SitePoint Sponsor |
|
User Tag List
Results 126 to 150 of 190
-
Feb 3, 2006, 20:25 #126You're being argumentative when you admittedly don't know what you're talking about.
You said they always fix vulnerabilities and bugs faster.
I merely said I'd seen issues fixed faster on IE than FF
that a vulnerability in IE meant a vulnerability in the OS. Which is simply no longer the case.
-
Feb 3, 2006, 20:35 #127
From Techblog and also reported at Microsoft Watch: "Another difference between the standalone IE 7.0 and the version of the browser that will be embedded in Vista is permanent."
These same articles say there will be a standalone version for older versions of Windows only but will not contain the anti-phishing software and other 'bits' that will be in Vista only.
-
Feb 3, 2006, 20:40 #128
EWeek reports "Microsoft wasn't going to release a new IE browser, apart from the embedded version in Windows Vista , but then increased security worries..."
Interesting that MS was concerned about security worries by embedding IE7 into Vista.
-
Feb 3, 2006, 21:24 #129
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Right behind you, watching, always watching.
- Posts
- 5,431
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by reteep
-
Feb 4, 2006, 05:14 #130
I don't really care about IE7 because by the time it gets out in full release Firefox will have gained 450 million users which is enough to hold a healthy buffer against an IE browser. The reason that this will be enough is that IE7 for XP and above is just stupid. It is not going to entice people to upgrade to XP. Those that upgrade to XP will do for different reasons. IE7 is not going to be any goodwill advertisement Microsoft either because of the XP limitation.
I think that Microsoft is underestimating the power of designers and developers in pushing their browser of choice and holding ground. They are depending too much on large distribution campaigns to convince people to go with their software. This time around they will find that if they get 500 million instances of Windows Vista out and hold on to 600 million XP users that those users will be downloading and installing something other than IE. This is going to make it difficult for Microsoft to push other software that may be IE dependant like Office Web Ware. People will just say "Sorry, I choose to go with Star Office and Opera." or " Firefox and Open Office work fine at our company" for both our Vista/XP machines and Linux desktops.FHQK ed UP - It's a really FHQK ed UP world we live in!
Hiveminds Magazine
Search Engine for Drupal
Search Engine for Students
-
Feb 4, 2006, 07:58 #131
Originally Posted by dc dalton
2. This might be a good time to let Windows 2000 users know about Firefox and Opera.
-
Feb 4, 2006, 10:28 #132
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Posts
- 1,178
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by dc dalton
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do
the day after tomorrow. ~ Mark Twain
-
Feb 4, 2006, 11:07 #133
I'm not disagreeing with you but something to think about.
Would you expect Ford or GM to support antique cars?
-
Feb 4, 2006, 11:15 #134
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 10,653
- Mentioned
- 4 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by vgarcia
On the server side things get even more interesting. We still have one NT 4 server in production (Exchange 5.5). Is it old? Yes. But the thing has been rock solid for 8 years. And upgrading major systems, like your email/PIM system is such a nightmare that one needs very compelling reasons to undergo that sort of pain. There are alot of other IT shops that have similiar situations. If it carries on anything like NT 4, Windows 2000 server will be widely deployed until 2015 or so. Sql 2000 will probably have a far longer life as people do not mess with production databases.
-
Feb 4, 2006, 11:28 #135
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Posts
- 1,178
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
Technology does not sit still. As it advances, you need to advance to keep pace with it. Whether it is cars, computers, or software. Everything has a life expectancy or lifecycle. The timeframe of that varies depending on the item. How many iterations of Photoshop has there been? Does Adobe still support the first one? A software company can not sit still expecting people to keep buying the same old thing, no matter how good it is. They have to keep adding features in order to grow and advance. I still see Model T's on the road, but would we want to all still have them and nothing else?Never put off until tomorrow what you can do
the day after tomorrow. ~ Mark Twain
-
Feb 4, 2006, 13:01 #136
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Linuxland
- Posts
- 2,788
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by Keriam
Unfortunately, this attitude spills over into our relationships with each other and our environment - use it up and throw away. Disposable people, disposable cars, disposable toys, disposable planet. What ever happened to 'if it works don't fix it'??
In the end I suspect that we will find we are a disposable species (and the earth will be better off for it).[/philosophy]
-
Feb 4, 2006, 13:37 #137Technology does not sit still. As it advances, you need to advance to keep pace with it.
-
Feb 4, 2006, 13:39 #138
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 10,653
- Mentioned
- 4 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
-
Feb 4, 2006, 13:43 #139
Originally Posted by wwb_99
Thermal Degree - web design with standards! (View our portfolio)
Vidahost - shared and reseller linux hosting with real support
Use my free file uploader!
£5.99 .com/net/org/biz/us/name domains; £2.99 .info!
-
Feb 4, 2006, 17:29 #140
Originally Posted by wwb_99
-
Feb 5, 2006, 07:37 #141
Jeremy W.
About the "Secunia Report", when I took a look this is what I found:
Opera: http://secunia.com/product/4932/
Firefox: http://secunia.com/product/4227/
IE5.01: http://secunia.com/product/9/
IE5.5: http://secunia.com/product/10/
IE6.0: http://secunia.com/product/11/
Am I missing something? It looks like firefox is safer by what it says here..
And firefox runs on the how many different linux operating sytems, and windows operating systems, and OSX operating systems? This is much more hardware to work with by far as well. Even though it's without the palm/cellphone market.
-
Feb 5, 2006, 08:41 #142
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- London, On.
- Posts
- 1,127
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by Jack Matier
The point isn't that Firefox doesn't run on as many systems.
The point is that with Firefox being a free, open-source alternative, there is no accountability. If it doesn't work on a given platform, and none of the developers care to make it work on that platform, and you don't have the ability to do so yourself, you're SOL.
-
Feb 5, 2006, 09:02 #143
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 902
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Good luck trying to get Microsoft to release IE, Windows Media Player and Office for Linux, mate (not that the Linux crowd want those
), and since when has closed source meant the same thing as accountability? Ask any IT support person if MS is accountable to the huge amount of their own software f'ups that these support folks have to deal with daily.
If an open source software doesn't work on a given platform, and you can't do it yourself, there will be some other people who will get it done, as it has been demonstrated so many times. At the very least, it is always possible. Not the same with closed source/proprietary. Even if it's technically feasible, but the men in suits don't like it, it won't be done."I disapprove of what I say,
but I will defend to the death my right to say it."
-
Feb 5, 2006, 10:18 #144The point isn't that Firefox doesn't run on as many systems.
there is no accountability.
-
Feb 5, 2006, 16:31 #145
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 9,123
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
2. Large companies using / contributing to a product don't equal accountability. Do you really think either one would step in if there were a lawsuit (and, if they did, would it be for any reason other than PR?).
I mean, Google's overall contributions to open source are fairly small compared to what it's taking from it. IBM's is much more balanced, but there still isn't accountability.
-
Feb 5, 2006, 16:35 #146
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 9,123
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by LinhGB
In 10 years with both, I've found that overall people are willing to help in both groups. To about the same extent. And, realistically, the number of people who will pop in and reprogram your FireFox binary for you are pretty damned small. Which is why FireFox still doesn't pass the Acid2 test, still has several vulnerabilities, and still has dozens of bugs that are more than a year old.
It's called prioritization. And it happens whether you're a large, closed source, application or a small, open source, one. Teams ultimately need to prioritize where they focus their resources, and dozens of studies have shown that closed source and open source teams typically make exactly the same decisions. Because generally they are both run by very smart people (at the level we're talking about anyways).
-
Feb 5, 2006, 17:07 #147FireFox runs on all PC platforms. That's not the same as all systems.
As far as accountability, a very good point was made earlier in the MS is not accountable for its goofs now while open source runs to fix their problems.
Will get it done? Naw. Maybe. If you're lucky. And ask nicely. On the right forum. At the right time of day.
Which is why FireFox still doesn't pass the Acid2 test, still has several vulnerabilities, and still has dozens of bugs that are more than a year old.
dozens of studies have shown that closed source and open source teams typically make exactly the same decisions. Because generally they are both run by very smart people (at the level we're talking about anyways).
-
Feb 5, 2006, 17:13 #148
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Croatia
- Posts
- 227
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
One simple test of browser stability:
visit: http://www.picigin.net/logcells/
with IE7b2 and Firefox 1.5.0.1
What happend?DOWNLOAD.HR - Windows Download Portal
-
Feb 5, 2006, 17:18 #149
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 9,123
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
You have no desires for answers. If you did, you wouldn't talk about centuries. This thread is about IE7. It's not even about the beta. It's about the beta PREVIEW. Bugs should be reported to the IE team. I've personally reported half a dozen, and had a response on ALL of them (a personal response, not an auto responder). And, they even gave me a temporary fix on 2 of them, promising it'll be fixed in the final version.
As far as accountability, of course MS is accountable. The vast majority of support issues people run into with IE are due to poor administration more than anything. Giving users full local admin privileges? Running IE as an out-of-the-box install instead of from IE enterprise toolkit? Not running group privileges on any users? Not testing for a standard level of compliance? Not doing any patch management?
None of those have anything to do with IE. IT is still in a 1980s mentality, that there are no viruses and no issues anywhere. That has to change first and foremost. That is the cause of 98% of all IT issues.
As far as "some college kid" designing all of FireFox, give me a greak. Blake is an incredibly smart guy. I've met him. But he would never say he designed FireFox, neither would anyone working with him. His team is smart, which is why they prioritize. The IE team is also smart, which is why they prioritize.
If you want to know why specific decisions were prioritized differently than you, without any of the internal knowledge that they have, would have done, then make a specific case.
For example, you might ask Why ClearType is turned on by default, and why it doesn't use the system wide settings in IE7 (since this is what the thread is about). Or you might ask why the IE team addressed the box model (with one known bug), but didn't institute min/max width/height (which makes the box model fix useless.
Those would be valid questions. Saying "why hasn't IE been updated in a century" isn't a valid question, since it HAS been updated (with 3 major versions in the last 5 years). And, it never was a century.
-
Feb 5, 2006, 18:52 #150
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 902
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by Jeremy W.
"I disapprove of what I say,
but I will defend to the death my right to say it."
Bookmarks