"Jordan Cole (stilist)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hm... the fact that the average user probably doesn't even realise > there are browsers out there besides IE means nothing, I suppose. And > I saw from reading it (this morning) that there are two basic replies > to any question: > > a) we're considering it, but can't say for sure - after all, it might > break something on some obscure site
That is no longer a valid, or even "acceptable in Microsoft's screwed up internal-cultural view of things" "excuse. Once upon a time it was, but well over two years ago now Billy Boy went public and told the world that security is now more important than features. Of course, the skeptical part of the world did not believe that Billy really mean it and the skeptical part of the world has been proven right for more than two years as almost no-one at Microsoft has actually acted in line with that edict, but according to Bill's public prognostications a softie cannot validly say any more "it might break something on some obscure site" as a reason (or worse, an excuse) for not fixing some glaring security flaw... > b) people use it, it's gotta be good! (reminiscent of the "new > hampshire - 40,000 squirrels can't be wrong!" t-shirt old navy or > whoever made) 8-) Same argument applies... Billy said that security has to take priority over functionality. So what if 40,000 morons decided to use something tha MS previously hyped as "the next big thing" -- if its not good security practice the softies are supposed to replace it with something that is. ... Of course, until the first version of IE that cannot support ActiveX ships as a critical update on WU, the skeptics know what Bill was full of back on that fateful day more than two years ago... -- Nick FitzGerald Computer Virus Consulting Ltd. Ph/FAX: +64 3 3529854 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html