staff has most skills. Personally I consider maintaining unix systems a lot easier and a lot less effort so that would cut down the TCO in that case. Get a bunch of McSE's and the results would be different, as would getting someone with an equal balanced knowledge in windows and unix.
Phoenix (now renamed Mozilla Firebird) uses its own menus (defined in XUL) rather than using the native menus of GTK or any other Linux toolkit. Changing to a different theme will get rid of the shadows if the theme in question doesn't use shadows. You can download new themes from Mozilla Firebird Help
The only OS where Mozilla based XUL apps use native menus is on Mac OS because on the Mac the menus are displayed at the top of the screen not at the top of the application like they are in Windows and Linux apps.
After some DNS problems goatse.cx is back ;)