Post by: MrX on 13 May 2005, 17:10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser
does this need to be changed or edited?
Mr X
Post by: muzzy on 13 May 2005, 17:31
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 13 May 2005, 17:35
ps
Would some moderator please move this to applications.
Post by: Annorax on 13 May 2005, 19:25
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez
Microsoft Internet Explprer is a web browser and if nothing else it's featureless and plain and boring too.
ps
Would some moderator please move this to applications.
It's a browser only if you stretch that term to its limits.
Quote from: muzzy
If you want to redefine the word, then go ahead. However, "web browser" means quite a different thing to different people. Are you claiming that old netscapes are not web browsers either, because they don't comply to standards either? Or how about mosaic 1.0, which only supports pre-1.0 versions of HTTP, and thus most of websites don't even load? Is it not a web browser?
Old Netscapes complied with the standards of their time. Internet Explorer complies with the standards from its "creator's" ass. Which is closer to being a "web browser" in your eyes? :confused: :confused:
Post by: Calum on 14 May 2005, 00:31
Post by: Orethrius on 14 May 2005, 00:49
Calum, +1 for reading my thoughts and speaking them. ;)
Post by: muzzy on 14 May 2005, 08:10
Saying IE is not a web browser is just ridiculous, it's like saying that notepad is not a text editor. Yeah, notepad isn't, it's just a wrapper over EDIT control that can save and load files! It's not standards compliant either, try to save as UTF-8 and you'll get a BOM-marker in the beginning, which is really really fishy! That wasn't in any standards back when it was implemented, so notepad isn't really a text editor! Getting my point?
Post by: Orethrius on 14 May 2005, 09:21
Quote from: muzzy
So, it's more like redefining the "Web" rather than redefining "Web browser" now? With the standards and so on, are you saying that old web pages are not part of the web if they don't comply to the standards? Or perhaps, back in the old days when blink tag wasn't in the specification, the pages using it weren't actually web pages?
Saying IE is not a web browser is just ridiculous, it's like saying that notepad is not a text editor. Yeah, notepad isn't, it's just a wrapper over EDIT control that can save and load files! It's not standards compliant either, try to save as UTF-8 and you'll get a BOM-marker in the beginning, which is really really fishy! That wasn't in any standards back when it was implemented, so notepad isn't really a text editor! Getting my point?
Wow, you assumed a LOT from so very little. That's probably what I like best about you. Yes, technically, web pages that are non-standards compliant ARE NOT part of the web - at least not the parts that are non-compliant. They cannot be shown equivalently in all browsers, and thus are only part of a limited browser market. That being said, the purist in me still thinks
Post by: muzzy on 14 May 2005, 17:25
You also missed my point with notepad. My analogy was with standards compliance, i.e. how notepad cannot be considered a text editor since the utf-8 saving didn't quite comply with standards when notepad was developed. Go save an utf-8 file with notepad and open it in hex editor, you should see U+FEFF in the beginning (encoded in hex as EF BB BF in utf-8) which really shouldn't be there. Microsoft is using that to mark files as UTF-8, and this has caused a lot of issues with other applications that don't expect them. That character is considered a zero-width non-breaking space, and typically called a "byte order marker".
So, since they implement this hack, a lot of software has been rewritten and standards redefined to explicitly support this, see XML and expat crashes for an example. However, do you think that this issue means notepad is not a text editor at all? I don't know anyone who would make such a claim. Similarly, I didn't think anyone would consider IE to not be a web browser just because it implements some things in funny, sometimes non-standard ways.
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 14 May 2005, 21:12
Quote
Use a different web browser
There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies relating to the IE domain/zone security model, local file system (Local Machine Zone) trust, the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented in operating system libraries that are used by IE and many other programs to provide web browser functionality. IE is integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.
It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML documents (e.g., web sites, HTML email messages). Such a decision may, however, reduce the functionality of sites that require IE-specific features such as proprietary DHTML, VBScript, and ActiveX. Note that using a different web browser will not remove IE from a Windows system, and other programs may invoke IE, the WebBrowser ActiveX control (WebOC), or the HTML rendering engine (MSHTML).
By the way this isn't that old - only 13th October 2004, and I think they know a lot more about computer security than you do. :p
Post by: muzzy on 15 May 2005, 03:39
I'm quite aware of security issues with current version of IE. As orethrius said, img tags were a bad idea. Since then, HTML and web browsers have only been going downhill. Unfortunately, they're still damn practical. The situation could be fixed if W3 got their act together and worked with vendors to write clear specifications for the core technologies involved. Microsoft has publicly declared they won't support CSS because it's not defined well enough, and I just have to agree. There's no way you could tell from the specifications how some of the more complex layouts should work.
Post by: MrX on 15 May 2005, 08:19
Mr X
Post by: Calum on 15 May 2005, 09:44
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 15 May 2005, 12:02
Quote from: muzzy
Heh, about that IE thing above. There's a reason I have even my local zone in IE configured to be extremely restrictive, and all active scripting and activex turned off. That's simply because there's always vulnerabilities found there,
Yes almost any browser will magically become secure when you disable scripting even Internet Explorer! That's why you don't need anti-virus software and most people do. I would rather get the most out of the web by using a more secure browser like the US-CERT suggested.
Quote from: muzzy
and I don't need those features. I wish more people did the same, so webdesigners would damn fix their sites to work without javascript.
You're in the minority, now I hope you can understand how annoying it is trying to veiw some IE only websites on a decent browser, ie. not IE. Javascript is very cool and is very secure compared to ActiveX controls as it runs in a vierual machine. I hope ActiveX controls are disappearing from the web fast, I haven't encountered them recently.
Quote from: muzzy
I'm quite aware of security issues with current version of IE.
Yes so am, I that's why I use FireFox.
Quote from: muzzy
As orethrius said, img tags were a bad idea. Since then, HTML and web browsers have only been going downhill. Unfortunately, they're still damn practical. The situation could be fixed if W3 got their act together and worked with vendors to write clear specifications for the core technologies involved. Microsoft has publicly declared they won't support CSS because it's not defined well enough, and I just have to agree. There's no way you could tell from the specifications how some of the more complex layouts should work.
I find it just as sad how some standards haven't taken off like compressed html and svgs for example. The web would be faster and look a lot nicer too if they had.
Quote from: MrX
all i was aking was for somebody smart to give a list of reasons why IE is not a webbrowser.
That's because IE is a web browser.
Quote from: MrX
sheesh. now all the 'haters' have turned this into a flame war.
I haven't seen any flaming in this thread so far!
Why?
Since you've mentioned flaming do you want me to start?
Ok then:
Anyone who thinks Microsoft Internet Explorer is not a web browser is fucking retarded - just like this stupid thread.
Post by: muzzy on 15 May 2005, 12:34
SVG support in IE would be really nice, though. I'd love that.
Oh, and activeX could in theory be secure, too, but that's only theory. Wanna bet microsoft will reimplement the whole activex deal with .NET, and it'll actually be secure this time?
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 15 May 2005, 12:50
Quote from: muzzy
Firefox isn't any more secure than IE, you'll learn it soon enough now that it's becoming popular and more worthwhile to attack. It's equally vulnerable, just less profitable target. The latter is changing, the former is staying.
The very fact that IE uses ActiveX controls makes it more vunerable.
Quote from: muzzy
SVG support in IE would be really nice, though. I'd love that.
You can download an add-on to use SVGs in IE but I'm not going to show you as I'd be breaking the forum rules by helping someone with a Microsoft product. :p
Quote from: muzzy
Oh, and activeX could in theory be secure, too, but that's only theory. Wanna bet microsoft will reimplement the whole activex deal with .NET, and it'll actually be secure this time?
Well we'll just have to see about how secure ActiveX is under .NET when they release it. Hopefully if IE's market share is low enough people won't bother using ActiveX controls on their websites anyway - they'll be replace by the far superior Javascript applets.
Hang on, if ActiveX will be implemented under .NET and .NET will be portable does this mean that ActiveX controls will no longer be IE only?
If Microsoft really wants to make ActiveX controls on the web a success then they'll have to become multi-platform even if the developer tools remain Windows only.
Post by: muzzy on 15 May 2005, 12:53
Oh, and merely add-on being available isn't a very good option from a webdesigner's point of view. Nobody wants to install extra crap for a mere website to function, so people will just not view the site.
Post by: BobTheHob on 15 May 2005, 13:51
Quote from: muzzy
Implementing activex-like technology using .NET would mean that it gets multiplatform, yes. Basically, it'd be a total java killer :)Excuse me, but I don't think other devs actually want the scourge that is activeHex in their products.
Oh, and merely add-on being available isn't a very good option from a webdesigner's point of view. Nobody wants to install extra crap for a mere website to function, so people will just not view the site.
Also, Java owns activeHex's ass. Sun is a good company, I trust Sun, I love Solaris. Sun puts their shit on other platforms, microHardFallus is trash. Whenever I find a business that only supports IE, no matter how good a deal i could get, i take my business elseware. If it was an important point of business, I usually send a generic letter to the business stating that they just lost my and my clients business because of their lacking support.
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 15 May 2005, 17:01
Quote from: muzzy
Firefox isn't any more secure than IE, you'll learn it soon enough now that it's becoming popular and more worthwhile to attack. It's equally vulnerable, just less profitable target. The latter is changing, the former
is staying.
This is why IE is less secure than FireFox:
Source: the US-CERT (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878) agian.
Quote
IE is integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.
FireFox is separate to the operating system, this makes it a lot safer.
Post by: piratePenguin on 15 May 2005, 17:36
They could even develop Firefox and (I think) write their name on it, but they'd have to at least release the changes they make to the code to the public (which isn't alot to ask).
Well I think that's what they should do, but it'll never happen 'cause they're such greedy bastards.