What is Digg?46 Comments
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41yeah but why did it take them 5 years?
I don't think they are going to win many Firefox users back now. Why would I want to go back to IE because they could ignore it again for another 5 years?
Saying that it is good for people who don't know otherwise. - Spanktacular, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28@ActivitY
Hell yes, that's what it means. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I ain't getting fooled twice. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28"why care at all, why not use the browser which is better."
Opera? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16firefox doesn't do that either though
security doesn't start with the browser, it starts with the user - maverick999, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17It's definitely a step in the right direction...
- monticello, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Right now, there's really no difference between IE and Firefox. I really wish people would stop acting like Firefox is some magical perfect software program with no issues. There's a reason why IE View is one of the top extensions... there are still many things that just don't work in Firefox. Blame it on who you want, but that's the truth.
I also find that pages "just look better" in IE, but I don't have the tech jargon to explain that with.
In conclusion, I'm running FF. - ActivitY, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'm not saying it's better. I'm trying to say-
well..it's not going to cost you money to change over to IE7 _IF_ it's better. So _IF_ it is better... why wouldn't you change? - noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16@ActivitY
IE7 is still pretty bad. It has crappy standard support and a clunky interface. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Most people who use a PC have never heard of Firefox. The standard browser is IE. Anything that make the experience of using the web better for the non-tech majority is very good for the industry IMO.
- foobr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I don't think anyone (well except a few fanboys) are saying that FF is perfect or 'magical' they are just saying that Firefox is a much better browser than IE was, is and more than likely will ever be.
I switched from IE in the very early days of Opera, and switched from that to FF simply because of the large amount of extensions and customization it offers.
I have my problems with FF as well (memory usage being the biggest one) but in my eyes it is the best of the bunch at the moment. But if another browser came along which offered the same community/extensions as FF without some of its problems I'd switch in a heartbeat.
But IE does not and due to the lack of community surrounding the browser is never likely to.
And sites don't look better in IE. Badly coded sites which don't adhere to standards and have not been checked to be cross-browser look better in IE.
Remember developers are constantly adding hacks to make their valid, standards based code look OK in IE, not the other way round. - noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Did you notice how many of those "features" are simply trying to fix the horrible mistake that ActiveX was? I really don't get how Microsoft can count fixing an insecurely designed mechanism THAT ONLY THEY USED as a security feature which can be compared to those of other browsers.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"that what it's all about right? people aren't seriously sticking to FF because IE was bad software in the past are they?"
no they are using it because it's better than IE. And that's because IE was bad software in the past and took so friggin long to update. - LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Are they going to do anything to prevent pop-ups asking to install software on the users computer, which will ultimately be clicked instantly by the person who doesn't give a damn about anything other than getting rid of the pop-up so the rest of their page will load?
Oh and how's that for a run-on sentence? - gahzinia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7activity:
"well..it's not going to cost you money to change over to IE7 _IF_ it's better. So _IF_ it is better... why wouldn't you change?"
Do you think there is no cost in changing software in a corporation? There is plenty of time lost in meetings discussing the change, updating the computers, increase in helpdesk calls from users that are confused because one particular thing isn't where it used to be. That lost time = a significant cost, no matter which browser is better. _THAT_ is why you wouldn't change. - wirah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yep I'm sick of the ActiveX *****!
I was expecting this article to be a list of 10 security flaws that had already been discovered since the recent IE7 release. Oh well, we can wait a little longer! hehe - unluckier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"#3: Site and zone locking for Active X controls"
OK, I call shenanigans. Site and zone locking has nothing to do with IE7, and really nothing to do with IE in general. (Aside from ActiveX only working in IE). It's functionality of the control, and not the browser. And it's been around for at least 5 years or so:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/samples/internet/components/sitelock/default.asp - TylerDurden0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think FF2 recognizes run-on sentences, but it should...
Your mother! - raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By default, at least in FF1.5 under Linux, you can't install software from any sites at all except mozdev.org (and not even all the mozdev.org sites, just the main one.) You have to manually add the site to the "OK to run software from here" list, and even then it still makes you wait 4 seconds before installing.
I haven't tried IE7 (little OS compatibility issue...) but it was certainly easier to inadvertently let malware install under IE6. - Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An actriveX opt-in is the same as a security opt-out.
ONE thing you need to know anout IE7 security: it still sucks. - Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apparently the phrase "doesn't work" is relative.
If something doesn't work in Firefox, chances are it's because that something was written in a way that only IE misunderstands. IE has the worst standards support of any browser in use today.
I wrote the following CSS rule recently. There are 3 parts of it that IE doesn't support, but every other browser does.
div.lb-results fieldset.team > table td:first-child + td { }
Any web designer worth their weight in blink tags should know what this rule does and why IE doesn't support it. - WhiskerTheMad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Here's a quick rundown of some of the new security features, blah, blah, blah..."
You know, Firefox become widely regarded as being secure by not being hacked, not by spewing a bunch of advertising.
Just a thought for the MS marketing guys: The good product comes *first,* selling it is much easier after that. - TylerDurden0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gahzinia: Exactly! IE7Block.exe for the greater good.
- sakuraz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree, but what worries me is that it's possible for them to abandon them once again after the wind has blown over.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2People on Linux and Mac OS use Firefox, with no IE Tab. Extensions make the browser whatever you want, which is one reason why it kicks IEs ass. Throw in better standards support and IE doesn't stand a chance. I use an external RSS reader so IE7 really has nothing for me, even if it was multiplatform.
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4ActiveX opt-in existed way before IE7 or XP. It's called NOT using an administrator account for everything. Those who have always used non-admin accounts having nothing to gain, because the only way to install an ActiveX control or be exploited by an ActiveX exploit is to use Run As to run IE as an administrator then browse to the website, and that is something "Oops, my finger slipped" can't trigger.
In conclusion people should stop trying to secure administrator accounts... - sakuraz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Reason IE views was one of the top downloads was because so many websites were not following the standards, thanks to the IE's popularity and arrogance.
I think that's why the internet looks better on IE, because it was designed for it.
only because it's the one who didn't follow the standards, and everyone was using it.
I'm not saying Firefox is perfect, like you've pointed out.
my firefox was crashing when I was exiting every session I watched a quicktime video.
Fixed with FF2.
But I want standards.
Period. - Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Since Firefox is giving Microsoft a run for its money in the browser market, I expect there will be regular IE updates from now on. That can only be a good thing ... for everybody. The sooner all the major players become standards compliant the better.
I may be optimistic, but I think a new era of IE has arrived. Again, this is thanks to Firefox. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I have tried to use IE7 but to be honest the interface sucks.
I suppose it would just take some getting used to but why mess with something that works?
I mean the back and forward are up to the left, the refresh is up the right. The home is down to the right and the favorites are over to the left. I am forever going to the back button looking for refresh and the home/menu area for the favorites.
Why move what is at the top left in every other program in the known universe to the lower left? why MS why?? - deafedison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Get the Maxthon add-in for IE. Been using it for years and I couldnt work without my tabs :-)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The thing that's really ridiculous about IE7 is that it checks w/ WGA every time you download or update it, which is ridiculous. More of windows trying to get into our systems.
Anyways, you guys should try Opera, which personally i regard as better as either FF2 or IE7. - sprag80, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I've been a FF user for years and I've gone back in incremental steps. Security and enhanced aesthetics have much to do with it. Simply put, I have an easier time seeing and reading text, and media is more vibrant, with IE7 than FF or even Opera.I know that's superficial, but attractiveness matters--even for tired middle age eyes.
- chintal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"and an interface that makes it harder to select low or medium low security."
does anyone else thinks that doesnt sound very nice... ? - darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Anti-phising filter has already been defeated.
- 0KonTroL0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21 thing to know: It is still integrated into the operating system. 'nuff said.
- Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They're hot comparing it with other browsers, they're comparing it with previous versions of IE, moron.
But IE7 will be the most secure browser when running under Vista, since it'll use low-rights mode (so it has even lower rights than the user, which already has only limited rights under vista). - RoloTomasie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That's great, but I'm still waiting for tabbed IE.
- Kiel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It needs to start with the browser, your not going to be able to educate everyone. Thinking you can is a lazy approach to software design
- tito13kfm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I thought the exact same thing when I read that sentence. It's a problem that began with Windows '95, Microsoft is attempting to "dumb" down their products to a level where accomplishing anything worthwhile will take advanced users exponentially greater amounts of time. I'm fine with file extensions being hidden, and the control panel hiding advanced settings UNTIL I TURN THEM ON. But out and out making it impossible to change settings because they are trying to "protect" me is just plain silly.
I realize they are not quite at this point yet... But Vista is just around the corner, and from what I have seen they are making it more difficult for PC Techs and IT Professionals from changing anything they don't want your grandmother messing with. - zhulien, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2um, given the track record of problems with MSIE, I would say "don't trust it". I will never recommend using it for any purpose - in fact I always block it along with Outlook with Zone Alarm.
- Tilneys, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21. Still doesn't touch the elegance and functionality of Safari.
2. Next update to IE is due in in 2011.
3. Pretty poor advert for the business that takes more of the worlds income than any other... - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8IE is not standards compliant, too interwoven with the system and generally insecure.
FF is nice, but bulky and resource hungry.
Opera is small, doesn't eat needless resources, and has everything built-in that IE and FF users need extensions for.
I don't plan on updating to IE7, and I don't plan on using FF just because it is considered to be cool.
In conclusion, I'm running Opera (for years already, on multiple machines with different OSs). - biffta, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Ah but have made a version for Ubuntu?
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2*by Range Rover I meant Opera...
- ActivitY, on 10/12/2007, -27/+8chris9902
why care at all, why not use the browser which is better.
for example - use IE7 while it's better than FF2, and if IE7 fails to update for a long period of time, start using the better browser...
that what it's all about right? people aren't seriously sticking to FF because IE was bad software in the past are they? - kozie, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3I'm not sticking with BMW if, when it's time to upgrade, Mercedes has a better car...
(I have a BMW, Mercedes and a Range Rover btw.)
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is