| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2004 07:56:08 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by tfaust:
I'm not on the IE is bad bandwagon - but to answer this - I'm sure part of the reason it's so popular is that it comes pre-installed on all machines running Windows. Most people don't want to download something different / know there is something different available. |
So to sum up, IE is good enough so that most people don't want to download something different, or don't consider looking elsewhere. Or put another way: IE meets most people's needs.
Thanks, Tina. :-) |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:06:49 AM · #27 |
When I come to this particular forum page, I get a virus warning.
for this file("....Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\GBN3YWP1\forum[1].php")
Virus name:
Exploit-URLSpoof.gen
Anyone else? I don't have any problems on any other forum links!
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 08:07:51. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:09:47 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Olympian:
When I come to this particular forum page, I get a virus warning.
for this file("....Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\GBN3YWP1\forum[1].php")
Virus name:
Exploit-URLSpoof.gen
Anyone else? I don't have any problems on any other forum links! |
Sorry. That was my post earlier. It's picking up on the example exploit that was in that post. You're safe, there is no virus. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:48:55 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
So to sum up, IE is good enough so that most people don't want to download something different, or don't consider looking elsewhere. Or put another way: IE meets most people's needs. |
How about using all of human history to draw a more likely conclusion: people is lazy bastadges. Combine that with the fact that people just don't give a damn about web standards or the latest security vulnerability/exploit and you've got yourself a formula for individual success (my browser works for me) and community failure (we 0wn your b0xen). People will put up with just about anything if it means they can continue to not work and not care (the political and social implications are obvious); i.e. the bar is very, very low when it comes to meeting the individual's browser "needs". I hear that people will agree (an easy click with IE) to just about anything if you give them something, anything for free; e.g. free image hosting for rights to your images.
For the record, a de jure standard negates a de facto standard: ubiquitous != standard.
Problem: Web designers tend to design for IE first and leave standards compliance by the wayside (there's that lazy/apathy factor creeping in again). When a site doesn't work in ns/op/moz/etc., what do all the pro-ns/op/moz people do? Chances are they give it a go in IE instead of complaining to the web site owner. This would be much harder if IE were not bundled with the O/S.
The dissonance is killing me. How about you?
Ahh well, whadya gonna do?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:51:31 AM · #30 |
| MOZILLA......MOZILLA....MOZILLA!! |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:56:54 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
i.e. the bar is very, very low when it comes to meeting the individual's browser "needs". ... Ahh well, whadya gonna do? |
Hey I'm not saying it's right, just saying it's true. :-) |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 09:02:25 AM · #32 |
Whether it's right or not, web developers tend to design for IE first because that is what 90% of their visitors use. If they design to other browswers only about 10% of their traffic sees it correctly. What would your choice be as a site owner, 90% sees it right, or 10%??
In my experience, there is a larger percentage of people not lazy, just afraid to download something and install it. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 09:08:46 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Hey I'm not saying it's right, just saying it's true. :-) |
Oh, Right is Right, and True is True, and never the twain shall meet.
(with apologies to R.Kipling) |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 09:22:42 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by tfaust:
Whether it's right or not, web developers tend to design for IE first because that is what 90% of their visitors use. If they design to other browswers only about 10% of their traffic sees it correctly. What would your choice be as a site owner, 90% sees it right, or 10%?? |
I go with the 10% sliver and double check it renders sufficiently correctly in IE. Others are doing the same (maybe 10% of them!). Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily a conscious decision on the part of most web designers; hell, people still use images for text links, java for menus, tables for layout, and flash for content (all probably the result of what's easiest at the time.
Originally posted by tfaust:
In my experience, there is a larger percentage of people not lazy, just afraid to download something and install it. |
Ahh yes, Ikimono no Kiroku. Fear is the great motivator, but perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you. After all, those fearful folk are still installing (and trusting?) anti-virus and anti-spam software. Anyway, anecdotal evidence aside, I'll go with the prevailing and persistent human characteristics of laziness and apathy.
(Neither does fear preclude laziness; perhaps it's just cognitive dissonance.) |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 11:48:47 AM · #35 |
Gab gab gab... all opinions only -- you can't force others to accept your point of view :-)
Originally posted by tfaust:
Whether it's right or not, web developers tend to design for IE first because that is what 90% of their visitors use. If they design to other browswers only about 10% of their traffic sees it correctly. What would your choice be as a site owner, 90% sees it right, or 10%?? |
Here we go again...
THERES LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATS FOR GOD SAKE
If your stats are true then everyone visits web sites with about 1.3 browsers, or better yet Netscaoe went from 98% market share in 93 to non-existant in 03 -- great these stats...
Most browsers ID themselves as IE so give up on stats.
I use Opera, IE and Netscape 4.6 and have used about 5 others. I prefer and use Opera the most and don't care what anyone else uses as you won't change my mind.
Incidently before 2003 Opera had 1 vulnerability found in 5 years and FreeBSD had 1 or 0 (Can't recall) in its history :-) Oh yeah these were the ones that were not fixed before they became public.
Edit: -- Just looked at firefox -- WOW its SOOOOOOO GOOD it can now finially do what OPERA COULD DO FOR AGES :-)
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 11:51:18. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:05:51 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by tfaust:
Whether it's right or not, web developers tend to design for IE first because that is what 90% of their visitors use. If they design to other browswers only about 10% of their traffic sees it correctly. What would your choice be as a site owner, 90% sees it right, or 10%?? |
As a Full time developer I make sure that it works in every thing. Every year we get together and decide what our min requirements are and we design to that. From there we test every thing we design in Linux,mac,Windows - with any browser that we can find for that particular system.
Just this year we decided to drop support for any of the < 4.x version of any browser. That does not mean it wont work in those browser but that it just might not look correct if viewed with them and some parts of the wite won't work.
Originally posted by sn4psho7:
Most browsers ID themselves as IE so give up on stats. |
The only browsers that Identify them selves as IE are the ones that are built of the IE renderer. In fact all browsers report that they are Mozilla x.x compatible. :)
snip from my server logs:
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Hotbar 4.4.2.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Hotbar 4.4.2.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95; ISP#532)"
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:31:03 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
IE, rightly or wrongly, is the standard. |
IE is indeed the standard. And so are Windows and Adobe Photoshop. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:42:20 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by spectre013:
Originally posted by sn4psho7:
Most browsers ID themselves as IE so give up on stats. |
The only browsers that Identify them selves as IE are the ones that are built of the IE renderer. In fact all browsers report that they are Mozilla x.x compatible. :)
snip from my server logs:
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Hotbar 4.4.2.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Hotbar 4.4.2.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95; ISP#532)" |
True, but the part people hear about is the IE part and its mainly the bit used in stats :-) |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:52:09 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Most browsers ID themselves as IE so give up on stats. |
All of the web log analyzers I've ever used are smart enough to know how identify a browser for what it really is. Even Opera, which can masquerade as some version of IE, still throws an "Opera 7.20" on the end to allow it to be identified.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 12:53:32. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 12:57:04 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
7 years on Netscape exclusively - not one single virus has made it through! |
So what, I've been using IE since the beginning of time, and I've never gotten a virus either.
There are multiple parts to getting a virus or worm. 90% of those parts are HUMAN!
EDIT: I'm also a software Engineer, so I do have knowledge in the area! I also hate MS... BUT I'm also a realist!
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 12:59:34.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 01:50:35 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Well I know one thing for sure... I know Netscape Blows...
The only reason IE has so many flaws pop-up is because so many people use it. Why don't more people write hacks or take advantage of vunerabilities for MAC? Because no-one use a MAC (compared to PC), it's the same with IE vs. Netscape.
If your smart enough to do the updates, it's not a problem... |
The virus writers use mac's! That's a good reason to use one in its self. :D |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 02:40:33 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
It's easy to criticise IE because it doesn't have this or that feature.. If Opera or Moz are so good, why does IE has such a massive share of the market? |
This was determined to be a result of Microsoft's illegal, monopolistic practices, which violated Federal anti-trust law. That IE still maintains that position, despite overwhelming testimony to the superiority of competing products, is merely evidence of how sadly the prosecutors underestimated the long-range effects of these illegal practices.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 14:41:24. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 02:53:38 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That IE still maintains that position, despite overwhelming testimony to the superiority of competing products, is merely evidence of how sadly the prosecutors underestimated the long-range effects of these illegal practices. |
and how weak the remedies/penalties imposed on MS turned out to be. Many people think that the Department of Justice essentially dropped the case when the current administration came into office.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 02:53:42 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
The virus writers use mac's! That's a good reason to use one in its self. :D |
:) It's a cute thought, but your wrong. I also love it when MAC users tell me that all software is written on a MAC for the PC... MAC didn't have an OS/Computer worth a freaking Dime untill OSX. And as a side note, I do own a Mac (G3), it's just not one of my main computers.
Pass the pipe next time please...
I've been in software development for 6 years. The only time I touch a MAC at work is to test cross-platform software. Even then I have to go dig one out of a closet.
No real hacker/cracker uses Windows much less MAC...
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 14:56:00.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 03:06:08 PM · #45 |
People.. you have to start realising that whatever position you decide to take (Pro-Microsoft or against it), you take it because of what media tell you. And this is the major point of my post.
From what I read here there is very little awareness of technical aspects, therefore the discussion should not be driven by technical issues.
For instance, there are much worse hole in IE security then the one documented in this thread.
There is an hole in the Microsoft Java Virtual Machine (which is going to be retired very soon, because MS lost the right to produce one) which allows the page that you visit to download automatically some executable code and link it on your machine, therefore running it as a system process (like WINLOGON.EXE for instance).
If you do not updated Windows (and IE), skilled people can do whatever they want with your machine (as long as they are skilled enough).
If you update it, the level of the skill required just raises, after all we frequently have the so-called "critical updates" which address some major hole previously unknown.
All what I am saying appears to be against Microsoft and, somehow, it is.
But Microsoft has represented for many many years INNOVATION at world wide level and, personally, I suspect that they attacked MS just to slow down and stop the speed of innovation (and I think that they achieved their goal successfully).
Among the major reasons why IE has so much share (apart from being free and the default browser of the Operating System), there is the period when IE5 was born with features which were by far (and for a long long time in IT terms) superior to those of any competitors.
Then, as for Windows as Operating System, people got used to it and there is a natural resistence to remove something which works with something new, if the new does not offer REAL better features.
And, in order to offer better features, once again, innovation is needed.
I know I have simplified a lot the history of the last 15 years of IT, but I could not find another "language" to partecipate and tell you my view in this context. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 03:16:27 PM · #46 |
glimpses -
I agree with your post - and personally, I'm all for MS - I've long said that if you can do a better job, do it; otherwise, quitchur bitc*in!
Frankly, though, I always hated IE - still do. It always seemed clunky to me, and to this day, I can not seem to use it with the ease that I do my Netscape.
While to a great degree I do believe that ease of use is all in what you're accustomed to using, it's amazing to me with all the viruses which have been designed to attack the IE mail programs that people have stuck with it!
And Russell, I do agree that 90% of the problems with viruses being spread is/are human related. Generally, folks are just too darned curious for their own good. I absolutely do not open attachments unless I know that it is coming and who it is from. And I'm very cautious about where I spread my email addy! I hate anti-virus software - it has always caused me more trouble than it solved, although I realize that one day that could come along and bite me on the butt. If it does, I'll have ta deal with it.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 03:33:29 PM · #47 |
| As much as people also love to hate AOL, it appears that the newest version is screening attachments and running some firewall functions automatically. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 03:59:03 PM · #48 |
Whoa. I can't believe what I'm reading here. First of all, Mozilla is Open Source software which means that hundreds of security experts have analyzed the code for the browser. Mircrosoft is known to put backdoors in its software. Any developers here will remember the backdoor where "::$data" appended to any URL for an ASP would reveal the complete source code. How about all those key combinations that would unlock hidden games in Windows and show pictures of the developers? But, let's assume we can trust Microsoft not to do that anymore. How about the bad security decisions it always makes, like having the primary user being administrator, or Outlook's ability to execute remote applications, or pushing application level software into the kernel to give the illusion of faster performance? IE is not the standard. The standards come from w3c.org, to which Microsoft contributes. Yet, Mozilla has better compliance with standards than IE.
You can make anecdotal claims that every system has security flaws, but look at it this way: every car has defects, and user error can get it into an accident. Which would you feel safter in, a Mercedes, or a Pinto? You have to look at the severity of each flaw. IE has flaws of the most severe level -- flaws that allow your computer to be controlled remotely. I'd rather take a flaw that causes a memory leak or something that I can control.
Having said that, if you like IE, then great -- keep it. To be honest, your files and data probably aren't of much interest to crackers anyway. Many people don't mind sharing the files since they're often not very private. I like my privacy, even if only on principle, so I'm using as much trustworthy software as I can. That's the personal choice of this software engineer. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:33:11 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
The virus writers use mac's! That's a good reason to use one in its self. :D |
:) It's a cute thought, but your wrong. I also love it when MAC users tell me that all software is written on a MAC for the PC... MAC didn't have an OS/Computer worth a freaking Dime untill OSX. And as a side note, I do own a Mac (G3), it's just not one of my main computers.
Pass the pipe next time please...
I've been in software development for 6 years. The only time I touch a MAC at work is to test cross-platform software. Even then I have to go dig one out of a closet.
No real hacker/cracker uses Windows much less MAC... |
Where did BOTH macOS and Windows come from? try a Xerox experiment so they are both based on the same principles -- great of you to slag off your dev platform :-)
Originally posted by glimpses:
People.. you have to start realising that whatever position you decide to take (Pro-Microsoft or against it), you take it because of what media tell you. And this is the major point of my post. |
Thanks for the insult, I have been using computers for most of my life and can form my own opinions quite well... Where in most media is Opera or FreeBSD mentioned?
Most of my SW opinions are linked to HW, where is the informed discussion of how inhel's procs compare to IBM, ARM, AMD, HP, SUN, etc?
Whoever mentioned the anti-trust case, damn straight the bush admin let them off look at the 80's case against IBM! |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:31:31 PM · #50 |
I don't see how anyone could credit MS as a promoter of inovation. Seems to me they were found guilty of squelching inovation. I guess it is inovation that they can control, and inovation in control that you were thinking of.
As far as getting our impressions of MS from the media, think again. I'd venture to say everyone here has some first hand experience using MS products. Doesn't that count? |
|
