PDA

View Full Version : Great Microsoft IE plans


Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 12:29 AM
It looks like Microsoft plans to screw everyone smart enough not to use service pack 2 and keep the new version of IE to service pack two only.......Read it at the following link:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5378366.html

All the more reason to use Firefox..

superbnerd
24th September 2004, 12:59 AM
don't you love monopolistic lockin :rolleyes:
ay the beauty of open source is you can choose to upgrade when you want. don't want a distro that upgrades frequently, use debian. want cutting edge use fedora want to do things manually, use gentoo. want to have a safe browser, use firefox or mozilla or epiphany or Konquerer or....want suppert, join a forum. want paid support by a supscription. FOSS meat virtually everyones needs at the same time.

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 01:06 AM
Ain't that the god's honest truth. I for one am going to miss out on the IE update (and subsequent mosterous sp2 only secrutiy patches.) since I refuse to install that virus..If I manage to be able to buy a new mobile next year I will have to make it a point to avoid having sp2 preinstalled. If I manage to be able to afford one it'll be booting whatever version of Fedora is out at that time along with xp. :D

sailor
24th September 2004, 01:16 AM
yup...thats why I got on the linux train...I saw the writing on the wall...its only a matter of time...tick tock

Tashiro
24th September 2004, 01:40 AM
Great link Shadow Skill.

Microsoft is burning their boots behind them and trying to
swim alone with XP to the other side. Damn getting the same feeling when MS-DOS 6.22
was dumped. It would have been wise to keep win2000 professional supported, that would
have narrowed the gap. I believe many people will search for alternative browsers and OS.
But don't know better then microsoft, cause they don't even know alternavtives exists.
So they won't search for it.

This is a great opportunity to promote LINUX to windows users. Before they spend money on
microsoft again. Cause that will hook them again for the next couple of years.

ay the beauty of open source is you can choose to upgrade when you want. don't want a distro that upgrades frequently, use debian. want cutting edge use fedora want to do things manually, use gentoo. want to have a safe browser, use firefox or mozilla or epiphany or Konquerer or....want suppert, join a forum. want paid support by a supscription. FOSS meat virtually everyones needs at the same time.

Indeed FOSS is highly adaptable. Like Charles Darwin once said:
It is not the strongest of the species that survives,nor the most intelligent that survives.
It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.


Tashiro

imdeemvp
24th September 2004, 01:43 AM
i would never pay $99 for something that is not reliable and secure....what's next enter user name and password to get your update?

Tashiro
24th September 2004, 01:46 AM
That is a good idea imdeemvp, but add a credit number too. Mail this suggestion to
microsoft and we split the reward, ok? :D

Tashiro

imdeemvp
24th September 2004, 01:54 AM
That is a good idea imdeemvp, but add a credit number too. Mail this suggest to
microsoft and we split the reward, ok? :D

Tashiro

i am force to reply (knowing i will get nailed or critizied by the one of the moderators telling me im spaming).......but i am not willing to pay for something i dont use.

Chas.H
24th September 2004, 02:05 AM
See everyone! Resistance is indeed not futile :D

imdeemvp
24th September 2004, 02:15 AM
Chas.H,

let the force be with us! :D

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 02:17 AM
While I agree that now is the time to promote linux to desktop users (The corporate world already knows about Linux its a software compatibility issue for them at this point.) I do not feel that there is a *nix distro out there that is truly suitable for ordinary desktop users. (OSX needs to be ported to x86 architechture now...OSX is pretty much where the rest of the *nix world needs to be to truly make it as a desktop solution.) At this point you simply must have some knowledge of the CLI in order to get certain things to work period. (I am not counting source compiling here. There is no reason for there not to be a gui for compiling, a python could easily translate checkbox type selections into the various CLI commands. Wish I was good enough to make such an app..:D) Strangely enough Fedora a bleeding edge beta distro is the best one I have used for desktop purposes, but I am more advanced than alot of people (we all are here, whether we want to admit it or not.) and I don't have delusions that *nix at this point is truly easy. Or that knowing every single obscure spec of your hardware should be nessecary or easy to find out. Debian's POS installer for example asked me about my IBM thinkpad a31's horizontal and vertical refresh rates..which were not even listed in the product manual mind you. I think I managed to get it to work right ONCE, but it was horribly time consuming. I have honestly only seen H and V refresh rates listed for desktop LCD's not once have I noticed it for any laptop. Of course some people don't have common sense and seem to think that knowing this obscure spec is not a problem at all and that google will find it. [that is a big ##### lie!!] I feel like punching the L33tists who tell you that you are lame for not knowing or being able to find such an obscure spec, or that whoever made the installer is not at fault for lacking common sense. (I wonder if these L33tists would like to manually entre in drive geometry or manually configure IRQ's? They seem to think antediluvian is better... )

Once that sort of thing happens and the L33tists are removed from the community en masse then *nix will be ready to fight off Windows.

superbnerd
24th September 2004, 02:40 AM
not to get offtopic but...osx is a *nix, however I don't think it is the model of usuabilty. it isn't even the fanciest desktop environment. linux has looking glass and metisse and other 3d desktops that beat osx's eye candy. mac's single button mouse is by far the most annoying and time consuming bug left in osx (yes I know you can use a normal usb mouse). the main thing osx has going for it is its easy of software installation, but its software availability is minimal. linux is supposedly changing the way it install software adn compatibilty with the new LSB 2.0. also, osx dumbs down the gui so much that it becomes hard for a power user to even find necesary tools.
I say linux is heading in the right direction by emulating other where things are tried and true and pussing ahead on new things.
back on topic:
this is indeed our chance to further the spread of firefox as it reaches 1.0!

desipher
24th September 2004, 02:47 AM
If you seen my other post I'm bitter towards microsoft.

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 03:05 AM
Isn't it possible to use gnome or even Fluxbox on OSX? I was really focusing on the inherent security and stability of OSX itself not so much the total garbage hardware they use like that insanely stupid one button mouse. As for the software, there is plenty of software to do what needs to be done on OSX however it is not really out in the open, it's hidden in Mac stores. They also exercise tight control over Mac products.

imdeemvp
24th September 2004, 03:15 AM
Isn't it possible to use gnome or even Fluxbox on OSX?

if i am not wrong....they are designed for linux only.

superbnerd
24th September 2004, 03:24 AM
Gnome, I know, is not designed only for linux because other *nixes use it. even solaris considered switching to it. plus, osx has support for X11 which means you can get you favorite desktop on the "over priced, under performing" shiny osx. but whats the point, except for a few programs. you can just run linux on ppc using the yellow dog distro.

imdeemvp
24th September 2004, 04:46 AM
yellow dog is a distro for ppc and you can find it here: www.distrowatch.com

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 05:00 AM
That is true, however OSX works (It has to they couldn't survive if they had the problems that continue to plague us in the *nix world.) I do feel that OSX is where we need to be to truly compete with windows, if we want to make true leaps and bounds THEN we must go further. It works and has the power of *nix and is easy rnough for non techs to install and get working. I would put my father in front of OSX, I wouldn't dare put my dad in front of Fedora since the CLI is probably going to come up sooner or later...The CLI is a very scary thing, I wouldn't subject my parents to that, would you?

superbnerd
24th September 2004, 05:11 AM
actually, my parents work for computer companies and have used computers since the days of dos so yes they woulddo just fine on fedora.
If osx is so able to compete with windows, why does it only have 2-3% market share just like linux?
but I understand your point about the cli. the cli should never be necesary, but todays gui's are just not availabel yet :(

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 05:23 AM
Well mine do not..The problem is not with the OS in the case of OSX, its the fact that apple is run by a total dumb ass! (I'm sorry but there really is not a better way for me to say that.) I am fairly confident that if it was ported the many people conscious ebough and (as of right now) brave enough to try and use alternatives to Windows would be using OSX. I would, I would hope xfce or flux would be ported so that I may use those window managers. But as it stands with Apple now I won't ever buy one of thier machines (unless I get a really HUGE discount!) and be locked into the proprietary hardware and lackluster power.

Off topic have you seen the new G5 what an ugly piece of crap, they crammed everything into the monitor casing and called it innovative.

crackers
24th September 2004, 05:34 AM
if i am not wrong....they are designed for linux only.
Yep, wrong - they were designed to run on a *nix system with X - and OSX has an X server. Check the Darwin project for the "open source" OSX...

On the original topic - I really loved the part where the spokesperson said "IE has always been a part of the operating system" (emphasis mine). Amazingly, I had just chunked all my old floppies, including one hand-labeled "Internet Explorer 3.0, Disk 2 of 2" - and I distinctly remember being able to un-install it without compromising Windows' functionality...

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 05:47 AM
HEHE, if windows went back to that it would be a truly good thing.

superbnerd
24th September 2004, 06:56 AM
HEHE, if windows went back to that it would be a truly good thing.
it certainly would. the other day, I was using firefox and went to a crackzor site and ie got infected and started having popus even though I was not using it. its absolutely rediculous that you cannot disable it :mad:

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 09:29 PM
I had a stroke of genius early this morning, wouldn't it be possible to edit the windows registry to all but disable IE as the file manager entirely, while still allowing it to be used by applications that need it? (my samsung driver install is an example of one such vital program actually.) It's probably possible to make it stop being the file manager as well..The only real problem this theory has is that I would need to know the keys to edit for things like explore and open.

kosmosik
24th September 2004, 09:57 PM
It looks like Microsoft plans to screw everyone smart enough not to use service pack 2 and keep the new version of IE to service pack two only......
actually it is the same version of MSIE only with addons like popup blocker and different settings like disable everything so nothing works and first thing you will do is to enable it back - "security" :) it is just for marketing hype - you know - when something is disabled in standard setup and a hole comes up you mark this hole as "moderate" (even if it is critical) because it is not on in default setup (but still everybody turns it on cause nothing works without that) :)) so less critical holes for Microsoft :) I have always admired their marketing... :D

on the other hand it is journalist hype - MS will provide patches for critical flaws like years from now - even for MSIE - one thing they will not provide for other systems is enhancements (like said popup blocker). nothing to see here movalong :)

you are bashing MS but consider that I am running all my home machines on FC1 which has been deadlined recently - and now what should I do? my machines are mostly cloned from one setup but still upgradeing to FC2 is a hassle for me since I don't really like 2.6 kernel, it runs slower for me, it don't support my hardware fully, I have to waste my time upgradeing every of my 4 machines. FC1 is like year old, win2k is 4 - so MS looks better here and I mean it... please consider that journalists are always whining at anything - that is their job to find a loud story and complain about anybody. personally I don't like it.

All the more reason to use Firefox..
right now it is quite opposite :) it is like firewall politics - it is not about reasons to use Firefox it is about reasons why not to use it (things do not work), but it is not so bad. I use Firefox on all my workstations (I mean users XP at work) and it does its job perfectly. no viruses, no spyware... but fortunately we dont run any MSIE only aplications... some ppl do.

kosmosik
24th September 2004, 10:09 PM
I had a stroke of genius early this morning, wouldn't it be possible to edit the windows registry to all but disable IE as the file manager entirely
MSIE as a shell is no problem to disable. I remeber running DOS as a shell instead of exploder under win 3.x... it gave semi multitasking and semi virtual memory :) but it is not about that. you can wipe out any MSIE file from system but the real problem is component model - Windows (and other systems/shells like GNOME/KDE) are using components - this means that you can have one library for managing scripts and displaying HTML (think MSIE) and reuse it in different programs. in fact it is very convinient for programers, but it ends like lots of programs use MSIE internal libraries - so when MSIE has a hole any other program will have it also.

second thing is that MSIE is deeply integrated into the system f.e. Add/Remove Programs applet is using MSIE, Windows Update is using MSIE ... so when you rip MSIE off system dependent programs/functions will not work - you will have to provide alternatives to them. but you don't know any specs for f.e. Windows Update, so you cannot make alternative. so it is pointless. maybe you can make an alternative but it will take you 20 yrs. of reverse engeenering ;)

the real problem with Windows (meaning security) is that they (MS) fail to get to multiuser system setup. Windows NT is multiuser and it is comparable to unices - it has a big potential (actually some things under Windows are handled better than on Linux/unices) - but they fail, most of home users instalations end up being single user systems running on Administrator privileges making privilege separation pointles - f.e. web browser which is by definition untrusted program (since it loads data from untrusted sources) runs with god like powers on Windows...

superbnerd
24th September 2004, 10:35 PM
wait a minute. you're saying windows is a multiuser system like *nix? so that means I can have multiple users logged in at the same time in their own session? how do you do this?! I thought you had to pay hundreds of dollars for thier cals to use terminal services :confused:

kosmosik
24th September 2004, 10:49 PM
wait a minute. you're saying windows is a multiuser system like *nix? so that means I can have multiple users logged in at the same time in their own session? how do you do this?! I thought you had to pay hundreds of dollars for thier cals to use terminal services :confused:
actually yes you can have it with terminal serivces ;) we were not discuting the price but aviability and yes it is (were from years) possible. I am not a Windows junkie (I don't even own a Windows machine) but I am open for everyting and keen to OSes - before you start complaining please consider that nothing is black/white - it is gray usualy. Linux is fun but it is not the best system in the world and Windows NT has some great advantages (I like it, I want to see it in Linux instead of this all desktopblablaeuphoria) - I mean like decent filesystem with no chesy uid/gid sheme instead Machine\User sheme (mind the backslash :>), domain, service discovery via NMB broadcasts and so on - Windows is bad but it has some neat advantages, sometimes worth its price...

Shadow Skill
24th September 2004, 11:58 PM
Bad example Kos...as far as I know FC is free to download, and there are probably all sorts of neat tricks you can do to obtain the features you want/need to have. However in the case of Microsoft they by their own admission plan to screw over some 49% of their users, charging them between $99usd and $199usd to obtain these addons to IE. The point people who posted feedback to the article in question expressed the view that IE should return to its days as a seperate product from the OS itself, it's a sentiment I totally agree with. They should not force an OS upgrade on people especially businesses (Did I spell that last word right?) who may have certain mission critical applications that get hosed by service pack two or the initial upgrade to XP itself.

For the record I wasn't trying to turn this into a "LINUX IS TEH RU14R" thread, I just don't like to see a company charge so much for a browser upgrade...(Gives Opera a dirty look.)

Off topic: Is it just me or does the new Konqueror in fc3t2 totally clone firefox? (Not saying it's a bad thing either.)

On topic: It's still an idea I was aware that I would have to hose windows update to do what I theorized but I don't use windows update, I already hosed it by turning off a critical process it needs to even run. :D I focus on keeping abreast of the major security holes, and try to minimize my IE use as much as possible. I will admit though it's a bit difficult to update stuff manually since they make it so freaking hard to find what you need.

superbnerd
25th September 2004, 12:20 AM
about your off topic question:
konqueror looks like firefox? but mozilla/firefox looks more like a gnome app and has been working with the gnome team. does this mean kde is changing its "evrything and the kitchen sink up front" design?

on topic:
I thought ms wouldn't give ie another major upgrade until longhorn.

Shadow Skill
25th September 2004, 12:52 AM
It looks a hell of alot like fireforx in terms of layout the google bar is present to the right in the same place it is in firefox. And what's better is that konqueror has an option in the file drop down menu to "open this page in firefox" :D I also have to admit that the way konqueror functions off the bat as a file manager [I couldn't resist the pun..] conquers Gnome's POS spatial clutter building nautilius...I don't know what ever made them do that to nautilius, hell I would rather use IE as my file manger than use nautilus.

However Konqueror defaults to web browser behavior [which is where it appears th most simillar to firefox.] when I use it with flux, haven't bothered to figure out why yet though...

Jman
25th September 2004, 06:19 AM
To clarify, you can still get patches, but you can't get the IE version with pop up blocker and more control over ActiveX with Windows earlier than XP.

pgk3734
25th September 2004, 06:55 AM
The ones I don't pity that are using mu/soft are the ones who have enough
experience to easily switch to Linux. Heck, when I first started using Linux
about 1999, I think, I'm sure you all will agree it was a helluva lot harder to
install a system than now. So, if they want to continue using a poorly written
system that is buggy, unstable, etc., let them. The only sad part I see is that
Mr. Gates became rich instead of Linus. I sure would like to see him with loads
of money but not as badly as he would of course. :-)

pgk