--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sparaig wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > >>Vaj wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Jun 8, 2006, at 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>A friend who is on the test team for MS internet explorer says the > >>>>>reason it has not been added sooner to MSIE was because MS's emphasis > >>>>>is on a "standards compliant" browser rather than one with lots of > >>>>>bells and whistles, therefore MSIE will always be more conservative > >>>>>compared to what's out there. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Gotta chuckle at your friend's naivete. IE has > >>>>long been known as the *least* standards-compliant > >>>>browser on the market. Microsoft seems to believe > >>>>that if they do it, that constitutes a 'standard.' > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>All I know is when something doesn't work in Firefox, which > >>>occasionally happens, if I go to MSIE, it always has worked. Not sure > >>>why, it may be it handles *badly* written code better and Firefox is > >>>too standards compliant. in any event these people on the test team > >>>are far from naive, quite the opposite, he actually has switched to a > >>>Mac at home, builds his own PC's and uses Firefox! A Bay area > >>>developer just snagged him in any event. > >>> > >>> > >>I have heard from some engineers that Firefox still has some memory > >>leaks in it that haven't been fixed. That's why I occasionally get the > >>Linux equivalent of a crash window with the ability to send Mozilla a > >>bug report. I just got tired of this hole and that hole being found in > >>IE and of course wanted to dump the whole virus and trojan thing > >>altogether and primarily use Linux for email and web browsing. There's > >>no IE for Linux, of course. :) > >> > >> > >> > > > >The biggest security problem with Windows is the fact that a good portion of > >IE libraries > >are actually kernel-level WIndows libraries. This means that any security > >problem for IE > >affects ANY application that might be connected to the internet in some > >fashion, even if IE > >itself is never started up. Windows itself uses IE libraries, BTW... > > > As a technical director for a software company in the 1990s I was > invited to a number of Microsoft seminars and actually I raised the idea > of being able to use a library interface to contact the Internet so the > user wouldn't have to go to IE or have it pop up and break the > immersion of the interface. It also does away with a lot of > implementation problems for the developer as well as support problems. >
You missed the key word "kernel-level" --as long as the libraries sit in the kernel, they're part of the OS and have all the privleges and power of the rest of the OS. There's nothing wrong with system-wide libraries, and MacOS X has several different kinds, but NONE of them, save the kernel itself, is in the kernel. The exception is the Sony CD protection which requires a reboot to install, and actually modifies the kernel in order to implement a rather nasty and dangerous copy protection scheme --dangerous because it acts just like the IE libraries that sit inside the Windows kernel. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
