IE6's security woes have more to do with hooks into the OS, being based on code to support the incredibly badly architected ActiveX, and just plain bad coding than market share.
I won't argue there. MS picked convenience over security, and it's plagued them (and us) ever since.
Heck someone wrote a virus or two for OS X, which supposedly holds somewhere between 2% and 4% of the market. Firefox has almost 10%, yet I don't recall it having the kind of security exploits that seem to plague every version of IE, including IE7.
Firefox has had a few problems, and they were quickly and effectively patched. FF has the advantage of being OSS, which means that the less malicious hackers will find the bug and report it rather than abuse it, simply because they are sympathetic to OSS projects.
Recall the EI7 zero day exploit? What's funny was, that was a zero day exploit for the beta, which probably had all of 0.0001% of the market - yes, that's pulled out of the air, but it certainly wasn't large.
Bear in mind that there are a lot of anti-MS types out there just waiting for a new version of IE so they can bang out the first exploit for it to show that MS is weak. And, of course, there's the fact that IE7 is going to be the dominant browser in a few years, whoever gets a head start on cracking it now will have the advantage later when they're making grabs for zombie PCs or burying adware on your system.
I'm not saying any of that makes up for all the difference, but it's definitely something we need to consider. Firefox simply doesn't attract the vitriol that anything made by MS does.
And to discount your "IE6 has just been around too long" argument, there's fewer and fewer holes in products like OpenBSD, which have been around far longer than all versions of IE combined. Oh, and OpenBSD and its *nix kindred tend to run the things hackers are truly interested in. But because it's "hard", many just grab a few tens of thousands of windows boxes (easy!) and then try to take down those *nix sites via DDOS attacks.
OpenBSD has gone through some pretty serious revisions over the years. IE6 has been patched, but it's still IE6.
These hooks being only introduced in the first place so MS could justify that it wasn't bundling IE and that it was a necessary part of the OS. Once again MS putting security and the end user lower down its priority list than profits, control and market share.
Some, yes. Some of the hooks existed already as part of Microsoft's great failure: placing "user-friendly" over security. That is ultimately what has made their software so vulnerable: in the interest of maintaining their hold on the market, they made their OS as easy to use as possible. That means minimizing security challenges and that sort of thing...which means opening it up to exploitation. Add in the fact that their two biggest products besides Windows--IE and Office--both hook deep into the OS and provide the same sort of vulnerabilities, and you get a recipe for disaster.
Oh, I'm not saying it's a bad interview; it's quite good. It just goes in a different direction than I think a slashdot interview would. I'm saying I'd be interested in seeing what questions the slashdotters ask, specifically those with significant experience in web development. I think it would also focus more on things like the UI and how how things got to be where they are today.
Apparently they think they have a better way of doing CSS than the people who set the CSS standards. That's unfortunate, because it seems like a simple thing to comply to some web standards and then, if you think you can do better, create your own standard to compete with it and get all the other browsers to support it, too.
Better yet, get involved in the development of the standard and put your ideas on the table along with everyone else's.
I had a job something like that once upon a time. I was the sole IT person. I'd been shoved into the Accounting department for organizational purposes and so answered to that manager. I also answered to the production manager and the site manager. Between my three bosses, I spent more time explaining to people what I was doing, why I was doing it, and what problems I was encountering than I spent actually working. I wonder if Microsoft has similar problems. You're right, that would explain much...
It's been a while since I read much about IE7, but last I heard they were stripping a lot of its hooks out of the OS so that it sits "on top" like other browsers do. That alone should significantly reduce the security risk it poses.
IE6 has just been around too long; the hackers have had too long to play with it and find every possible exploit there is. If Opera were still sitting at version 5 (and controlled a larger market share) it would probably have just as many security holes discovered. It's the frequent updates and relative obscurity that make other browsers apparently more secure today.
Of course, then you have to find teachers willing to do this. Most teachers, like most people in any profession, aren't crazy about teaching/doing things they don't know, and (as much as I'd like to think otherwise) are just as resitant to change as your average person.
Our labs that have MSO2k3 also run StarOffice 8, so students have a choice. They are forced to use SO8 on other systems. But we have to emphasize MSO right now because--like I said--it's the standard out there and we'd rather them learn button-pushing than nothing at all...and right now, we're having a hard time creating the third option.
The state has come up with a really stupid new technology education program, on a side note. Apparently we're about to start teaching first graders to use spreadsheets. I just have to ask...HOW ARE THEY GOING TO USE SPREADSHEETS WHEN THEY BARELY KNOW MATH???
I don't see where this system would prevent movie piracy. The piracy groups actively seek to recruit theater employees with authority so that they can film in empty theaters for higher quality releases. It would be trivial for them to find a theater where these systems could be disabled by friendly personnel.
perhaps 'education' is best served by teaching students the principles of spreadsheets, wordprocessors, and presentations, rather than 'click button X to accomplish task Y'?
That's what is being done (duh), but let's face it: most people just aren't terribly sharp. The reason MS is even on top to begin with is that they made things easy for idiots (both to use and to break). Your average non-IT user these days sits down at a PC and panics if they don't see the same program. Forget that they know the fundamentals and principles of how it all works, they see "OpenOffice.org" and say "But I only know Microsoft Office! This is different and I don't like different and it's going to hurt my productivity!" and then get frustrated every time something is mildly different.
I have personally run into a few frustrations making the switch to OOo. Some features I found useful aren't there, there's some functionality missing in the spreadsheets (the ability to paste into multiple individual cells, for example) and until the most recent verious, the documentation was absolutely horrible.
The problem with OSS, as has been stated, is that it does not prepare students for what the vast majority of them are going to see in the real world.
I work at a school district. We use StarOffice for most of the PCs here because Texas' stupid "Robin Hood" law strips us of about $22,000,000 a year, forcing across-the-board budget cuts. We *wish* we could use MS Office, because that's what the students need to know when the enter the workforce. Yes, it'd be better if they knew both. Yes, it sucks that MS has such a stranglehold on the market that we have to think this way. No, I'm not going to compromise student education for the sake of my ideals.
I think Apple's only defense here is to point out that Creative was no more the originator than Apple.
I'm so tired of everything being about iPods when MP3 players are mentioned that I almost want Creative to win the suit and force Apple to stop making them. That way we can go back to not having to hear "so you can plug in your iPod" so often.
Ugh. I'm so tired of this crap.
Until history records the cold war as WW3, I'm still waiting for WW3 to happen. There were a few world wars prior to WW1...we haven't gone back and renumbered them for accuracy, let's not get all pedantic and try to rename everything that remotely resembles a WW since 1900 to WW*.
The Cold War was the Cold War. The "Global War on Terror" is the "Global War on Terror". World War 3 hasn't happened yet, because the name hasn't been attached to anything by the general population...just a few wannabe intellectuals trying to impress each other by being the first in on the secret that WW3 actually ended almost two decades ago.
I appreciate your effort to clarify the issue since there is a lot of FUD, but don't you think you should actually read up on what the patent does cover before attempting to clarify it to others?
Well fine then, I'll just go sit in the corner and shut up.
After I point out that I was trying more to say what the suit isn't about, things like the physical interface and the whole "portable music player" concept.
I haven't seen any articles that explain in depth what the patent covers, so I can't comment on exactly how broad its scope is.
Now, if we're talking about software which automatically parses ID3 tags and/or filenames and arranges the music accordingly, Creative might very well have been the first to do that, and it would be something of a unique innovation, even though others would certainly have arrived at the same solution independently. Windows Media Player does it as well...could the be suing Microsoft next?
In any case, I'm not defending their having the patent, I'm just trying to set the record straight because a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue what this patent dispute is all about.
Creative said it had applied for the patent, dubbed the Zen Patent, on 5 January 2001 and was awarded it on 9 August.
It applies to the way music tracks are organised and navigated on a player through a hierarchy using three or more successive screens.
For example, this would be a sequence of screens that could display artists, then albums and then tracks.
"The first portable media player based upon the user interface covered in our Zen Patent was our Nomad Jukebox MP3 player," said Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo.
"The Apple iPod was only announced in October 2001, 13 months after we had been shipping the Nomad Jukebox based upon the user interface covered by our Zen Patent."
This isn't a patent on MP3 players or buttons or anything or FUD-related nonsense, it's a patent on a specific organizational structure in the software.
Of course, it happens to be very similar to how I organize directories at home, and seems like a rather intuitive concept that a lot of people would arrive at independently.
It's really hard to seperate Linux from KDE/Gnome and "various programs" on the desktop level. Linux alone isn't exactly viable for much. You need Apache to make it a web server. Samba to make it a file server. XWindows to make it a desktop system. EXPECT people to lump them all as "Linux" because in all reality, Linux isn't anything without them.
For the life of me, I don't know why Chapter 5, Installation Annoyances, isn't Chapter 1.
I think the OP just nailed down the problem with 90% of Linux books, and one of the big problems with Linux adoption by the less-than-ubergeeks. Very few Linux book authors seem to know how to teach someone to use Linux. Either they spend three chapters on the basics of PCs and lose me, they dive straight into stuff that goes way over my head, or they just present the material in as counter-intuitive an order as possible for maximum frustration.
I can't remember how many books I've picked up, started reading, and ended up shelving between chapters three and five. Reasons:
1) They never actually got around to discussing Linux beyond the sales pitch about why I should use it.
2) They skipped a lot of important basics that left me wondering just what they were talking about.
3) They had me configure the desktop, type a few commands in the shell, install Linux, and THEN talked about the file system and various other basics that are relevant to everything you do in Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. Right you are, mistaken I was.
IE6's security woes have more to do with hooks into the OS, being based on code to support the incredibly badly architected ActiveX, and just plain bad coding than market share.
I won't argue there. MS picked convenience over security, and it's plagued them (and us) ever since.
Heck someone wrote a virus or two for OS X, which supposedly holds somewhere between 2% and 4% of the market. Firefox has almost 10%, yet I don't recall it having the kind of security exploits that seem to plague every version of IE, including IE7.
Firefox has had a few problems, and they were quickly and effectively patched. FF has the advantage of being OSS, which means that the less malicious hackers will find the bug and report it rather than abuse it, simply because they are sympathetic to OSS projects.
Recall the EI7 zero day exploit? What's funny was, that was a zero day exploit for the beta, which probably had all of 0.0001% of the market - yes, that's pulled out of the air, but it certainly wasn't large.
Bear in mind that there are a lot of anti-MS types out there just waiting for a new version of IE so they can bang out the first exploit for it to show that MS is weak. And, of course, there's the fact that IE7 is going to be the dominant browser in a few years, whoever gets a head start on cracking it now will have the advantage later when they're making grabs for zombie PCs or burying adware on your system.
I'm not saying any of that makes up for all the difference, but it's definitely something we need to consider. Firefox simply doesn't attract the vitriol that anything made by MS does.
And to discount your "IE6 has just been around too long" argument, there's fewer and fewer holes in products like OpenBSD, which have been around far longer than all versions of IE combined. Oh, and OpenBSD and its *nix kindred tend to run the things hackers are truly interested in. But because it's "hard", many just grab a few tens of thousands of windows boxes (easy!) and then try to take down those *nix sites via DDOS attacks.
OpenBSD has gone through some pretty serious revisions over the years. IE6 has been patched, but it's still IE6.
These hooks being only introduced in the first place so MS could justify that it wasn't bundling IE and that it was a necessary part of the OS. Once again MS putting security and the end user lower down its priority list than profits, control and market share.
Some, yes. Some of the hooks existed already as part of Microsoft's great failure: placing "user-friendly" over security. That is ultimately what has made their software so vulnerable: in the interest of maintaining their hold on the market, they made their OS as easy to use as possible. That means minimizing security challenges and that sort of thing...which means opening it up to exploitation. Add in the fact that their two biggest products besides Windows--IE and Office--both hook deep into the OS and provide the same sort of vulnerabilities, and you get a recipe for disaster.
Oh, I'm not saying it's a bad interview; it's quite good. It just goes in a different direction than I think a slashdot interview would. I'm saying I'd be interested in seeing what questions the slashdotters ask, specifically those with significant experience in web development. I think it would also focus more on things like the UI and how how things got to be where they are today.
The fanboy answer: Because MS didn't invent it.
Apparently they think they have a better way of doing CSS than the people who set the CSS standards. That's unfortunate, because it seems like a simple thing to comply to some web standards and then, if you think you can do better, create your own standard to compete with it and get all the other browsers to support it, too.
Better yet, get involved in the development of the standard and put your ideas on the table along with everyone else's.
In corporate newspeak, all nouns are considered fair game for conversion to verbs.
I had a job something like that once upon a time. I was the sole IT person. I'd been shoved into the Accounting department for organizational purposes and so answered to that manager. I also answered to the production manager and the site manager. Between my three bosses, I spent more time explaining to people what I was doing, why I was doing it, and what problems I was encountering than I spent actually working. I wonder if Microsoft has similar problems. You're right, that would explain much...
It's been a while since I read much about IE7, but last I heard they were stripping a lot of its hooks out of the OS so that it sits "on top" like other browsers do. That alone should significantly reduce the security risk it poses.
IE6 has just been around too long; the hackers have had too long to play with it and find every possible exploit there is. If Opera were still sitting at version 5 (and controlled a larger market share) it would probably have just as many security holes discovered. It's the frequent updates and relative obscurity that make other browsers apparently more secure today.
After versions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the man needed a vacation. Cut him some slack.
Forget Opera Man, I'd love a chance for the collective to ask this guy some tough questions about past and present design decisions in IE.
Of course, then you have to find teachers willing to do this. Most teachers, like most people in any profession, aren't crazy about teaching/doing things they don't know, and (as much as I'd like to think otherwise) are just as resitant to change as your average person.
Our labs that have MSO2k3 also run StarOffice 8, so students have a choice. They are forced to use SO8 on other systems. But we have to emphasize MSO right now because--like I said--it's the standard out there and we'd rather them learn button-pushing than nothing at all...and right now, we're having a hard time creating the third option.
The state has come up with a really stupid new technology education program, on a side note. Apparently we're about to start teaching first graders to use spreadsheets. I just have to ask...HOW ARE THEY GOING TO USE SPREADSHEETS WHEN THEY BARELY KNOW MATH???
I don't see where this system would prevent movie piracy. The piracy groups actively seek to recruit theater employees with authority so that they can film in empty theaters for higher quality releases. It would be trivial for them to find a theater where these systems could be disabled by friendly personnel.
perhaps 'education' is best served by teaching students the principles of spreadsheets, wordprocessors, and presentations, rather than 'click button X to accomplish task Y'?
That's what is being done (duh), but let's face it: most people just aren't terribly sharp. The reason MS is even on top to begin with is that they made things easy for idiots (both to use and to break). Your average non-IT user these days sits down at a PC and panics if they don't see the same program. Forget that they know the fundamentals and principles of how it all works, they see "OpenOffice.org" and say "But I only know Microsoft Office! This is different and I don't like different and it's going to hurt my productivity!" and then get frustrated every time something is mildly different.
I have personally run into a few frustrations making the switch to OOo. Some features I found useful aren't there, there's some functionality missing in the spreadsheets (the ability to paste into multiple individual cells, for example) and until the most recent verious, the documentation was absolutely horrible.
The problem with OSS, as has been stated, is that it does not prepare students for what the vast majority of them are going to see in the real world.
I work at a school district. We use StarOffice for most of the PCs here because Texas' stupid "Robin Hood" law strips us of about $22,000,000 a year, forcing across-the-board budget cuts. We *wish* we could use MS Office, because that's what the students need to know when the enter the workforce. Yes, it'd be better if they knew both. Yes, it sucks that MS has such a stranglehold on the market that we have to think this way. No, I'm not going to compromise student education for the sake of my ideals.
I think Apple's only defense here is to point out that Creative was no more the originator than Apple.
I'm so tired of everything being about iPods when MP3 players are mentioned that I almost want Creative to win the suit and force Apple to stop making them. That way we can go back to not having to hear "so you can plug in your iPod" so often.
Or maybe he's just getting old and doesn't want to do the same thing for the rest of his life that he's been doing for most of his life.
MS isn't going anywhere until someone else is willing to compromise stability and security in favor of "idiot-friendly".
Ugh. I'm so tired of this crap. Until history records the cold war as WW3, I'm still waiting for WW3 to happen. There were a few world wars prior to WW1...we haven't gone back and renumbered them for accuracy, let's not get all pedantic and try to rename everything that remotely resembles a WW since 1900 to WW*. The Cold War was the Cold War. The "Global War on Terror" is the "Global War on Terror". World War 3 hasn't happened yet, because the name hasn't been attached to anything by the general population...just a few wannabe intellectuals trying to impress each other by being the first in on the secret that WW3 actually ended almost two decades ago.
I appreciate your effort to clarify the issue since there is a lot of FUD, but don't you think you should actually read up on what the patent does cover before attempting to clarify it to others?
Well fine then, I'll just go sit in the corner and shut up.
After I point out that I was trying more to say what the suit isn't about, things like the physical interface and the whole "portable music player" concept.
Oh, I know all (well, most of) the reasons why. It was just the first thing that popped in my head and I thought it was semfunny.
Pity someone wasted a mod point modding a joke as a troll.
I haven't seen any articles that explain in depth what the patent covers, so I can't comment on exactly how broad its scope is.
Now, if we're talking about software which automatically parses ID3 tags and/or filenames and arranges the music accordingly, Creative might very well have been the first to do that, and it would be something of a unique innovation, even though others would certainly have arrived at the same solution independently. Windows Media Player does it as well...could the be suing Microsoft next?
In any case, I'm not defending their having the patent, I'm just trying to set the record straight because a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue what this patent dispute is all about.
It beats subsidizing them. Maybe our government should be taking notes.
It's really hard to seperate Linux from KDE/Gnome and "various programs" on the desktop level. Linux alone isn't exactly viable for much. You need Apache to make it a web server. Samba to make it a file server. XWindows to make it a desktop system. EXPECT people to lump them all as "Linux" because in all reality, Linux isn't anything without them.
For the life of me, I don't know why Chapter 5, Installation Annoyances, isn't Chapter 1.
I think the OP just nailed down the problem with 90% of Linux books, and one of the big problems with Linux adoption by the less-than-ubergeeks. Very few Linux book authors seem to know how to teach someone to use Linux. Either they spend three chapters on the basics of PCs and lose me, they dive straight into stuff that goes way over my head, or they just present the material in as counter-intuitive an order as possible for maximum frustration.
I can't remember how many books I've picked up, started reading, and ended up shelving between chapters three and five. Reasons:
1) They never actually got around to discussing Linux beyond the sales pitch about why I should use it.
2) They skipped a lot of important basics that left me wondering just what they were talking about.
3) They had me configure the desktop, type a few commands in the shell, install Linux, and THEN talked about the file system and various other basics that are relevant to everything you do in Linux.
It's good to know I'm not the only one going through the same crap (both noob bashing and dependency hell).
That and I'm having trouble with Linux on VMWare (but not Windows), but I'm just getting started there.