MS IE Vs Firefox MS Shoots back (badly)

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Collector»NZ, Dec 21, 2004.

  1. How can I trust Firefox?

    Recently, a lot of volunteers donated money to the Firefox project to
    pay for a two-page advert in the New York Times.

    If only they had spent some of that money on improving the security of
    their users by, say, purchasing a VeriSign code signing certificate.

    Let me explain..."
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    There's nothing like a girl with a plunging neckline to keep a man on
    his toes.
    Collector»NZ, Dec 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Collector»NZ

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:21:35 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:

    > If only they had spent some of that money on improving the security of
    > their users by, say, purchasing a VeriSign code signing certificate.


    Hehe Verisign and secure in the same sentence :)

    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Dec 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Collector»NZ

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:21:35 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:

    > If only they had spent some of that money on improving the security of
    > their users by, say, purchasing a VeriSign code signing certificate.


    Hehe Verisign and secure in the same sentence :)

    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Dec 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Collector»NZ wrote:
    > http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very valid
    points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us, but to my
    mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how great she is
    at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd no-doubt tell her to
    not install it.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Collector»NZ wrote:
    > http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very valid
    points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us, but to my
    mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how great she is
    at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd no-doubt tell her to
    not install it.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 21/12/2004 4:16 p.m.:
    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    >
    >> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx

    >
    >
    > ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very valid
    > points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us, but to my
    > mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how great she is
    > at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd no-doubt tell her to
    > not install it.


    Actually the poorest point I picked up was that he was running it rather
    than downloading it and installing from a local copy. I know only a
    slight difference but it is not something I would consider doing.

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    There's nothing like a girl with a plunging neckline to keep a man on
    his toes.
    Collector»NZ, Dec 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 21/12/2004 4:16 p.m.:
    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    >
    >> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx

    >
    >
    > ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very valid
    > points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us, but to my
    > mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how great she is
    > at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd no-doubt tell her to
    > not install it.


    Actually the poorest point I picked up was that he was running it rather
    than downloading it and installing from a local copy. I know only a
    slight difference but it is not something I would consider doing.

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    There's nothing like a girl with a plunging neckline to keep a man on
    his toes.
    Collector»NZ, Dec 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    >> ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very
    >> valid points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us,
    >> but to my mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how
    >> great she is at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd
    >> no-doubt tell her to not install it.


    > Actually the poorest point I picked up was that he was running it rather
    > than downloading it and installing from a local copy. I know only a
    > slight difference but it is not something I would consider doing.


    fair enough... I'd have thought that they'd atleast have the mirrors set
    as mirror1.mozilla.org or similar that way it would atleast look more
    official.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Collector»NZ wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    >> ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very
    >> valid points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us,
    >> but to my mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how
    >> great she is at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd
    >> no-doubt tell her to not install it.


    > Actually the poorest point I picked up was that he was running it rather
    > than downloading it and installing from a local copy. I know only a
    > slight difference but it is not something I would consider doing.


    fair enough... I'd have thought that they'd atleast have the mirrors set
    as mirror1.mozilla.org or similar that way it would atleast look more
    official.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Collector»NZ

    Paradox Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    >> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx

    >
    > ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very
    > valid points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us,
    > but to my mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how
    > great she is at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd
    > no-doubt tell her to not install it.


    Except, most of those things he's describing are part the OS he's using ie
    Wndows and MS, rather than Firefox problems. It's his OS that doesn't like
    what he's doing, and it does that with most non-MS software.
    Paradox, Dec 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Collector»NZ

    Paradox Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Collector»NZ wrote:
    >> http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx

    >
    > ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very
    > valid points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us,
    > but to my mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how
    > great she is at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd
    > no-doubt tell her to not install it.


    Except, most of those things he's describing are part the OS he's using ie
    Wndows and MS, rather than Firefox problems. It's his OS that doesn't like
    what he's doing, and it does that with most non-MS software.
    Paradox, Dec 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Collector»NZ

    Warwick Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:21:35 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:

    > How can I trust Firefox?
    >
    > Recently, a lot of volunteers donated money to the Firefox project to
    > pay for a two-page advert in the New York Times.
    >
    > If only they had spent some of that money on improving the security of
    > their users by, say, purchasing a VeriSign code signing certificate.
    >
    > Let me explain..."
    > http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    and its sandbox principle.

    So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?
    Warwick, Dec 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Collector»NZ

    Warwick Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:21:35 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:

    > How can I trust Firefox?
    >
    > Recently, a lot of volunteers donated money to the Firefox project to
    > pay for a two-page advert in the New York Times.
    >
    > If only they had spent some of that money on improving the security of
    > their users by, say, purchasing a VeriSign code signing certificate.
    >
    > Let me explain..."
    > http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    and its sandbox principle.

    So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?
    Warwick, Dec 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Collector»NZ

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:41:26 +1300, Warwick wrote:

    > I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    > article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    > and its sandbox principle.
    >
    > So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?


    MS invented it.

    Basically it was just COM extended work over the web. 'Active' was the
    overloaded branding buzzword of the time eg Active Desktop, Active
    Directory etc

    On one hand it was to fight off Java becoming a dominant platform, and on
    the other it was to fight off Netscape becoming a dominant platform. One
    way to do that was to give (eg get hooked on) Windows developers Windows
    specific functionality that the cross platform solutions couldn't give
    them.

    Some of the features touted at the time was easier access to the
    underlying system leveraging their existing COM knowledge etc giving the
    developers a more powerful platform with richer user experiences etc.

    You know, all the stuff that became security headaches later.

    ..NET fixed a lot of MS's ActiveX mistakes, and is much better designed for
    this kind of stuff. But we'll probably have to wait until a while after
    Longhorn to find out whether it wasn't too late and too big a change
    (.NET is much more than just an ActiveX or Java applet replacement) and
    whether developers prefer more cross platform solutions. Maybe the power
    of legacy technologies hurts .NET adoption. Or ironically whether Mono
    blows things wide open and .NET actually succeeds because of it's cross
    platformness (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened). Or even more
    unlikely, that the Mozilla/Opera alliance actually succeeds.

    There's a lot of questions in there, and the next couple of years are
    going to be 'interesting' shall we say.

    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Dec 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Collector»NZ

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:41:26 +1300, Warwick wrote:

    > I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    > article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    > and its sandbox principle.
    >
    > So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?


    MS invented it.

    Basically it was just COM extended work over the web. 'Active' was the
    overloaded branding buzzword of the time eg Active Desktop, Active
    Directory etc

    On one hand it was to fight off Java becoming a dominant platform, and on
    the other it was to fight off Netscape becoming a dominant platform. One
    way to do that was to give (eg get hooked on) Windows developers Windows
    specific functionality that the cross platform solutions couldn't give
    them.

    Some of the features touted at the time was easier access to the
    underlying system leveraging their existing COM knowledge etc giving the
    developers a more powerful platform with richer user experiences etc.

    You know, all the stuff that became security headaches later.

    ..NET fixed a lot of MS's ActiveX mistakes, and is much better designed for
    this kind of stuff. But we'll probably have to wait until a while after
    Longhorn to find out whether it wasn't too late and too big a change
    (.NET is much more than just an ActiveX or Java applet replacement) and
    whether developers prefer more cross platform solutions. Maybe the power
    of legacy technologies hurts .NET adoption. Or ironically whether Mono
    blows things wide open and .NET actually succeeds because of it's cross
    platformness (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened). Or even more
    unlikely, that the Mozilla/Opera alliance actually succeeds.

    There's a lot of questions in there, and the next couple of years are
    going to be 'interesting' shall we say.

    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Dec 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Collector»NZ

    Warwick Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:13:35 +1300, AD. wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:41:26 +1300, Warwick wrote:
    >
    >> I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    >> article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    >> and its sandbox principle.
    >>
    >> So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?

    >
    > MS invented it.
    >
    > Basically it was just COM extended work over the web. 'Active' was the
    > overloaded branding buzzword of the time eg Active Desktop, Active
    > Directory etc
    >
    > On one hand it was to fight off Java becoming a dominant platform, and on
    > the other it was to fight off Netscape becoming a dominant platform. One
    > way to do that was to give (eg get hooked on) Windows developers Windows
    > specific functionality that the cross platform solutions couldn't give
    > them.
    >
    > Some of the features touted at the time was easier access to the
    > underlying system leveraging their existing COM knowledge etc giving the
    > developers a more powerful platform with richer user experiences etc.
    >
    > You know, all the stuff that became security headaches later.
    >
    > .NET fixed a lot of MS's ActiveX mistakes, and is much better designed for
    > this kind of stuff. But we'll probably have to wait until a while after
    > Longhorn to find out whether it wasn't too late and too big a change
    > (.NET is much more than just an ActiveX or Java applet replacement) and
    > whether developers prefer more cross platform solutions. Maybe the power
    > of legacy technologies hurts .NET adoption. Or ironically whether Mono
    > blows things wide open and .NET actually succeeds because of it's cross
    > platformness (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened). Or even more
    > unlikely, that the Mozilla/Opera alliance actually succeeds.
    >
    > There's a lot of questions in there, and the next couple of years are
    > going to be 'interesting' shall we say.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Anton


    Yes it will be interesting.

    I use a Borland program for coding c++.

    Borland were thinking about scrapping it, but have recently announced it
    will be integrated into the Delphi Dev package.

    Seems they have templates in C# now? Generics?

    "From what was shown at BorCon regarding the new C++/CLI architecture,
    things
    like pointers and direct memory accessing are going to be preserved. C++
    will be the only .NET language that supports that. I've heard it said that
    C++ is being primed to become the language of choice on .NET because of its
    strong features over C# and other .NET languages."

    Gambit (from Borland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical).

    I am way behind on all this, I better do some reading. Nearly everyone
    disagrees with Gambit, and a lot of C coders are saying c# is a dream to
    use. I haven't bothered to find out anything about it. I better remedy
    that.


    cheers
    Warwick, Dec 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Collector»NZ

    Warwick Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:13:35 +1300, AD. wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:41:26 +1300, Warwick wrote:
    >
    >> I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    >> article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    >> and its sandbox principle.
    >>
    >> So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?

    >
    > MS invented it.
    >
    > Basically it was just COM extended work over the web. 'Active' was the
    > overloaded branding buzzword of the time eg Active Desktop, Active
    > Directory etc
    >
    > On one hand it was to fight off Java becoming a dominant platform, and on
    > the other it was to fight off Netscape becoming a dominant platform. One
    > way to do that was to give (eg get hooked on) Windows developers Windows
    > specific functionality that the cross platform solutions couldn't give
    > them.
    >
    > Some of the features touted at the time was easier access to the
    > underlying system leveraging their existing COM knowledge etc giving the
    > developers a more powerful platform with richer user experiences etc.
    >
    > You know, all the stuff that became security headaches later.
    >
    > .NET fixed a lot of MS's ActiveX mistakes, and is much better designed for
    > this kind of stuff. But we'll probably have to wait until a while after
    > Longhorn to find out whether it wasn't too late and too big a change
    > (.NET is much more than just an ActiveX or Java applet replacement) and
    > whether developers prefer more cross platform solutions. Maybe the power
    > of legacy technologies hurts .NET adoption. Or ironically whether Mono
    > blows things wide open and .NET actually succeeds because of it's cross
    > platformness (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened). Or even more
    > unlikely, that the Mozilla/Opera alliance actually succeeds.
    >
    > There's a lot of questions in there, and the next couple of years are
    > going to be 'interesting' shall we say.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Anton


    Yes it will be interesting.

    I use a Borland program for coding c++.

    Borland were thinking about scrapping it, but have recently announced it
    will be integrated into the Delphi Dev package.

    Seems they have templates in C# now? Generics?

    "From what was shown at BorCon regarding the new C++/CLI architecture,
    things
    like pointers and direct memory accessing are going to be preserved. C++
    will be the only .NET language that supports that. I've heard it said that
    C++ is being primed to become the language of choice on .NET because of its
    strong features over C# and other .NET languages."

    Gambit (from Borland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical).

    I am way behind on all this, I better do some reading. Nearly everyone
    disagrees with Gambit, and a lot of C coders are saying c# is a dream to
    use. I haven't bothered to find out anything about it. I better remedy
    that.


    cheers
    Warwick, Dec 21, 2004
    #17
  18. Paradox wrote:
    >>>http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    >>ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very
    >>valid points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us,
    >>but to my mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how
    >>great she is at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd
    >>no-doubt tell her to not install it.


    > Except, most of those things he's describing are part the OS he's using ie
    > Wndows and MS, rather than Firefox problems. It's his OS that doesn't like
    > what he's doing, and it does that with most non-MS software.


    well yeah, but isn't that the market that moz are targetting with this
    ad campaign?

    The default accepting of extensionsis a tad odd, I've thought that for a
    while, but while it's a geek toy, it's fine, but as mass market gets it,
    it should probably be changed, same with the "don't ask me again" for
    executibles.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 21, 2004
    #18
  19. Paradox wrote:
    >>>http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx


    >>ok, so the verisign comment was funny, but they do make some very
    >>valid points, everything is "un-signed", which means **** all to us,
    >>but to my mum, she'd question it, well, question me, and knowing how
    >>great she is at describing what she's doing over the phone, I'd
    >>no-doubt tell her to not install it.


    > Except, most of those things he's describing are part the OS he's using ie
    > Wndows and MS, rather than Firefox problems. It's his OS that doesn't like
    > what he's doing, and it does that with most non-MS software.


    well yeah, but isn't that the market that moz are targetting with this
    ad campaign?

    The default accepting of extensionsis a tad odd, I've thought that for a
    while, but while it's a geek toy, it's fine, but as mass market gets it,
    it should probably be changed, same with the "don't ask me again" for
    executibles.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 21, 2004
    #19
  20. Collector»NZ

    steven Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:14:01 +1300, Warwick wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:13:35 +1300, AD. wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:41:26 +1300, Warwick wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am curious about ActiveX. It seems to be very much the villain in this
    >>> article. I thought we had a safe system for components over the web, java
    >>> and its sandbox principle.
    >>>
    >>> So what was ActiveX for? Who invented it? Why?

    >>
    >> MS invented it.
    >>
    >> Basically it was just COM extended work over the web. 'Active' was the
    >> overloaded branding buzzword of the time eg Active Desktop, Active
    >> Directory etc
    >>
    >> On one hand it was to fight off Java becoming a dominant platform, and on
    >> the other it was to fight off Netscape becoming a dominant platform. One
    >> way to do that was to give (eg get hooked on) Windows developers Windows
    >> specific functionality that the cross platform solutions couldn't give
    >> them.
    >>
    >> Some of the features touted at the time was easier access to the
    >> underlying system leveraging their existing COM knowledge etc giving the
    >> developers a more powerful platform with richer user experiences etc.
    >>
    >> You know, all the stuff that became security headaches later.
    >>
    >> .NET fixed a lot of MS's ActiveX mistakes, and is much better designed for
    >> this kind of stuff. But we'll probably have to wait until a while after
    >> Longhorn to find out whether it wasn't too late and too big a change
    >> (.NET is much more than just an ActiveX or Java applet replacement) and
    >> whether developers prefer more cross platform solutions. Maybe the power
    >> of legacy technologies hurts .NET adoption. Or ironically whether Mono
    >> blows things wide open and .NET actually succeeds because of it's cross
    >> platformness (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened). Or even more
    >> unlikely, that the Mozilla/Opera alliance actually succeeds.
    >>
    >> There's a lot of questions in there, and the next couple of years are
    >> going to be 'interesting' shall we say.
    >>
    >> Cheers
    >> Anton

    >
    > Yes it will be interesting.
    >
    > I use a Borland program for coding c++.
    >
    > Borland were thinking about scrapping it, but have recently announced it
    > will be integrated into the Delphi Dev package.
    >
    > Seems they have templates in C# now? Generics?


    its in the cli specification just not implemented atm

    it is however implemented in .net 2.0 - it will be up to langage designers
    to provision for templates & generics in their langage (vb.net delphi.net
    etc... - C# will have it)

    > "From what was shown at BorCon regarding the new C++/CLI architecture,
    > things
    > like pointers and direct memory accessing are going to be preserved.C++
    > will be the only .NET language that supports that.


    C# supports it now

    what it boils down to is that if it is in the cli it is available to
    language designers - yes, vb.net could get unsafe()

    > I've heard it said that
    > C++ is being primed to become the language of choice on .NET because of its
    > strong features over C# and other .NET languages."


    whoever said that is a complete and utter tard

    you ever tried to code within 'managed extensions for C++'. at least in 1.0
    & 1.1 it is a complete and utter mess.

    C# has been designed from the ground up with .net in mind - thieving the
    best form java and C/++ (they all theve from one another at some point).

    > I am way behind on all this, I better do some reading. Nearly everyone
    > disagrees with Gambit, and a lot of C coders are saying c# is a dream to
    > use. I haven't bothered to find out anything about it. I better remedy
    > that.


    go get yourself C# express (free download - note beta-ware) and have a play
    http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/vcsharp/default.aspx



    --
    -------------------------------------
    Steven H (.net geek)
    Third Year, B.I.T. Otago Polytechnic
    steven, Dec 21, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    D60 SHOOTS RUBY !!

    Annika1980, Jul 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    548
    Annika1980
    Jul 31, 2004
  2. measekite

    Top 5 Point and Shoots under $500

    measekite, Feb 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    801
    Pete D
    Mar 1, 2005
  3. Birk Binnard

    Sony DSC-F828 shoots B-17 Flying Fortress

    Birk Binnard, Apr 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    463
    Ron Hunter
    Apr 19, 2005
  4. linnylou

    Photographers needed for Model shoots

    linnylou, Jun 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    272
    Neil Ellwood
    Jun 14, 2005
  5. Paul Rubin

    Good AA-powered point-and-shoots?

    Paul Rubin, Nov 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    819
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Nov 24, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page