I dont want to restart this thread by any means but I wanted to reply
to this one comment in the interest of those still using IE...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:06:39 -0400, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:35:06 -0400, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question
December 2004 3:59
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
Yep, unfortunately these things still rely (afaik) on code which is not part
of the standard for DOM -- they do something that the browser was never
intended to do and as a result are still somewhat fidgety pretty much
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
I agree with pretty much everything Umer has said in this thread.
Honestly, at the risk of hurting feelings and being called names and
whatnot, the reason a web app that does the things we've talked about in
this thread should not be cross-browser
When you are experienced at developing apps for all browsers, it becomes
harder to develop one for a single browser, than it is for all.
Most moderately complex apps have a great many screens. Some of these
screens can only be invoked by forcing error situations or validation
messages. Since
Some Macromedia people insist that that does not work with
all Flash remoting and FlashComm features. That is why I
explicitly said Flash RIA's and not just Flash.
I passed this to our Flash guys, and they said they hadn't seen any problems
with omitting the EMBED tag with RIAs. I don't know
Jochem,
Thats been said since the conception of the w3c. I'm afraid that by
the time they get enforcement (worldwide), HTML will already be dead.
-Adam
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:14:17 +0100, Jochem van Dieten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrocknaphobia wrote:
I hate to break it to you but with
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
as time marches on and im getting ready to get a new puter soon anyways,
yes, i am thinking bout a mac.
i love
There are other options to studio 2004 on linux. A great many in fact.
You might want to check out one of those fine products while you wait
for linux to gain enough market share for them to port
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:45:54 -0500, Adrocknaphobia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would sure like to
07, 2004 1:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
as time marches on and im getting ready to get a new puter soon anyways,
yes, i am thinking bout a mac.
i love linux and i just know as soon as i buy a mac MM will throw out a
linux version ;)
however, last night i did
Kwang Suh wrote:
I'm curious. If I were to use XUL to create an app, would that be okay then?
No, it's just as browser dependant
but...
the browser is open source.
Still, I wouldn't.
-nathan strutz
Jim Davis wrote:
That depends on where your logic lies.
In our HTA applications, for
For one reason, people have an expectation that HTML applications work with
HTML clients. This expectation may be unreasonable given the current state
of affairs, but web sites are not packaged shrinkwrap that use
locally-executed binaries. The web was explicitly designed to be a
I think this is a fairly silly statement, personally. In theory it may be
correct. In theory, writing good, standards-compliant code would be all that
you need. Fact is, browsers don't implement those standards or at minimum,
there are differences between their implementation.
Assuming
So what if it's open source?
What, are you going to modify a Gecko browser to suit your needs?
How many people on this list know C++, and know it well enough that they could
even attempt to do this?
~|
Special thanks to the CF
yes rob but remember i really wasnt to jazzed about eclipse, it is an option
though, i also found out that homesite will run on linux very well.
i had a hard time writing cssp style with eclipse, thats where i really like
having dw with the split view and css right there.
-- Original
ok we know i dont know shit but.
i have been treating html as if it was dead already
at least move on to xhtml, im amazed how many sites arent even close to
validating in html not to mention xhtm
-- Original Message --
From: Adrocknaphobia [EMAIL
: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
as time marches on and im getting ready to get a new puter soon anyways,
yes, i am thinking bout a mac.
i love linux and i just know as soon as i buy a mac MM will throw out a
linux version
Ah yeah thats right, sorry bout that
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:07:31 -0500, dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes rob but remember i really wasnt to jazzed about eclipse, it is an option
though, i also found out that homesite will run on linux very well.
i had a hard time writing cssp style with
but i'll give it another shot
been 2 weeks since my last reinstall of crapXP, so i think the next time im
just not gunna put xp on it and i will try a few diff things. i dont really
have time to be messing around but oh well
maybe if i stop bickering at everyone on here i'd have more time ;)
-Original Message-
From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
i would sure like to hear from someone at MM though about why no linux
versions of studio 2004 though
-- Original Message --
From: Adrocknaphobia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:27:51 -0500
Jochem,
Thats been said since the conception of the w3c. I'm afraid that by
the time they get enforcement (worldwide),
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 6:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
well duh but thats cant change when its not available
given how much ppl are looking for it and trying to get it to run
been 2 weeks since my last reinstall of crapXP, so i think
the next time im just not gunna put xp on it and i will try a
few diff things.
How often do you have to reinstall Windows? If you have to reinstall it that
frequently, I suspect you have some problem with hardware. I typically don't
Assuming Firefox implements standards 100%, we know that IE doesn't.
As such, no matter how good your code is, there's going to be differences. It
absolutely is not easier to develop for two than for one. That's just crazy
talk.
Jake
Interesting enough I have been pulling my hair out for
Message-
From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
i would sure like to hear from someone at MM though about why no linux
versions of studio 2004 though
Because Linux
well duh but thats cant change when its not available given
how much ppl are looking for it and trying to get it to run,
i would think it should be becoming an issue with MM.
The fact is, not many people are looking for it. You are, but you are in a
tiny minority. Here's a good article on
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but the
statement below is not correct.
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 8, 2004, at 4:06 PM, dave wrote:
and yeah i know they arent gunna build it just 4 me but it seems kinda
silly that the only thing keeping it from working
i dont think i have gone longer than 1 month between re-installs
i have tried my disk on 3 diff comps, a high priced dell, an alienware and an
ams custom and it happens on all 3 machines so i know its not hardware.
bout 2 wks ago i had to put in another hd after the os tried to update itself
from the crossover office site and about any site i googled on it, which im
sure they got their info from the same site as well
-- Original Message --
From: Mike Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:20:19 -0800
ok they have now changed it to this
The following are known issues with this app in the current version of
CrossOver.
* Licensing
Whenever loading Dreamweaver MX 2004, there are two files that need to be
loaded into memory. Whether Dreamweaver is preactivated or not, it looks for
installer. Fortunately, for Macromedia's sake, she chose not to write a
review.
Ben Rogers
http://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
-Original Message-
From: Mike Chambers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser
i dont think i have gone longer than 1 month between
re-installs i have tried my disk on 3 diff comps, a high
priced dell, an alienware and an ams custom and it happens on
all 3 machines so i know its not hardware.
bout 2 wks ago i had to put in another hd after the os tried
to update
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
right and i understand that
and actually u can run mx 2004 on linux up till the activation screen
comes up
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
so i know u all hate hearing me bitch about them but can u see why now?
i get 20 minutes max between BSOD to work can u
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
ok they have now changed it to this
The following are known issues with this app in the current version of
CrossOver
i realize its not the norm
i maybe passionate but i am not crazy ;)
heres a screen capture when trying to update from their site
http://www.jamwerx.com/nowin.jpg
and yes i have a firewall (bitdefender)
im telling u this does crazy things, i have all the auto updates turned off but
it will
If I weren't an atheist I would say that you've hit Karma pretty hard.
Perhaps try spending some time not using ridiculous symbols when writing
MS and not calling the OS CrapXP - perhaps the universe will smile upon
you more often.
It's worth a shot: because from what you describe you
--
From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:25:29 -0500
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
so i know u all
u might think but thats not it either
its happened on very slow dial up in the country in ky to my mega fast line in
colorado
and u have to get online to update, which i cant anyway since ms's site wont
let me in so service packs are useless
and when i do reinstall i always install firewall
I hate to break it to you but with 90%+ market share... IE is the
standard... regardless of what the W3C has to say about it. I don't
agree with it, i wish IE was complaint, but the reality is that they
define the standard.
-Adam
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:21:28 -0500, Umer Farooq [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in anything else than
a browser then we are creating more usability for MS products, that's
the point I was trying to make.
-Original Message-
From: Umer Farooq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 December 2004 2:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring
Haha! Touche!
-Original Message-
From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
Andrew,
I agree with you. If you are developing an _application_ not a public
website, I then I think
i do
i run a dual boot system with xp suse 9.2 pro
as soon as MM gets off their butts and makes studio mx 2004 run on
linux, xp is gone! cant wait to get fully rid of it
but i need at least flash dw and they wont run on linux yet COME ON
MM
Seems to me like a Mac would be the
I agree with pretty much everything Umer has said in this thread.
Honestly, at the risk of hurting feelings and being called names and
whatnot, the reason a web app that does the things we've talked about in
this thread should not be cross-browser compatable is either a lack of
skills on the
as time marches on and im getting ready to get a new puter soon anyways, yes, i
am thinking bout a mac.
i love linux and i just know as soon as i buy a mac MM will throw out a linux
version ;)
however, last night i did come upon a thread that supposedly will let studio
2004 run on linux with
Jim Davis wrote:
That depends on where your logic lies.
In our HTA applications, for example, the presentation is completely
decoupled from the middle-ware, but is still IE specific (as only IE
supports HTA).
Yes, a HTA application would have more than a couple problems running in
Firefox.
or retarded requirements writers.
Or rather -- un-retarded requirements writers who're allowed to
specify anything they can imagine as a requirement...
We'd like controls in our web application which allow us to insert
and play our DVD on any personal DVD player in the continental US. It
should
S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
What's the problem with textareas again? And why will fckeditor 2
help? Or did you mean wysiwyg editors?
The HTML text area, yes, the wysiwyg editor -- it's usually a simple bit
of JS in IE only. FCK2 is cross-browser compatable, but a little
unstable for production
why not try tinymce?
i know everyone is waiting for fck but you have also been waiting quite a long
time now, i think shorthorn will be out before then ;)
-- Original Message --
From: Nathan Strutz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue,
Why not? ...
Because I hadn't seen it :)
Thanks for the link Dave.
-nathan strutz
dave wrote:
why not try tinymce?
i know everyone is waiting for fck but you have also been waiting quite a
long time now, i think shorthorn will be out before then ;)
-- Original Message
that?
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2004 5:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
I agree with pretty much everything Umer has said in this thread.
Honestly, at the risk of hurting feelings and being called
And intranet systems are always designed with one
browser in mind and one only,
Always? are you sure about that? On our intranet some people use Macs
some windows (and now a few linux boxes on the sys admin team) - and
our intranet works on all browsers (though the new version which is
not out
If it was web based for the average joe blow to look at I
agree, but in this case it is not. And intranet systems are
always designed with one browser in mind and one only, and
this is usually IE because these companies have agreements
with M$.
Did you stop to think about that?
While
Adrocknaphobia wrote:
I hate to break it to you but with 90%+ market share... IE is the
standard... regardless of what the W3C has to say about it.
The law has more power as a de facto standard. In the EU
directive 2000/78/EC mandates accessibility for more then just
government sites.
In
Andrew Scott wrote:
Nathan,
If it was web based for the average joe blow to look at I agree, but in
this case it is not. And intranet systems are always designed with one
browser in mind and one only, and this is usually IE because these
companies have agreements with M$.
Did you stop to
Again... this is the stupidest thread I've ever had the pleasure on
deleting nearly 90 times. Will you people just grow up?
Why is everyone so concerned over Andrew's philosophy? How can you sit
here and make these BS arguments, when you dont apply this reason to
any other type of applications?
I'm curious. If I were to use XUL to create an app, would that be okay then?
Jim Davis wrote:
That depends on where your logic lies.
In our HTA applications, for example, the presentation is completely
decoupled from the middle-ware, but is still IE specific (as only IE
supports HTA).
(Yes Macromedia, this means no Flash RIA's, because they use
embed and embed does not conform to HTML which is a requirement
under WCAG 1.0 Priority 2. It has finally happened, Flash RIA's
are illegal.)
You can easily work around this:
I'm curious. If I were to use XUL to create an app, would
that be okay then?
How would that be any different from using HTAs, with regard to
compatibility?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
sure, did u find the actual link though?
i just figured you'd seen us talk about it on here to know
:)
-- Original Message --
From: Nathan Strutz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:00:38 -0700
Why not? ...
Because
Dave Watts wrote:
You can easily work around this:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/dreamweaver/articles/flash_satay.html
Some Macromedia people insist that that does not work with all
Flash remoting and FlashComm features. That is why I explicitly
said Flash RIA's and not just Flash.
really shouldnt be using embed anyways
try this, xhtml compliant as well, not to mention less code
!-- insert flash swf to be compliant --
object type=application/x-shockwave-flash
data=movie.swf width=500 height=500
param name=movie value=movie.swf /
/object
-- Original Message
i would think that might only be the case if ur trying to use flashvars
which im sure you could work in
-- Original Message --
From: Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:58:14 +0100
Dave Watts wrote:
are you dating bill?
-- Original Message --
From: Adrocknaphobia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:23:47 -0500
Again... this is the stupidest thread I've ever had the pleasure on
deleting nearly 90 times. Will you
Why is everyone so concerned over Andrew's philosophy? How
can you sit here and make these BS arguments, when you dont
apply this reason to any other type of applications? Why does
every html based application have to render in every browser?
Why is it ok to write a program that only runs
are you dating bill?
Why would anyone take you seriously, with that kind of response? Are you
dating Linus? If not, why advocate Linux all the time?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
thats was tongue-in-cheek dave, with all your brains i'd figure u'd know that
u dont have to be so damn serious all the time
so maybe i am dating linux? better than bill and then at least u couldnt accuse
me of kissin his azz for the money
and yes i'll advocate linux, firefox, ect, with the hope
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
as time marches on and im getting ready to get a new puter soon anyways,
yes, i am thinking bout a mac.
i love linux and i just know as soon as i buy a mac MM will throw out
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
Jim Davis wrote:
That depends on where your logic lies.
In our HTA applications, for example
about) haters in that camp.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
as time marches on and im getting ready to get a new puter soon anyways,
yes, i am
-Original Message-
From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
And intranet systems are always designed with one
browser in mind and one only,
Always? are you sure about
i would sure like to hear from someone at MM though about why no linux
versions of studio 2004 though
That's not difficult to work out - no ROI. It would cost far more to
develop than I imagine they'd ever make off it - there's just not THAT
many people using Linux as a desktop machine. I'd
parts of that are true but i think they should be looking at it. From what i
have read the only thing thats really keeping mx 2004 from running well on linux
is the activation screen and im sure that can be addressed.
i know what ur saying about ppl using linux and not wanting to pay but there
WWW: http://www.grida.no
-
|-Original Message-
|From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 15:43
|To: CF-Talk
|Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
|
|I hate to break
S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
What's the problem with textareas again? And why will
fckeditor 2
help? Or did you mean wysiwyg editors?
The HTML text area, yes, the wysiwyg editor -- it's
usually a simple bit
of JS in IE only. FCK2 is cross-browser compatable, but a
little
unstable for
:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
I maintain / have access to the logs of about 15 sites. The commercial
and
financial ones all have MSIE above 92% and holding. The purely financial
ones are 95%+.
The one pure art site (photography) has MSIE at 65%, and an awful
Jim Davis wrote:
Remember that in the case of spyware Attacked doesn't have to indicate any
security limitation in the client software. Spyware does not get on IE
machines because IE is less secure. Spyware gets on IE machines for the
same reason it gets on any machine: because people are
I know of an ISP that, after an analysis concluded that 80% of
the support calls was spyware related, instituted an use IE,
lose support policy. That proves to be quite compelling.
That's not going to protect them from adware and spyware installed by file
sharing apps, gambling software and
B*llsh*t. A significant part or even the majority installs itself
through IE vulnerabilities:
http://www.benedelman.org/news/111804-1.html
My guess would be that he intentionally went to a site specifically designed
to exploit his particular software configuration. More to the point, I bet
he
, December 06, 2004 4:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
Jim Davis wrote:
Remember that in the case of spyware Attacked doesn't have to indicate
any
security limitation in the client software. Spyware does not get on IE
machines because IE is less
, 2004 4:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
Jim Davis wrote:
Remember that in the case of spyware Attacked doesn't have to indicate
any
security limitation in the client software. Spyware does not get on IE
machines because IE is less secure
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:25:48 -0500, Adrocknaphobia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Jim. The majority will always be targeted. If fireFox
held the market share, we'd be having this same converstaion in
reverse.
No, because someone would fix the problem - I could fix it, you could
fix it,
Jim Davis wrote:
True - but it might be nice if we could discover a way to convince people to
use software without blackmail.
You mean like all those ISPs that blackmail people into using
Windows because they refuse to support Linux? Or is that not
blackmail?
That's very circular reasoning:
more common sources, but I've never seen any statistics. As an ISP and
computer sales/repair shop, we've been recommending Firefox as an
alternative and installing it on customers computers. However, it doesn't
seem to protect them from themselves.
Too true. I just cleaned out my mother-in-law's
I guess the perception felt by some people (myself included) is that if
some spyware turns up that I don't like I can crack open the firefox
source code and fix the problem myself. My fix may or may not end up
being incorporated in the publicly released code, but at least my
machines will be
That is because this is a responsibility of the OS, not the browser.
IMHO, that Mom should not be running a user account that can instantly install
such software.
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/04 09:56AM
In my experience at least this is what
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:56:11 -0400, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the perception felt by some people (myself included) is that if
some spyware turns up that I don't like I can crack open the firefox
source code and fix the problem myself. My fix may or may not end up
being
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 00:24:38 -0500, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Sean said Apache has its share of patches for security issues well. But
whether or not Apache (a server-side, presumably managed system) is more or
less secure doesn't really enter into it.
They do release a lot of
That is because this is a responsibility of the OS, not the browser.
IMHO, that Mom should not be running a user account that can instantly
install such software.
Easier said than done.
First instantly is questionable. A well patched box of any kind will not
allow the anonymous/hidden
The question is whether or not FireFox in mass use would reduce spyware -
I'm not sure it would. It very well might - I just don't know.
IE installs software without your consent - so yes it would reduce it
(using logic and experience not stats). After I install firefox on
systems and run
I would bet that a simple firefox extension that did a lookup of known
URLs for spyware before anything is downloaded would make a significant
difference. As long as it alerted the user to the exact nature of the
spyware and it's potential negative impact the purpose would be served.
I
Jim Davis wrote:
But, my point is, that if IE weren't around then alternative methods would
be employed to trick people into installing SpyWare. Do you really think
that the FireFox extensions architecture will NOT be used for spyware?
It will not be used for spyware that cripples Windows. It
Spike wrote:
I would bet that a simple firefox extension that did a lookup of known
URLs for spyware before anything is downloaded would make a significant
difference.
I doubt a list of URLs could keep up. BotNet CCs now rotate by
the hour as a preventive measure and when they are taken
There would certainly be things that you couldn't keep up with, but
things like Kazaa don't tend to change their URL so often. Even the name
of the .exe would be a good step forward.
The purpose is not to try to completely stop malware from getting on the
computer, but to make the user aware
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:35:06 -0400, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is whether or not FireFox in mass use would reduce spyware -
I'm not sure it would. It very well might - I just don't know.
IE installs software without your consent - so yes it would reduce it
(using
Apache puts out a lot of security patches. Those don't get as
much press as IIS. I might be hard to say whether Apache or
IIS gets more patches. My gut feel is that Apache makes
patches available faster than Microsoft does for IIS but,
again, no hard evidence on my part...
In my
The question is whether or not FireFox in mass use would
reduce spyware - I'm not sure it would. It very well might -
I just don't know.
The big difference between IE and Firefox is that IE allows ActiveX
components to install, and Firefox doesn't. Based on my understanding of how
Firefox
Im curious what content enhancements that you need, that only
IE can provide it? I have found FireFox to be by far the most
extensible and open browser there is.
There are lots of legitimate uses of ActiveX controls. ActiveX controls can
do literally anything once installed. Of course, this
and the couple of firefox security updates that they put out (and very quickly)
were do to the crappy os (xp) not the browser
the other big PITA is all the crap AOL installs even when u tell it NOT to, i
swear they are owned by m$ (like weatherbug), not to mention all thier popups
that install
I install firefox on almost everyones computer that I have to run
spybot on (non-techies). Then I change the Icon to the E and they
are none the wiser.
Thats classic, gave me a good chuckle on a Monday morning.
Thanks,
CC
x56927
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT: Browser Stats (stirring the pot)
I install firefox on almost everyones computer that I have to run
spybot on (non-techies). Then I change the Icon to the E and they are
none the wiser.
Thats classic, gave me a good chuckle on a Monday morning.
Thanks,
CC
x56927
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
