Mozilla is an open-source project with volunteers working on the project. AOL actually get a lot for free by contributing with resources for further development. Mozilla has proven itself to be a solid browser with excellent standards support, and features which makes it easy to port and customize into just about anything.
I'm not talking about Netscape 4-specific sites (although some still code specifically for this browser), but about MSIE. I naturally hate Netscape 4, but it is dying, and MSIE is currently in control of the desktop market. It isn't entirely Microsoft's fault that things are the way they are, but having a near-monopoly would have allowed them to push through proper standards compliance. It could actually be in their best interest.
I can't speak for Slashdot's HTML, as I am not responsible for the site. It would be nice if it had fewer errors and didn't use any IE-specific attributes (leftmargin, topmargin...), but I doubt there's anything I can do about that. At least Slashdot works in, well, every single browser out there? But why don't you mail them and ask them to consider a small cleanup of their HTML code?
There's a slight problem with your comment about a particular DOM bug in a minority browser: It does not affect 80% of users, and will be noticed by very few. At least it's been fixed, unlike things like IE's terrible handling of basic issues like absolute positioning with CSS.
The ISP distribution strategy might have worked in the beginning, but IE would have never been as widespread if it hadn't been included with Windows. No, Netscape does not have a lower market share because Mozilla took a long time to develop, but because when the people who used Netscape previously, and got it on a CD with their ISP, upgraded to a newer Windows version, a browser was already included with the operating system. So why download another browser. Casual users just used IE, and it seemed to work for them, so they didn't bother with downloading another browser.
A platform independent browser needs to be largely independent of the operating system (duh!). And since they want Mozilla to be usable on a wide range of systems, and highly customizable, they did what you are describing.
Nobody cares, you say. Well, tell that to AOL, who have, what, 30% of the US Internet users? What about their move to Gecko?
And what about the fact that Pocket IE is a dreadful piece of unusable crap, while both Mozilla and Opera have excellent embedded solutions. Opera for embedded devices is exactly the same as the desktop versions! Pocket IE is stripped of all functionality.
And the embedded market is growing.
Your comment about "a few loudmouths" is a bit silly, considering the fact that those who do know about alternative browsers are the ones with knowledge, and the power to change the web. Ignorant people who think IE is the world will lose in the end.
More dot.com deaths will come because some "web designers" ignore open standards and paint themselves into a corner by writing specifically for a dying "standard" - IE's proprietary extensions. The browser market is fragmenting, and IE is not able to catch up. The only way forward is to support WaSP's efforts. Those who don't will hopefully go out of business. Darwinism, if you will.
Re:Browser predictability.
on
Return of the WaSP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, Microsoft's browser became the most widely used browser because it was distributed with the Windows operating system.
Mozilla has been of excellent quality for a long time now, and Opera remains one of the leading browsers today.
IE is not "the web standard", and it should not be. Why? This is outlined in my previous message.
Just about all browsers have some "error correction", and will try to guess what the author really meant. However, IE takes this to the extreme, and actually seems to pretend to know better than the author at times (which is entirely possible, as there are many clueless "web designers" out there, but that's besides the point).
For example, IE tries to guess what to do with a remote resource based on the contents of the file, rather than following the Content-Type header. Not only is this insane, as the server should be telling the browser what kind of file it is serving, not vice versa, but it has caused serious problems when trying to actually make IE treat a file with a particular content type differently. Want IE to download the file rather than display it? Well, unless you want to create stupid workarounds which break other browsers, you may have a hard time with this.
What WaSP should be pushing, and what I feel is one of the important parts of a web standard, is that a browser's behavior is as predictable as possible. When the browser tries to guess everything itself, rather than doing what the code actually says, it causes situations such as the one above. Sure, let the browser correct simple errors, but today's browsers are too "sloppy" when it comes to sloppy code. They should be more strict and unforgiving. This would make things a lot easier for web designers, as the browser would show clearly when there are errors in the code.
I generally find that it is a lot easier to "design for" (bad way to do it, but still) browsers that allow less sloppy code. Opera is excellent to check your code with, as it is even more unforgiving than Mozilla. Although this can lead to more "broken sites" when browsing the web, I find it to be of tremendous help to keep my own pages written properly. Mozilla has strong standards support, and seems to sometimes handle pages better than both Opera and IE (since IE's implementation of various standards has serious flaws), but it allows too much garbage code.
Then again, we have to live in the real world, and with clueless Frontpage users out there, we should back WaSP and try to make both browsers and authoring tools behave better - for a more open and accessible web. Sadly, because of IE's sloppiness, we are currently trapped in web designer hell. And viewer hell if the browser isn't "MSIE compliant".
Cheating is (among other things probably) working around the built-in abilities of the game itself. If the game allows something, using this to your advantage (to win) is not cheating, because it is within the boundaries of the game. If you, as you point out, work your way around the way the game really works to give you an advantage no one who only uses the game's built-in abilities can get, it is cheating.
When you start Opera, you get a choice on how to handle windows in Opera. You can either use MDI (the classic Opera way), or the "new" tabbed interface, where you basically operate with separate windows, but you can open tabs (pages) inside each window. Every window is separate and has its own window on your task bar. Select the "Windows on desktop" option when starting Opera to use the new tabbed interface rather than standard MDI.
When it comes to composing HTML e-mail, I am very much against this. I think e-mail should be sent as pure text, and I am pleased to hear that even Opera 7 won't support sending HTML e-mail (read the Opera newsgroups), since it isn't considered to be a good thing. I am actually surprised that Mozilla allows this, since people who know what they are talking about often seem to hate HTML formatted e-mail. I know that the HTML e-mail I receive is either spam, or it is just plain text without any HTML formatting, but wrapped in a HTML e-mail. Quite useless if you ask me.
But this is a neverending debate. I don't think either side will ever agree on whether or not HTML e-mail is a good thing.
So what would happen if KPNQWest customers continued to pay the people spending their time to maintain the network? Couldn't they in theory continue to run the network for the time being, even though the wages would be terrible and the work would be hard and stressful? They would at least get money...
The ones still there seem to be a dedicated bunch of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to build something from what they have now.
Although reality would probably rear its ugly head, and they would be forced to shut down anyway. Everything is nice in theory, I guess...
What site are you referring to with the resfresh issue? If you didn't know, refresh and reload are two completely different things. Refresh refreshes the display, while reload reloads the entire page, including scripts. It would be expected that things can break when refreshing, as not all the scripting is re-run.
As for your comment about IE and the OS, etc. etc. you are still off the mark. I am not talking about that at all. It can be glued to the OS with superglue, but it doesn't say a thing about the quality of the browser.
As I've already stated, I am purely talking about the quality of the products themselves. MSIE misinterprets standards, has serious bugs and errors (ever tried absolute positioning using CSS with IE? Don't), has numerous security holes, etc. And when it comes to usability, Mozilla and Opera leave IE in the dust. Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, easy handling of user CSS, etc. etc.
And if these security holes are caused by feature bloat, it only underlines my point further. With Microsoft's bottomless pockets, they should at least have the resources to properly check their products for bugs and especially security holes. What are you saying? They actually leave their products vulnerable because it is more "user friendly"? Like the way they allow attachments to execute automatically in OE because it is more "convenient" for preview?
Well, what can I say...
BUT you have gotten me completely off track here. Again, you are saying that IE is better because everyone uses it, and that it handles sites because it is better. Not so. It is more widely used because it is distributed with Windows, and it shows sites "properly" (though this is often in fact incorrect, in reality) because it has a near monopoly.
This is the point, and this doesn't say anything about the quality of the browser. Only its position in the market.
By the way, where is the "lots of missing standards support"? You have mtnioned that it doesn't support all of DOM. What makes that "lots of missing standards support"? I can only count a half. One if I am extremely generous, although it would be incorrect, as it does support a subset of DOM.
1. Opera actually has JS 1.3 and partial JS 1.4 support (based on ECMA-262, which is the ECMAScript/JavaScript standard). And what do you need DOM for when things like this should be done server-side anyway?
2. Opera lies? It spoofs the useragent string to fool ignorant webmasters who only look for IE or Netscape 4 and block all other browsers. Sad but true, this is necessary today. And you are incorrect in assuming that it is "an incredible pain to code in workarounds". It is actually incredibly easy to detect Opera. Competent web designers know that Opera identifies itself through the userAgent string. Only fools would look at navigator.appName. Which is why Opera spoofs appName: It fools fools. Rather ironic, that.
To conclude, its JS support is excellent. The only thing missing is better DOM support.
Hmm, apparently the Opera 7 core includes full DOM2 support, and is actually faster than Opera 6. Go figure.
Missing certain parts of DOM does mean that this is the reason why it's faster. You have no basis for this, especially since you haven't even tested Opera with the new DOM support. You should stop making flawed assumptions based on, well, ignorance.
And yes, workaround for Opera is certainly different from using proprietary code. Why? Because Opera doesn't introduce its own proprietary extensions, but is strictly standards compliant.
Opera's underlying engine is fast and gives user superior control of their browser. How you can call this "flawed" is beyond me. Although I guess many web designers hate it when people can control their own browsing experience. Oh well. I guess you would love support for disabling right-click too, eh?:)
Opera 6 can open multiple (separate) windows with tabs inside. Rather than running multiple instances (which presumably uses up N more resources, depending on how many instances you are running), Opera allows you to open a new window running under the current instance.
Why open another instance of a browser when you can open a new window inside the current instance? Perhaps this is why Opera uses far less resources than other browsers, even when you use multiple windows?
You can also have tabs (pages) within each window, and you can drag and drop pages (tabs) between windows.
And why use window files to save windows? You can create a bookmark folder and add the current windows to that folder. The next time you need these windows, you can select "Open all folder items" for this folder, and lo and behold - all bookmarks inside this folder are opened at once.
And because Opera doesn't bog down your system, even with multiple windows, you can open 10-20-30 - or whatever number of windows.
How, from this, you can conclude that "Opera is not nearly as good" is a mystery to me. Mozilla has a lot of great features, but I'm afraid I must tell you that the way Opera handles multiple pages/windows is far superior from where I'm standing.
I'm not even talking about Linux here. I use Windows a lot myself. Though, I find browsers like Mozilla and Opera to do better than IE, also in the security department.
As for "bitching" on Slashdot, it's our right to do so. People tend to like to express when they are unhappy with something. A security hole like this in IE is a major issue. What do you expect, people to sit around and praise Microsoft for yet another serious security hole?
Why are these things reported on Slashdot? Because everyone loves bashing IE or because it is a huge issue, due to the fact that IE has just about a monopoly in the browser market?
It doesn't really matter. The simple fact remains that this flaw affects millions, and every time Microsoft's lazy attitude towards security is shown, people have the right to complain about it.
He doesn't always have to be trolling, but his journal entry seemed like trolling. His points are vague, and he does not appear to realize the impact security holes in Microsoft products has, especially for their desktop products. Do I even have to mention Nimda or Klez?
I also fail to see what either his or my number has to do with this. I've read Slashdot for a long time (I actually "lurked" the first few years). And as we all know, it is entirely possible to:
a) Create different users
b) Post anonymously
I would imagine that most people post anonymously when they are afraid to lose karma. Much like you, perhaps?
The bottom line is: Microsoft deserve criticism, and if people also want to crack jokes about this (even though it is very serious), they can feel free to do so. Satire and similar can be very powerful.
Your journal entry looks like a carefully crafted troll. Of course people complain about Microsoft. Just look at their track record when it comes to security flaws. Compare a product like Apache, which has the greatest market share in the web server market, to IIS. IIS har far more serious flaws, including security holes that have lead to viruses and worms spreading even easier than before. Why? Because their e-mail clients and browsers are vulnerable as well.
They should have worked with security in mind in the first place. Now, we are at their mercy. We have to wait for them to release patches. If they screw up the patch, it just makes things worse. What are we to do when the patch fixes one thing but messes up something else? It has happened before, and it will most likely happen again.
I see no reason to cut Microsoft any slack until they get a grip and fix their security.
The problem is that it's too late, at least for now. Most people will probably never patch their systems. Let's take my aunt as an example. She is a PC user, but doesn't understand what's going on. I could explain to her in detail what security holes are about and what they can do. She still wouldn't have a clue as to how install security updates.
Perhaps Microsoft's next line of products will be released with proper security in mind. If so, perhaps in 5-10, or even 15-20 years, no one will be using the current flawed products. That is when the problem is gone.
For now, Microsoft can try to put out the fire, but it's no use putting out a huge forest fire with a water pistol.
People's criticism of Microsoft is well deserved, and there is no "bigotry" or "elitism" involved for the most part. It is people being sick and tired of the monopolist which doesn't even take the responsibility involved in having such a huge market share in these areas.
I'm not talking about HTML standards, but about the quality of these products. The reason IE works on all sites isn't that it is the best browser. It is that it is the most widely used browser - by far. It isn't most widely used because it is the best browser either, it is because Microsoft included it and integrated it with their operating systems - which happen to dominate the consumer desktop market. "Better" means that it has to be better at something. Overall, other browsers to far better than IE at most things. The only thing IE is better at is being more widely used. And this doesn't say anything about the quality of the product (see above).
Because. And to be specific, MDI, keyboard shortcuts, mouse gestures, disable images with a single keypress, apply user CSS with a single keypress, disable annoying JavaScript popups, size, speed, security, etc. etc. etc. I could go on forever.
Cexx.org talks about Cydoor. People keep talking about how terrible Opera are for using Cydoor's ad servers. I am pointing out that Cydoor have cleaned up their act.
You then go on about two completely irrelevant things:
1. Business model? Sure, it is a way to distribute the software for free. But it is irrelevant when it comes to spyware.
2. The id issue has been cleared up ages ago. It is not used to track the user, but the ads. Opera does not spy on the user, and this has been proven beyond any doubt.
Lastly, I am not talking about all privacy advocates, but the ones who are either ignorant or lie about what is and what isn't spyware. Spyware has a clear definition: It is software which spies on the user.
So-called "privacy advocates" who don't give a damn about facts should not be trusted, as they obviously have a hidden agenda.
You are not commenting on it because you dare not distance yourself from people who refuse to give people facts, rather than play their own game?
And finally, anyone can see what is sent to the ad servers from Opera. It is carefully documented on their site. If people refuse to even check this, but still go on about how it is "spyware", it says something about them and their inability to use facts rather than speculation and hype.
The site gives removal instructions dating back to when it was spyware. Today, the only point in replacing these files is to lose the ads. It is not because it is spyware, and the site states this.
Your logic is flawed. You say that IE is superior because:
a) It dominates the browser market
b) Sites are written specifically to work with it
Neither of these say anything about IE's quality. It simply says something about its position in the market. And as we all know, superior products don't have to dominate the market. Betamax vs. VHS, anyone?
There is no problem. Apart from the fact that Opera caters for my needs, while IE does not. In fact, both Mozilla and Opera are superior to IE from a usability standpoint.
Having a dominant market position actually means that you have a certain responsibility to secure your products properly (although monopolists usually don't care about this - just look at Microsoft). Their products should be the most secure products, yet serious holes are constantly found, and Microsoft usually take their sweet time fixing things.
And not only that, sometimes the fixes don't even work, or they break something else.
If you want to call me a hypocrite because of comments posted by others, that's fine with me, as long as you realize that Microsoft have a terrible track record when it comes to security.
Let's look at Apache vs. IIS. Now, Apache is the most widely used web server software, but doesn't IIS have considerably more serious security holes? Can it even compare to Apache?
The bottom line is that Opera show through their actions that they care about security. I am sure you can agree with me that they handled this flaw extremely well. So well in fact, that the ones that uncovered the flaw commended Opera on the way they handled it.
It has links to Opera's privacy policy and a detailed technical description of the ad module.
As for the unique ID, it would naturally keep track of which ads have been downloaded already to avoid too many duplicates.
If Doubleclick didn't spy on their users but were labeled as "bad" by "privacy advocates", it would seem that these "privacy advocates" aren't trustworthy, and that facts don't matter to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about Netscape 4-specific sites (although some still code specifically for this browser), but about MSIE. I naturally hate Netscape 4, but it is dying, and MSIE is currently in control of the desktop market. It isn't entirely Microsoft's fault that things are the way they are, but having a near-monopoly would have allowed them to push through proper standards compliance. It could actually be in their best interest.
I can't speak for Slashdot's HTML, as I am not responsible for the site. It would be nice if it had fewer errors and didn't use any IE-specific attributes (leftmargin, topmargin...), but I doubt there's anything I can do about that. At least Slashdot works in, well, every single browser out there? But why don't you mail them and ask them to consider a small cleanup of their HTML code?
The ISP distribution strategy might have worked in the beginning, but IE would have never been as widespread if it hadn't been included with Windows. No, Netscape does not have a lower market share because Mozilla took a long time to develop, but because when the people who used Netscape previously, and got it on a CD with their ISP, upgraded to a newer Windows version, a browser was already included with the operating system. So why download another browser. Casual users just used IE, and it seemed to work for them, so they didn't bother with downloading another browser.
A platform independent browser needs to be largely independent of the operating system (duh!). And since they want Mozilla to be usable on a wide range of systems, and highly customizable, they did what you are describing.
Nobody cares, you say. Well, tell that to AOL, who have, what, 30% of the US Internet users? What about their move to Gecko?
And what about the fact that Pocket IE is a dreadful piece of unusable crap, while both Mozilla and Opera have excellent embedded solutions. Opera for embedded devices is exactly the same as the desktop versions! Pocket IE is stripped of all functionality.
And the embedded market is growing.
Your comment about "a few loudmouths" is a bit silly, considering the fact that those who do know about alternative browsers are the ones with knowledge, and the power to change the web. Ignorant people who think IE is the world will lose in the end.
More dot.com deaths will come because some "web designers" ignore open standards and paint themselves into a corner by writing specifically for a dying "standard" - IE's proprietary extensions. The browser market is fragmenting, and IE is not able to catch up. The only way forward is to support WaSP's efforts. Those who don't will hopefully go out of business. Darwinism, if you will.
Mozilla has been of excellent quality for a long time now, and Opera remains one of the leading browsers today.
IE is not "the web standard", and it should not be. Why? This is outlined in my previous message.
For example, IE tries to guess what to do with a remote resource based on the contents of the file, rather than following the Content-Type header. Not only is this insane, as the server should be telling the browser what kind of file it is serving, not vice versa, but it has caused serious problems when trying to actually make IE treat a file with a particular content type differently. Want IE to download the file rather than display it? Well, unless you want to create stupid workarounds which break other browsers, you may have a hard time with this.
What WaSP should be pushing, and what I feel is one of the important parts of a web standard, is that a browser's behavior is as predictable as possible. When the browser tries to guess everything itself, rather than doing what the code actually says, it causes situations such as the one above. Sure, let the browser correct simple errors, but today's browsers are too "sloppy" when it comes to sloppy code. They should be more strict and unforgiving. This would make things a lot easier for web designers, as the browser would show clearly when there are errors in the code.
I generally find that it is a lot easier to "design for" (bad way to do it, but still) browsers that allow less sloppy code. Opera is excellent to check your code with, as it is even more unforgiving than Mozilla. Although this can lead to more "broken sites" when browsing the web, I find it to be of tremendous help to keep my own pages written properly. Mozilla has strong standards support, and seems to sometimes handle pages better than both Opera and IE (since IE's implementation of various standards has serious flaws), but it allows too much garbage code.
Then again, we have to live in the real world, and with clueless Frontpage users out there, we should back WaSP and try to make both browsers and authoring tools behave better - for a more open and accessible web. Sadly, because of IE's sloppiness, we are currently trapped in web designer hell. And viewer hell if the browser isn't "MSIE compliant".
Did that make sense? :/
When it comes to composing HTML e-mail, I am very much against this. I think e-mail should be sent as pure text, and I am pleased to hear that even Opera 7 won't support sending HTML e-mail (read the Opera newsgroups), since it isn't considered to be a good thing. I am actually surprised that Mozilla allows this, since people who know what they are talking about often seem to hate HTML formatted e-mail. I know that the HTML e-mail I receive is either spam, or it is just plain text without any HTML formatting, but wrapped in a HTML e-mail. Quite useless if you ask me.
But this is a neverending debate. I don't think either side will ever agree on whether or not HTML e-mail is a good thing.
The ones still there seem to be a dedicated bunch of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to build something from what they have now.
Although reality would probably rear its ugly head, and they would be forced to shut down anyway. Everything is nice in theory, I guess...
As for your comment about IE and the OS, etc. etc. you are still off the mark. I am not talking about that at all. It can be glued to the OS with superglue, but it doesn't say a thing about the quality of the browser.
As I've already stated, I am purely talking about the quality of the products themselves. MSIE misinterprets standards, has serious bugs and errors (ever tried absolute positioning using CSS with IE? Don't), has numerous security holes, etc. And when it comes to usability, Mozilla and Opera leave IE in the dust. Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, easy handling of user CSS, etc. etc.
And if these security holes are caused by feature bloat, it only underlines my point further. With Microsoft's bottomless pockets, they should at least have the resources to properly check their products for bugs and especially security holes. What are you saying? They actually leave their products vulnerable because it is more "user friendly"? Like the way they allow attachments to execute automatically in OE because it is more "convenient" for preview?
Well, what can I say...
BUT you have gotten me completely off track here. Again, you are saying that IE is better because everyone uses it, and that it handles sites because it is better. Not so. It is more widely used because it is distributed with Windows, and it shows sites "properly" (though this is often in fact incorrect, in reality) because it has a near monopoly.
This is the point, and this doesn't say anything about the quality of the browser. Only its position in the market.
By the way, where is the "lots of missing standards support"? You have mtnioned that it doesn't support all of DOM. What makes that "lots of missing standards support"? I can only count a half. One if I am extremely generous, although it would be incorrect, as it does support a subset of DOM.
1. Opera actually has JS 1.3 and partial JS 1.4 support (based on ECMA-262, which is the ECMAScript/JavaScript standard). And what do you need DOM for when things like this should be done server-side anyway?
2. Opera lies? It spoofs the useragent string to fool ignorant webmasters who only look for IE or Netscape 4 and block all other browsers. Sad but true, this is necessary today. And you are incorrect in assuming that it is "an incredible pain to code in workarounds". It is actually incredibly easy to detect Opera. Competent web designers know that Opera identifies itself through the userAgent string. Only fools would look at navigator.appName. Which is why Opera spoofs appName: It fools fools. Rather ironic, that.
To conclude, its JS support is excellent. The only thing missing is better DOM support.
Missing certain parts of DOM does mean that this is the reason why it's faster. You have no basis for this, especially since you haven't even tested Opera with the new DOM support. You should stop making flawed assumptions based on, well, ignorance.
And yes, workaround for Opera is certainly different from using proprietary code. Why? Because Opera doesn't introduce its own proprietary extensions, but is strictly standards compliant.
Opera's underlying engine is fast and gives user superior control of their browser. How you can call this "flawed" is beyond me. Although I guess many web designers hate it when people can control their own browsing experience. Oh well. I guess you would love support for disabling right-click too, eh? :)
Why open another instance of a browser when you can open a new window inside the current instance? Perhaps this is why Opera uses far less resources than other browsers, even when you use multiple windows?
You can also have tabs (pages) within each window, and you can drag and drop pages (tabs) between windows.
And why use window files to save windows? You can create a bookmark folder and add the current windows to that folder. The next time you need these windows, you can select "Open all folder items" for this folder, and lo and behold - all bookmarks inside this folder are opened at once.
And because Opera doesn't bog down your system, even with multiple windows, you can open 10-20-30 - or whatever number of windows.
How, from this, you can conclude that "Opera is not nearly as good" is a mystery to me. Mozilla has a lot of great features, but I'm afraid I must tell you that the way Opera handles multiple pages/windows is far superior from where I'm standing.
As for "bitching" on Slashdot, it's our right to do so. People tend to like to express when they are unhappy with something. A security hole like this in IE is a major issue. What do you expect, people to sit around and praise Microsoft for yet another serious security hole?
Why are these things reported on Slashdot? Because everyone loves bashing IE or because it is a huge issue, due to the fact that IE has just about a monopoly in the browser market?
It doesn't really matter. The simple fact remains that this flaw affects millions, and every time Microsoft's lazy attitude towards security is shown, people have the right to complain about it.
I also fail to see what either his or my number has to do with this. I've read Slashdot for a long time (I actually "lurked" the first few years). And as we all know, it is entirely possible to:
a) Create different users
b) Post anonymously
I would imagine that most people post anonymously when they are afraid to lose karma. Much like you, perhaps?
The bottom line is: Microsoft deserve criticism, and if people also want to crack jokes about this (even though it is very serious), they can feel free to do so. Satire and similar can be very powerful.
They should have worked with security in mind in the first place. Now, we are at their mercy. We have to wait for them to release patches. If they screw up the patch, it just makes things worse. What are we to do when the patch fixes one thing but messes up something else? It has happened before, and it will most likely happen again.
I see no reason to cut Microsoft any slack until they get a grip and fix their security.
The problem is that it's too late, at least for now. Most people will probably never patch their systems. Let's take my aunt as an example. She is a PC user, but doesn't understand what's going on. I could explain to her in detail what security holes are about and what they can do. She still wouldn't have a clue as to how install security updates.
Perhaps Microsoft's next line of products will be released with proper security in mind. If so, perhaps in 5-10, or even 15-20 years, no one will be using the current flawed products. That is when the problem is gone.
For now, Microsoft can try to put out the fire, but it's no use putting out a huge forest fire with a water pistol.
People's criticism of Microsoft is well deserved, and there is no "bigotry" or "elitism" involved for the most part. It is people being sick and tired of the monopolist which doesn't even take the responsibility involved in having such a huge market share in these areas.
I'm not talking about HTML standards, but about the quality of these products. The reason IE works on all sites isn't that it is the best browser. It is that it is the most widely used browser - by far. It isn't most widely used because it is the best browser either, it is because Microsoft included it and integrated it with their operating systems - which happen to dominate the consumer desktop market. "Better" means that it has to be better at something. Overall, other browsers to far better than IE at most things. The only thing IE is better at is being more widely used. And this doesn't say anything about the quality of the product (see above).
Because. And to be specific, MDI, keyboard shortcuts, mouse gestures, disable images with a single keypress, apply user CSS with a single keypress, disable annoying JavaScript popups, size, speed, security, etc. etc. etc. I could go on forever.
Cexx.org talks about Cydoor. People keep talking about how terrible Opera are for using Cydoor's ad servers. I am pointing out that Cydoor have cleaned up their act.
You then go on about two completely irrelevant things:
1. Business model? Sure, it is a way to distribute the software for free. But it is irrelevant when it comes to spyware.
2. The id issue has been cleared up ages ago. It is not used to track the user, but the ads. Opera does not spy on the user, and this has been proven beyond any doubt.
Lastly, I am not talking about all privacy advocates, but the ones who are either ignorant or lie about what is and what isn't spyware. Spyware has a clear definition: It is software which spies on the user.
So-called "privacy advocates" who don't give a damn about facts should not be trusted, as they obviously have a hidden agenda.
You are not commenting on it because you dare not distance yourself from people who refuse to give people facts, rather than play their own game?
And finally, anyone can see what is sent to the ad servers from Opera. It is carefully documented on their site. If people refuse to even check this, but still go on about how it is "spyware", it says something about them and their inability to use facts rather than speculation and hype.
The site gives removal instructions dating back to when it was spyware. Today, the only point in replacing these files is to lose the ads. It is not because it is spyware, and the site states this.
a) It dominates the browser market
b) Sites are written specifically to work with it
Neither of these say anything about IE's quality. It simply says something about its position in the market. And as we all know, superior products don't have to dominate the market. Betamax vs. VHS, anyone?
There is no problem. Apart from the fact that Opera caters for my needs, while IE does not. In fact, both Mozilla and Opera are superior to IE from a usability standpoint.
Having a dominant market position actually means that you have a certain responsibility to secure your products properly (although monopolists usually don't care about this - just look at Microsoft). Their products should be the most secure products, yet serious holes are constantly found, and Microsoft usually take their sweet time fixing things.
And not only that, sometimes the fixes don't even work, or they break something else.
If you want to call me a hypocrite because of comments posted by others, that's fine with me, as long as you realize that Microsoft have a terrible track record when it comes to security.
Let's look at Apache vs. IIS. Now, Apache is the most widely used web server software, but doesn't IIS have considerably more serious security holes? Can it even compare to Apache?
The bottom line is that Opera show through their actions that they care about security. I am sure you can agree with me that they handled this flaw extremely well. So well in fact, that the ones that uncovered the flaw commended Opera on the way they handled it.
Well known anti-spyware sites would disagree with you.
http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.c gi?options=index&name=570
It has links to Opera's privacy policy and a detailed technical description of the ad module.
As for the unique ID, it would naturally keep track of which ads have been downloaded already to avoid too many duplicates.
If Doubleclick didn't spy on their users but were labeled as "bad" by "privacy advocates", it would seem that these "privacy advocates" aren't trustworthy, and that facts don't matter to them.
Oh well, you are obviously just a troll.