All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure

<< < (25/36) > >>

Refalm:

--- Quote from: muzzy ---Talking about different things and pretending they're about same subject doesn't further discussion either.

This whole thing started from jtpenrod's comment: "It takes a crowbar and a case of dynamite to pry Inter-nut Expl-Horror from Win-Doesn't". I was trying to argue that this isn't the case, and that any issues that result from removal of IE are not specific to IE but rather apply to all library type entities.

You're welcome to ditch IE, but third party apps might expect it's there. Microsoft doesn't want you to remove it because of these dependency issues, so you have to do some little work to get rid of it.
--- End quote ---

Yes, a lot of Windows applications depend on Internet Explorer.
But, it's wether they decide not to start at all, or simply give you an error and start anyway, to decide if you want to remove Internet Explorer from Windows XP or not.

But luckily, I don't have to make that choice.

MrX:
chances are, if the program relies heavily on IE and it doesnt make any effort to work with other browsers (for example the download managers used with the firefox exstension flashgot , they can still be used after scrapping IE) so basiaclly it means that the programs are cheap and shouldnt be used.
 especially when i get windows programs, and it is like a $30 program, so i get a crack for it and then use it for a week to see how it is and it ends up like being a piece of crap that has so many errors. except things from macecraft, they are great.

Mr X

Calum:

--- Quote from: muzzy ---
You're welcome to ditch IE, but third party apps might expect it's there. Microsoft doesn't want you to remove it because of these dependency issues, so you have to do some little work to get rid of it.
--- End quote ---

whatever.

i don't see how this proves either:

a) IE is not too heavily integrated into the system

or

b) the reason microsoft does not want you to remove it is because you would then be using a competing product.

neither does it convince me that:

c) IE is secure.

muzzy:
Oops, forgot that this thread existed, sorry for not responding earlier.

Regarding IE and "integrated to system", this completely depends how you define those words and what they mean. The way I see it, IE isn't very deeply integrated at all.

About competing products, I don't know about marketing issues that might be around it, but there's a real technical reason why it's a bad idea to remove it. You can still use a competing product without removing it, so I cannot see how this is related at all.

My point doesn't try to "prove" anything, it just states how I see one specific thing. Does the IE "integration" issue prove that gravity exists, or that earth has an atmosphere? Ofcourse not. Does this IE design prove that IE is secure or works at all? Ofcourse not. They're totally unrelated issues. Regarding the whole design of IE, the only security issue associated with the design is when people use the component to display their own HTML stuff, not realizing the exact consequences of using such a mechanism (regarding tainted input, for example)

Calum:

--- Quote from: muzzy ---Oops, forgot that this thread existed, sorry for not responding earlier.

Regarding IE and "integrated to system", this completely depends how you define those words and what they mean. The way I see it, IE isn't very deeply integrated at all.
--- End quote ---
i thought we weren't going to worry about what words actually mean, instead preferring to make up our own definitions to suit the moment (and our own opinions). i know it bores you when i define the words i use, but my last post simply lets you know that you haven't said anything of substantial content to convince me of the three points that i mentioned.


--- Quote ---About competing products, I don't know about marketing issues that might be around it, but there's a real technical reason why it's a bad idea to remove it. You can still use a competing product without removing it, so I cannot see how this is related at all.
--- End quote ---
because of potential/perceived problems related to alleged spyware, and unnecessary network traffic generated by IE. I don't know about this but plenty people seem to be worried about it. Also, it sets a dangerous precedent that people have no control over how their system is set up. If i want to replace mozilla with opera on my system, i can uninstall one and install the other, easy. There's no technical issue stopping this, why should there be one with IE? there shouldn't. if there is one, it's either through design or bad implementation.


--- Quote ---My point doesn't try to "prove" anything, it just states how I see one specific thing.
--- End quote ---
ok, then we're both cool.
--- Quote ---Does the IE "integration" issue prove that gravity exists, or that earth has an atmosphere? Ofcourse not. Does this IE design prove that IE is secure or works at all? Ofcourse not. They're totally unrelated issues.
--- End quote ---
ok, as i said: whatever.
--- Quote ---Regarding the whole design of IE, the only security issue associated with the design is when people use the component to display their own HTML stuff, not realizing the exact consequences of using such a mechanism (regarding tainted input, for example)
--- End quote ---
so bad html causes a windows system security problem? this gets better! and this from somebody that thinks IE is secure? am i misunderstanding you or are you blaming a system's insecurity on its users again?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page