internet explorer >:(

[yahurd]

i hate it! and for good reason, its buggy, slow, all its defenses are lies, its defenders make 3rd rate software, was designed to create an instant monopoly then designed to crush the internet from its monopolistic infectivex and directcrapimation then ceasing all work, as microsofts internal documents show, it was created IN ORDER TO DECOMMODITIZE OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE SO THAT IT CANT GROW. its just plain evil! :mad:

[AFPheonix]

Exploder was pissing me off, so now I use firefox. I like having all the fun little plug-ins on it, and the lack of popups is great!

[protege]

Hehehe I don't like Exploder either. However, I still have to use it, since some sites are still not "Firefox friendly." If it wasn't for that, I'd remove IE altogether.

[yahurd]

have you tried this?
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1419/

[Isios]

We don't call it internet exploder for nothing :)

[DGoddess]

We don't call it internet exploder for nothing :)

Amen to that. And even if you have XP with SP2, IE 7 will cause your PC to do some strange things and some sites won't come up correctly. My brother discovered this a few months ago when he upgraded the Exploder to the 7 version on the laptop. I reverted it back an hour later to 6.0 and we haven't fooled with 7 since.

Me likey Firefox Less frustration.:D

[yahurd]

its real name is idiot exploiter

[Rapscallion]

*cough* (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/15/firefox_vuln/)

Rapscallion

[Splintered Star]

IE? It needs to die. Preferably in a Sudden Death Match between it, Firefox, and Netscape. Possibly with rabid wombats involved.

Star

[yahurd]

IE? It needs to die. Preferably in a Sudden Death Match between it, Firefox, and Netscape. Possibly with rabid wombats involved.
you forget opera, mutant bats and konqueror



*cough* (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/15/firefox_vuln/)

*cough* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6325353.stm)

*hack* (http://secunia.com/advisories/22687/)

*blarg* (http://secunia.com/advisories/13482/)

*ahem* (http://www.litepc.com/)

*choke* (http://toastytech.com/evil/reasons.html)



28: Both the installer and the uninstaller are about as stable as nitroglycerin.

12: Borg implants tend to itch like crazy.

58: Because if a huge multi billion-dollar corporation can't keep spyware and viruses from infecting their browser, but a bunch of open source "hippies" can, then there is something seriously wrong.

41: The web is based on open standards. Open standards are incompatible with Internet Explorer, or any Microsoft product for that matter.

42: If you care at all about the data on your hard drive you won't open IE.

43: Microsoft forces people to install and use it through bundling and unnecessary integration. If it were really any good do you think they would have to

in conclusion, one vulnerability does not an argument make;)

[Rapscallion]

That was the second of two found in two days, if you read the article. They also happened at the back end of last week - very recent. Don't try to make out that FF is impervious - it isn't. Your 'blarg' link is apparently dated back to 2005? You got one back in November 2006 with your 'hack' link - congratulations, that's closer. I'm sure there are many bugs in FF that have since been patched, just as those ones have been. I could probably find one or two for you if I really cared, but old news isn't really news, is it?

The DRM thing under your 'cough' link to BBC news is something I've not heard even M$ afficionados praising, so no real complaints from me about that one, though I don't really see any particular mention of browsers on there. I'm not quite certain what you're trying to prove with your 'litepc' link, except that you've managed to throw me completely off the scent with bollocks.

As for the 'choke' link, I did my best to find comedy in there. Really, I did. I failed. It looked like it had been written by twelve-year-olds who had discovered how to write in their own poo and then make an otherwise respectable page as close to a geoshitties site as possible.

Perhaps http://www.msfirefox.com/ is funnier? I think so.

Short version of my opinion is this - I go to the Internet to see the Internet, not the frame around it. I don't give a flying crap what browser it is, and I'm not a fanatic about it. I started with IE, and Firefox was slower on both PCs of mine I installed it on than IE. I tried the features the afficionados were screaming about, and I shrugged. They weren't enough to make me change browsers from something with which I was familiar.

Rapscallion

[yahurd]

That was the second of two found in two days,
noone said it has bulletproof, ie has more found on a daily basis than that
on a side not the thread is about ie, not firefox, if firefox is worse than ie, what about opera, konqueror, lynx?

if you read the article.
no:o

They also happened at the back end of last week - very recent. Don't try to make out that FF is impervious - it isn't.
im not saying anything is impervious, nothing is, but on the whole its more secure

I'm not quite certain what you're trying to prove with your 'litepc' link,
a lot of the insecurity of ie comes from its supposed integration, for instance, to gain admin access (no pun intended)

1. run cmd from start menu
2. type AT (time you want it to run usually a minute or two) /interactive “cmd.exe” (use military time)
example: AT 21:34 /interactive “cmd.exe”
3. Once the new cmd window opens at the time you specified do a CTRL + ALT + DELETE
4. Now go into the taskmanager and kill explorer.exe
5. now in the cmd window opened my the AT Command type cd ..
6. now in the main directory type explorer.exe

As for the 'choke' link, I did my best to find comedy in there. Really, I did.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps http://www.msfirefox.com/ is funnier? I think so.

try spreadinternetexplorer.com

I go to the Internet to see the Internet, not the frame around it.
the intent of anyone using a browser is clear,
i dont give a flying hoot about the looks myself, if i did id use ie 7
but i dont i care about speed and not crashing, given firefox is a bit bloated compared to ie 6, but not ie 7, besideshttp://lifehacker.com/software/ie7/ie7-vs-firefox-2--the-memory-usage-showdown-208908.php
on my machine firefox starts faster runs faster and hasn't crashed
i saw the article and found some 3rd party thing which told me a different tale of the processes,
http://illhostit.com/thumbnails/e2d1c226e51fe53293bcca143bf02bfd/untitled.bmp (http://illhostit.com/files/e2d1c226e51fe53293bcca143bf02bfd/untitled.bmp),
also part of ies insecurity is INCREDIBLE stupidity
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/21/1836240
also, now that competition has come up, the only thing ever to get m$ off their fat ass, ie has a timetable for 2 years rather than 5
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/1456248
offtopic you might find this interesting
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/2130234

an offtopic vista link (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011523)

[gbm85]

Internet Explorer isn't popular because of Microsoft evil. It's popular because it comes with every Windows PC. The majority of users think that the blue "E" is the Internet. With the release of IE7, which has a dramatically different interface, many ISPs got calls asking "What did you do to my Internet??" Most don't know that an alternative exists, and they don't care. Sure, IE6 and older are plagued with security vulnerabilites, but IE7's security has been good so far. This is particularly true on Vista, with User Access Control and running as a non-privileged process by default. If people insist on using IE and get spyware or other crap on their computer, that's what I call the "stupidity tax"

You think it's unfair/not right that Internet Explorer is bundled with the OS and can't be uninstalled? Well, you mention Konqueror in your last post. Do you use KDE? Let's compare notes then.

IE: Up until version 6, file browsing and web browsing tied together through Explorer
Konqueror: Including the current version, and planned for future release, file browsing and web browsing tied together through Konqueror

IE: Bundled with Windows, cannot be uninstalled except through painstaking steps
Konqueror: Bundled with KDE, cannot be uninstalled without getting rid of KDE, except through even more painful steps

I see striking similarities. You may argue that nobody forces you to use KDE. Well, nobody forces you to use Windows either.

I cannot understand such a deep hatred for a web browser. If you like Firefox, then great, use it. I do. I never use IE unless it's absolutely necessary for a particular website. But I don't hate it. It's never done anything to me. It has never broken into my apartment and stolen my TV. It has never slapped my girlfriend. To me, it's like a bad restaurant... you eat there once, decide you don't like it, and never return.

[gbm85]

And as far as your privilege escalation thing... that has nothing to do with Internet Explorer whatsoever, and it doesn't work on the vast majority of systems anyway because unprivileged users cannot schedule tasks.

[Rapscallion]

noone said it has bulletproof, ie has more found on a daily basis than that


As far as I'm aware, it used to be found regularly, but it's pretty secure now. I assume you have links of proof of concept for a daily exploiting of IE flaws that you're going to give now?


on a side not the thread is about ie, not firefox, if firefox is worse than ie, what about opera, konqueror, lynx?


What about Opera, Konqeror, and Lynx? I think GBM has adequately dealt with the technical side of things there, but the board is built around debate. As it says in the site rules, don't get upset if someone challenges your view. That's the purpose of this site.


try spreadinternetexplorer.com


*browsebrowsebored*


the intent of anyone using a browser is clear,


Apparently so you can preach about that and nothing else?

In general, I'm not a techie - I know enough to usually keep myself out of trouble, but I'll trust GBM on that front for the in-depth stuff. What I do know is that no system is invulnerable, that the current versions of both IE (both 6 and 7 - I use 6 at home, mostly because I don't like the extra features on 7) and FF are fairly hard to crack, and that the main thing putting me off any change is the messianic attitudes displayed by the zealots for the alternatives. For some, it's ceased to be a browser and become a cult.

Ever thought that you won't change peoples' minds by insulting them?

Rapscallion

[yahurd]

Internet Explorer isn't popular because of Microsoft evil. It's popular because it comes with every Windows PC. The majority of users think that the blue "E" is the Internet.
*that* is the evil im talking about, its called illegal bundling and they were sued for it, and a finding of fact declares and i quote
172. Microsoft's refusal to respect the user's choice of default browser fulfilled Brad Chase's 1995 promise to make the use of any browser other than Internet Explorer on Windows "a jolting experience." By increasing the likelihood that using Navigator on Windows 98 would have unpleasant consequences for users, Microsoft further diminished the inclination of OEMs to pre-install Navigator onto Windows. The decision to override the user's selection of non-Microsoft software as the default browser also directly disinclined Windows 98 consumers to use Navigator as their default browser, and it harmed those Windows 98 consumers who nevertheless used Navigator. In particular, Microsoft exposed those using Navigator on Windows 98 to security and privacy risks that are specific to Internet Explorer and to ActiveX controls..

173. Microsoft's actions have inflicted collateral harm on consumers who have no interest in using a Web browser at all. If these consumers want the non-browsing features available only in Windows 98, they must content themselves with an operating system that runs more slowly than if Microsoft had not interspersed browsing-specific routines throughout various files containing routines relied upon by the operating system. More generally, Microsoft has forced Windows 98 users uninterested in browsing to carry software that, while providing them with no benefits, brings with it all the costs associated with carrying additional software on a system. These include performance degradation, increased risk of incompatibilities, and the introduction of bugs. Corporate consumers who need the hardware support and other non-browsing features not available in earlier versions of Windows, but who do not want Web browsing at all, are further burdened in that they are denied a simple and effective means of preventing employees from attempting to browse the Web.

174. Microsoft has harmed even those consumers who desire to use Internet Explorer, and no other browser, with Windows 98. To the extent that browsing-specific routines have been commingled with operating system routines to a greater degree than is necessary to provide any consumer benefit, Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system. Specifically, it has increased the likelihood that a browser crash will cause the entire system to crash and made it easier for malicious viruses that penetrate the system via Internet Explorer to infect non-browsing parts of the system.

With the release of IE7, which has a dramatically different interface, many ISPs got calls asking "What did you do to my Internet??"
what the ???? does that have to do with it? these are the "the start is gone!" people that make me pity m$ right now.

Most don't know that an alternative exists, and they don't care.
thats why they dont care, if i gave joe user an ubuntu disk and book, he might change his mind, however that still doesnt mean joe jackass wont be pissed that the start has been replaced with applicattions.


Sure, IE6 and older are plagued with security vulnerabilites, but IE7's security has been good so far. This is particularly true on Vista, with User Access Control and running as a non-privileged process by default. If people insist on using IE and get spyware or other crap on their computer, that's what I call the "stupidity tax"
a.only when competition arises do they EVER improve
b.must aggree that thats plain stupidity
c.there are more users than those kinds! besides the ENTERPRISE consumers!

You think it's unfair/not right that Internet Explorer is bundled with the OS and can't be uninstalled?
it fits a certain purpose, i like konqurer integration as file manager etc. i think what is UNFAIR is m$'s motives behind integration, aka nontechnical ones.

Konqueror: Including the current version, and planned for future release, file browsing and web browsing tied together through Konqueror
there are technical reasons of this, centralization of functions etc
IE: Bundled with Windows, cannot be uninstalled except through painstaking steps
cant be done without a 3rd party tool period. breaks m$office most of the time, along with winmedplayer and every other m$ app

Konqueror: Bundled with KDE, cannot be uninstalled without getting rid of KDE, except through even more painful steps
installed it on kde-free system, installed kde without it, both quite easy, but it broke koffice
I see striking similarities. You may argue that nobody forces you to use KDE. Well, nobody forces you to use Windows either.
how do you come by that assumption? no support forr anything but windows from oems? oems strong armed into no os rather than most popular linux installed? linux incompatible m$ bastardized formats? through which of these have you come to this conclusion (the fact Linux exists :rolleyes: ?)

I cannot understand such a deep hatred for a web browser.
as an os developer, the reasons grow daily.
If you like Firefox, then great, use it. I do. I never use IE unless it's absolutely necessary for a particular website.
ie tabs, see above ;)

It has never broken into my apartment and stolen my TV. It has never slapped my girlfriend. To me, it's like a bad restaurant... you eat their once, decide you don't like it, and never return.

good for you, however having to run into a lot of technical wtf's from the wine integration project, it has DEFINITELY pushed some buttons

[gbm85]

Microsoft is evil because every major OEM *chooses* to make deals with them? You're right, there is something out there forcing these OEMs to use Windows, but it's not Microsoft; it is the consumers. People want Windows. They want it because it runs Office, because it looks pretty, because it's familiar to them. It is actually cheaper for these OEMs to sell PCs without Windows on them... but almost nobody wants a PC without Windows.

What's next? Will Volvo be required to use Ford CD players and Honda instrument clusters? It is Microsoft's operating system, they can bundle with it whatever they bloody please.

thats why they dont care

No, they don't care because Internet Explorer does what they want it to and they have never wanted anything more. You have to understand, we made the jump to Linux because we wanted more. We found it. We can install thousands of programs and tweaks that Windows and Microsoft can only dream about. But most users do not want more. They want their computer to work the way they learned it. They do not want anything to change it, including themself.

as an os developer, the reasons grow daily.

So now you're a 16-year-old open-source developer, eh? So, what exactly does that mean? You wrote a few dozen Bash scripts and compiled your own kernel? Maybe you compiled something with winelib? And now you call yourself a developer? Or have you actually done real work for a real project?

P.S. IE Tab causes memory leaks, and even if it didn't, it only runs on Windows.

P.P.S. I'm trying to figure out how you manage to get around Linux, since it is case-sensitive and your shift key seems to be broken.

[Isios]

*Opens can*
*shakes the worms a bit*

I use an Apple computer. The fact that a new IE hasn't been made for Apple since 5 is enough for me to say POS. I use Safari and Firefos and sometimes Opera. All depends on my mood.

[Rapscallion]

It's a whole day since I last posted. Yahurd, what vulnerability did IE open up to today? You know, with your claim of vulnerabilities on a daily basis, and all that.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Another day, another vulnerability should have emerged. Which was it today?

Rapscallion

[yahurd]

Microsoft is evil because every major OEM *chooses* to make deals with them?
You're right, there is something out there forcing these OEMs to use Windows, but it's not Microsoft; it is the consumers.
http://www.dellideastorm.com/
a)that is how it goes with a monopoly
b)if only i could untrade secret a few documents
c)consumers want what they think is the best, most of these consumers never tried linux period, if you think you want say a 2004 model, without knowing a 2009 model exists, i wouldnt call it a fair comparison

People want Windows. They want it because it runs Office, because it looks pretty, because it's familiar to them.
they want it because they dont know something else exists

It is actually cheaper for these OEMs to sell PCs without Windows on them... but almost nobody wants a PC without Windows.
if studies are correct, then a lot of people do.

It is Microsoft's operating system, they can bundle with it whatever they bloody please.
its hitlers country but he wasnt allowed to genicide whoever he bloody well pleased.
if you buy windows you can install whatever you want on it.
but if the only intent of a product is to leverage an existing monopoly to create a new monopoly and destroy a technology that threatens the original monopoly. then something is seriously wrong
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/


No, they don't care because Internet Explorer does what they want it to and they have never wanted anything more. You have to understand, we made the jump to Linux because we wanted more. We found it. We can install thousands of programs and tweaks that Windows and Microsoft can only dream about. But most users do not want more. They want their computer to work the way they learned it. They do not want anything to change it, including themself.

i went to linux because i wanted more, but STAYED because i didnt like what i was hearing about m$, if it was "wanting more" i would not use linux, due to the application incompatibility

if anyone wants to go anywhere, *gasp* they;ll need to change.
besides ubuntu is 100% more intuitive.

ps. i have started reactorika and clone sx which aim to be absolute clones of m$ windows and apple macintosh

[yahurd]

Another day, another vulnerability should have emerged. Which was it today?


not so recent (http://secunia.com/advisories/24156/)

[Rapscallion]

not so recent (http://secunia.com/advisories/24156/)

Well, that's one from four days ago (by my time zones). Congratulations!

So, where are the other three?

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Today's report of an IE flaw? I'm eager and waiting.

Rapscallion

[yahurd]

well here is one
http://secunia.com/advisories/23014/




and here is a firefox one, which you may be right about
http://secunia.com/advisories/24205/

[gbm85]

http://www.dellideastorm.com/
a)that is how it goes with a monopoly
b)if only i could untrade secret a few documents
c)consumers want what they think is the best, most of these consumers never tried linux period, if you think you want say a 2004 model, without knowing a 2009 model exists, i wouldnt call it a fair comparison

they want it because they dont know something else exists

It's just like the iPod. The iPod is not the best music player on the market at all, in terms of features and extensibility. The accessories are overpriced, especially the OEM ones. But it still has the highest market share. Why? Because it's easy to use, and "everyone else has it." That's the same reason Windows is so popular. Even if they knew Linux existed, I seriously doubt they would like it. Just because something is technically superior does not mean it deserves, and especially does not mean that it will gain, market share.

if studies are correct, then a lot of people do.

I would ask you for a source, but it would undoubtedly be a fanatic anti-"M$" or other unreliable site.

its hitlers country but he wasnt allowed to genicide whoever he bloody well pleased.

The fact that you are now comparing the mass murder of millions of innocent people to a company trying to increase its market share speaks volumes about your maturity and debate skills.

if you buy windows you can install whatever you want on it.
but if the only intent of a product is to leverage an existing monopoly to create a new monopoly and destroy a technology that threatens the original monopoly. then something is seriously wrong
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

I'd like to pose a question to you. Why does Microsoft care whether or not people use Internet Explorer? It is provided to the user absolutely free. They do not make any money from it. If everyone stopped using IE, then Microsoft would actually SAVE money by ceasing costly research and development on a program that they make NO MONEY from.

i went to linux because i wanted more, but STAYED because i didnt like what i was hearing about m$, if it was "wanting more" i would not use linux, due to the application incompatibility

You just proved my point even further. The percentage of people who want more is low. The percentage of people who don't want Windows because "M$ is evil" is even lower than that.

if anyone wants to go anywhere, *gasp* they;ll need to change.

Right, because Windows hasn't gotten anybody anywhere. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of businesses that use it around the globe, or the millions of home users.

Let me clue you in on something. This is based *gasp* on actually working in the IT field, rather than Googling "z0mg micro$haft is t3h 3V1L!!!!!one" The OEM I worked at was under contract not to sell any completely assembled machine without Windows on it. In return, they got full XP Pro licenses for $80 a pop. That's a 60% discount off the retail price. The Linux market share is around 5%. Just for the sake of argument, call it 10%. So, at that rate, they would have to pay 150% more for 90% of their machines, or 135% more overall. That doesn't make much business sense, does it?

You can call Microsoft evil for making money if you want, but it's like calling a human evil for breathing. Making money is what businesses do.

besides ubuntu is 100% more intuitive.

I'm sure entering "sudo apt-get whatever-codec-i-need" into a shell is much more intuitive than clicking a button in Windows Media Player.

ps. i have started reactorika and clone sx which aim to be absolute clones of m$ windows and apple macintosh

Still in the planning stages? Well that's good. Mommy will be glad to know that you're making use of the crayons she got you for your birthday, though I'm sure she'll be disappointed that you've been scribbling on the wall again.

The WINE project is now over 10 years old, and is still in beta, even though they are only cloning the Windows API, a small portion of the overall OS. But I'm sure one 16-year-old boy can easily clone the entire thing himself.

Copying is the sincerest form of flattery.

[protege]

I have used Linux occasionally in the past...mostly at school, but I'd rather use a Windows-based system. Easier to use, IMHO. Besides, most software is written for Windows platforms...simply because of the sheer number of said platforms. Also, Windows does what I want to do--I have better things to do than mess with another OS that *might* not behave how I want it. Not saying Windows is perfect either...

As for IE, I'm not a fan. Nobody is being forced to use it. Don't like it? Download a copy of Firefox then, and quit bitching about it. Sorry, but I don't see why people get so upset over a freaking web browser.

BTW, is it just me, or did Microsoft copy the OS that Apple used on the first Macs? Not an outright copy, but the two systems look pretty smilar.

[yahurd]

The fact that you are now comparing the mass murder of millions of innocent people to a company trying to increase its market share speaks volumes about your maturity and debate skills.
im not saying it was as bad as the nazis im saying, there are some lines that should be drawn

I'd like to pose a question to you. Why does Microsoft care whether or not people use Internet Explorer? It is provided to the user absolutely free. They do not make any money from it. If everyone stopped using IE, then Microsoft would actually SAVE money by ceasing costly research and development on a program that they make NO MONEY from.

i hate to sound typical, but why would they develop it in the first place?
because ALTHOUGH NO MONEY IS DIRECTLY MADE, IT IS STILL A TOOL FOR THEM. Microsoft must have some alternate motive?

Right, because Windows hasn't gotten anybody anywhere. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of businesses that use it around the globe, or the millions of home users.


what i meant by that is "change" is something that everyone must experience 24/7, and not fearing it will get you nowhere

The OEM I worked at was under contract not to sell any completely assembled machine without Windows on it.
:rolleyes:

In return, they got full XP Pro licenses for $80 a pop. That's a 60% discount off the retail price. The Linux market share is around 5%. Just for the sake of argument, call it 10%. So, at that rate, they would have to pay 150% more for 90% of their machines, or 135% more overall. That doesn't make much business sense, does it?

michael dell thinks NO! (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/ideastorm/ideasinaction?c=us&l=en&s=gen)


You can call Microsoft evil for making money if you want, but it's like calling a human evil for breathing. Making money is what businesses do.

im not made they are making money, far from it, im mad at HOW they make money.

besides ubuntu is 100% more intuitive.
I'm sure entering "sudo apt-get whatever-codec-i-need" into a shell is much more intuitive than clicking a button in Windows Media Player.

i dont think command line is the way ubuntu rolls. (http://www.debianadmin.com/simple-package-management-with-synaptic-package-manager-in-ubuntu.html)


Still in the planning stages?
kinda, ive been working on reactorika for a while now
but all ive done on clone sx is a widget set draft

The WINE project is now over 10 years old, and is still in beta, even though they are only cloning the Windows API, a small portion of the overall OS.

reactorika is based on ubuntu lite, with integrated wine and fluxbox modified into the windows shell.
i should be done sooner than reactos is taking, but it will be bloated and a hog

I have better things to do than mess with another OS that *might* not behave how I want it. Not saying Windows is perfect either
seeing as how linux is a)known for openness B)known for stability and reliability, i must disagree with you, however you know windows, and it seems to fit you.

As for IE, I'm not a fan. Nobody is being forced to use it
i beg to differ
153. Because of the separate demand for browsers and operating systems, firms have found it efficient to supply the products separately. A number of operating system vendors offer consumers the choice of licensing their operating systems without a browser. Others bundle a browser with their operating system products but allow OEMs, value-added resellers, and consumers either to not install it or, if the browser has been pre-installed, to uninstall it. While Microsoft no longer affords this flexibility (it is the only operating system vendor that does not), it has always marketed and distributed Internet Explorer separately from Windows in several channels. These include retail sales, service kits for ISVs, free downloads over the Internet, and bundling with other products produced both by Microsoft and by third-party ISVs. In order to compete with Navigator for browser share, as well as to satisfy corporate consumers who want their diverse PC platforms to present a common browser interface to employees, Microsoft has also created stand-alone versions of Internet Explorer that run on operating systems other than 32-bit Windows, including the Mac OS and Windows 3.x.

Don't like it? Download a copy of Firefox then, and quit bitching about it.
did you read this post? (sorry if i appear rude)
but what Im "bitching about" has nothing to do with the browser being of poor quality, i can think of worse browsers

Sorry, but I don't see why people get so upset over a freaking web browser.

im not getting upset over the browsing experiance(but it is reasonable to do so:p )im upset over the bundling, and un-removability of ie


BTW, is it just me, or did Microsoft copy the OS that Apple used on the first Macs? Not an outright copy, but the two systems look pretty smilar.
in 1995 apple filed suit against Microsoft for stealing the look and feel of a macintosh. apple won

[Barefootgirl]

You do realise that in the real world (i.e. not in computer geek-land but in the real world of business) we have more things to do than faff about over operating systems and browsers. If a browser is adequate for me to do my research, and I have an email system thaqt allows me to communicate with my clients, thats all that matters. I know perfectly well that there are technologically superior products out there - but I don't need them, and I think you'll find the vast majority of home and business users don't either.

[yahurd]

try telling that to jobs, the only way to make a differance in the world is by being a fanatic.

also you dont speak for the world when you say "i can settle"

and i doubt that people will want inferiority so much of the time,


as a lot of people seem to forget, "technologically superior"
means more than running faster, or having fewer bugs, it means fitting a need better, for instance, although betamax was higher quality, you could fit a movie on vhs, so, vhs fit the needs of those wanting to rent movies and the movie studios, which was larger than those who needed to tape a 30 min show,

say there are two browsers, browser A is faster, more secure, and more features, however, everything in the browsing experience is a string of 20 characters from changing preferences
1PE26type867edit%$23and
to typing an address
webgo42677urlgotype2HTTP://www.fratching.com/

while browser B, acts as most browsers do, click on go to go, affixing .com to unidentified urls or "im feeling lucky" from google, etc.
browser B is clearly "technologically superior" as browser A is such a pain in the arse to use

it used to be that Linux was less "technologically superior" as it was harder to use, and had less applications than windows, however thanks to the progress done on wine, and the braindeasd easy state linux distros enjoy, it is safe to say that linux is "technologically superior"


also, to fix what i said earlier i stayed AT FIRST out of m$ hatred but after learning the basics, could not live without it

[counterjockey]

What's next? Will Volvo be required to use Ford CD players and Honda instrument clusters?

Uh, Volvo is. They've been part of Ford Motor Co. for years. This hasn't been a source of much innovation across Ford as a whole, but at least they haven't figured out some way for Volvos to start exploding.:D

It's off topic, I know, but I figure if this doesn't calm people's tempers on this particular argument, at least it'll draw fire.

Myself, I have IE 7 and Firefox, haven't had any particular problems as long as I've kept AVG and Spybot relatively updated.

[Spaniard]

i dont think command line is the way ubuntu rolls.



It works both ways, actually. The command line way is the better way of doing things, according to my friend who uses it.

I myself use Firefox, despite knowing that it has some security flaws, because, basically, I like it, and I'm used to it, and I like how I can change the appearance of it. Nothing more, nothing less. (I like the purdy colours!)I don't hate IE. I still use it for various sites, (especially on my new vista laptop, since some sites I go to now, that I used to go to on XP freeze up completely.)


I've considered switching to Linux/Ubuntu.. And I may in the future. But for now,
I see no real reason to, or risk to my system/my life because I'm using windows/IE etc.

I am a regular person. I use my computer for entertainment. So far, it hasn't tried to kill me, or create a black hole. If it does, THEN I'll probably change.


EDIT: Maybe.



EDIT 2:
its hitlers country but he wasnt allowed to genicide whoever he bloody well pleased.


Godwin's Law.

[powerboy]

I used FireFox, I like it a hell of a lot more then IE. I love that it doesn't get pop-ups, I like all the add-ons

[Pedersen]

I could go into a long and rambling story about why I don't use Windows anymore, but that's not relevant. I switched to Linux about 5 1/2 years ago now, and haven't looked back.

Was Linux perfect? No. Is it perfect? No. Was it a superior experience for me? Yes.

Then came the rash of IE exploits, wherein new ones were being found almost daily. Applying all the latest security patches only meant that you were safe for another few hours. During all this time, I was grateful that I could not run IE, even if I wanted to.

Mozilla, and Firefox (yes, there was a time when it was just Mozilla) were the best browsers on Linux, period. I got used to them, and liked them. They gave me control over what I saw on various web sites that did not involve me setting up alternate DNS servers, modifying the system hosts file, and putting in filtering proxy servers. I could shut down cookies selectively, allowing me to avoid doubleclick (and other advertising companies).

My user experience improved with them as compared to what I had from IE at work (where I used it as minimally as possible). All in all, Firefox was superior.

Fast forward to today: I am now running OSX (which also has issues, but works better for me than both Windows and Linux, overall). Again, IE is not an option (IE 5 is too old, and too unsupported). Even if I wanted to run IE, it would not be a choice under this environment.

I still run IE for a few bits and pieces at work, but that's it. For me personally, if the site doesn't work right under Firefox, I move on to another site. Since I don't do Windows (don't bother asking me to, not even with Vista, I have no desire to try again, not until I'm seeing yet another new version which has many more positive reviews than negative reviews), I don't have IE.

Whether or not IE is more secure now than it was, it still has a very tarnished image for me. Firefox is not perfect, nor is OSX, but they do not have so tarnished an image. I do not feel like I am running a system that has more holes than good swiss cheese. And it will be a very long time before IE (any version) can shake that tarnished image, at least for me.

Oh, and if you really need me to, I'll look these up, but two particular patches happened within the past year that showed exactly how focused Microsoft is on security. If you watched the technical message boards, you know about the WMF security flaw that happened late last year. It took Microsoft nearly a full month to release that patch, in part because they promised to only release top-mega-ultra-violet-priority patches on anything other than Patch Tuesday.

On the other hand, when somebody found a vulnerability in one of their DRM systems which allowed the removal of DRM from various files, a patch was released within a few days, and was well out of the Patch Tuesday cycle.

That, right there, is more damning to me than most of anything else they could do. And if you would like to hear more about why I don't like Microsoft, please do ask. I'll start up another thread about why I don't like the company in general, instead of just IE.