Update:
... Windows now puts up front your choice ...
George said:
That's true only for Europe' bound Windows. For good or for bad, the EU has decided this.
That's true only for Europe' bound Windows. For good or for bad, the EU has decided this.
Monday, March 08, 2010
IE battles
I hear that Windows now puts up front your choice of many browsers instead of only MS Internet Explorer. Apparently it's still the monopoly spectre spooking. They've been fighting back and forth over that browser for fifteen years now, I don't really get why it's so important. Nobody earns money on browsers, they are all free, and they don't have any advertising built in. (Which also poses the question of why there are so many highly developed browsers when nobody can charge for them.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Microsoft IE browsers are known for their built in 'holes', or security lapses.
Some say that MS owns the larger anti-virus software companies - one hand feeds the other that way.
There's no such thing as perfect software - but considering that IE and Vista BOTH have built-in backdoors, browsers like Firefox are much appreciated.
The open source apps and browsers - and operating systems will eventually take over.
Learn LINUX, and become familiar with Firefox and Thunderbird.
Perception is reality.
__________________
Software Engineer
... Windows now puts up front your choice ...
That's true only for Europe' bound Windows. For good or for bad, the EU has decided this.
thanks, George.
"Microsoft IE browsers are known for their built in 'holes', or security lapses."
I can see that, but surely that's not what the governments are concerned about.
I'm not a computer expert, but wouldn't be easier to write malicious code for an open source program? I think the reason most hackers go after Windows is because it IS at the top of the heap, and if Linux becomes more popular, this will become more of an issue-- not unlike Willie Sutton robbing banks because "that's where the money is."
Here in North America, the I.E.8 browser is still an integral part of Microsoft's Windows 7, and carries the same license codes as the main
Windows 7 operating system.
I don't understand why a browser needs any license codes, because none
of its competition has any, and for all of that, I'm happily using the latest Firefox browser as my default browser of choice. Firefox has an add-on called Better Privacy
which finds and removes those otherwise permanent LSOs called supercookies, which can not only call home, but change your computer's responses to programs,
and you don't even know they are there unless you get this add-on, and find them. They never expire, unlike regular cookies, and that is why they can be dangerous. They also accumulate and clog the system unless you can remove them.
So I recommend Firefox and its add-on Better Privacy.
@Kenneth:
I'm afraid you're wrong. Open source programmes, by their very nature, are subject to a lot more prying eyes. A lot of possible security holes are discovered early on and will never be released. The opposite is true with "closed source" software, where quality isn't quite as important as deadlines.
A large part of why open source software tends to be great software is a different mentality. The developers are not trying to earn a living, they're exercising a passion.
I'm not saying that all open source software is great and that all closed source software sucks, but having had experience developing both, I can say that the former tends to suck less ;-).
Even though browsers are free, they are the gateway to the internet for most people, and most won't install a different browser, they'll just use the one that came with the machine. This means that there is tremendous power in controlling the browser, and hence the reason for trying to level the playing field with the ballot screen.
The browser is a key part of the platform for building web app.s, and there's a big advantage in being able to make your stuff work and break everyone else's stuff. While this might make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, it' sadly true that it seems to be in Microsoft's DNA to not always strive to win, but to strive to eliminate competition by any means possible.
Oops, that comment above should read:
.. it's sadly true that it seems to be in Microsoft's DNA to not *only* strive to win, but to strive to eliminate competition by any means possible too.
Having multiple major browsers on the market is a necessity because of Microsoft's habit to embrace and extend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend
Think of it for a second: if you were to have a monopoly on browsers, wouldn't you therefore gain de facto control of the technologies behind the web? I mean, what use would a feature be if no browsers supported it?
That is what the browser wars are all about.
Can't stop shivering, now that I got this image of a Microsoft-designed Internet in my mind! I'd rather dive into a pool full of bugs, and I hate bugs!!
captcha: soldhu
Post a Comment