Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jan 2006 18:19 UTC
Internet Explorer "Elements of Microsoft's next-generation Web browsing software have been posted on a Windows-related blog site, including screen shots of what the application may look like and a link to some of its code. While the links to the build code for what appears to be a beta version of Internet Explorer 7 have since been yanked off the JCXP.net Windows forum, the site is still showing off roughly 14 screen shots of the browser. The person who originally posted the links and photos to the site has since removed the ability for users to click through to the code sample, reportedly at Microsoft's request. However, JCXP.net indicated that before removing the code it was downloaded as many as 12000 times."
Order by: Score:
:/
by Jedd on Tue 24th Jan 2006 18:49 UTC
Jedd
Member since:
2005-07-06

JCXP.net's bandwidth limit has been exceeded. ;) Can't read or look at anything.

Reply Score: 1

Bandwidth exceeded
by Unbeliever on Tue 24th Jan 2006 18:51 UTC
Unbeliever
Member since:
2005-07-09

Anybody have a mirror? I want to see how IE7 will look like.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bandwidth exceeded
by ApproachingZero on Tue 24th Jan 2006 19:08 UTC in reply to "Bandwidth exceeded"
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

Check it out at mozilla.com

Reply Score: 5

v mozilla.com
by CrazyDude0 on Tue 24th Jan 2006 19:35 UTC
SVG?
by CaptainPinko on Tue 24th Jan 2006 19:36 UTC
CaptainPinko
Member since:
2005-07-21

anyone know of the status of SVG in IE7? I mean built-in support not Adobe's plug-in.

Reply Score: 1

Good
by Filip on Tue 24th Jan 2006 19:38 UTC
Filip
Member since:
2005-07-06

Many eyes make all bugs shallow

Reply Score: 1

I wonder why...
by ZaNkY on Tue 24th Jan 2006 19:53 UTC
ZaNkY
Member since:
2005-10-18

I wonder why the code was downloaded 12,000 times..... lol

I have a feeling that MS will probably end up trying to rewrite some of that code for fear of "vulnerabilities".

That has always been MS's main reason given for not releasing code.....


Lol typical of MS: Vulns are circulating before the actual product comes out XD

Anyone know what exactly the code was of? Sounds like it may have been of the security areas (bad enough), I doubt it's the code of ALL of IE 7......


--ZaNkY

Reply Score: 1

RE: I wonder why...
by sappyvcv on Tue 24th Jan 2006 20:40 UTC in reply to "I wonder why..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

That has always been MS's main reason given for not releasing code.....

And where did you get that tidbit of info?

Vulns are circulating before the actual product comes out XD

If they released a beta, then it's retarded to think no one will try to exploit it. And in this case, they have. But what "vulns" are you even talking about?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I wonder why...
by ZaNkY on Tue 24th Jan 2006 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder why..."
ZaNkY Member since:
2005-10-18

Well, what reasons have MS given in the past about the reason they don't release source code and the reason they limit who has access to the source code of say, Windows?

Fear of exploits and vulns is the only reason that I've ever heard. If you know some other reasons, enlighten me ;)

I'm not talking about any specific vulns, just speculating, if you noticed, MS didn't politely ask to take the content off, it WENT OFF, as fast as possible too. I didn't even get a look at it, not even screenshots, unless I was going to the wrong site. The only link up there is just a news article about the site being taken down. I think that MS took it down to impede vulns. Maybe it's FUD, maybe it's not.

(vulns = vulnerabilities)

--ZaNkY

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I wonder why...
by sappyvcv on Tue 24th Jan 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder why..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, what reasons have MS given in the past about the reason they don't release source code and the reason they limit who has access to the source code of say, Windows?

I don't know and apparently you don't either. Got any sources where you've actually heard that's why? No? Then don't say it.

I think that MS took it down to impede vulns. Maybe it's FUD, maybe it's not.
(vulns = vulnerabilities)


Um, I'm assuming they took it down because it wasn't supposed to be up? There is nothing more to it. Anything not meant to be released is always requested to be taken down by MS. That's how corporations and most companies work, and it's fair.

You're making assumptions here and it's ridiculous because you're offering nothing behind it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I wonder why...
by ApproachingZero on Tue 24th Jan 2006 23:00 UTC in reply to "I wonder why..."
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

I like kittens.

Edited 2006-01-24 23:00

Reply Score: 0

RE: I wonder why...
by gonzo on Wed 25th Jan 2006 02:39 UTC in reply to "I wonder why..."
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

That has always been MS's main reason given for not releasing code.....

Really?

Most of Windows 2000 source code is "available" on P2P networks for a long long long time now. And? Nothing special has hapened.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I wonder why...
by ZaNkY on Wed 25th Jan 2006 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder why..."
ZaNkY Member since:
2005-10-18

Really? Thatís news to me. Just a year ago I heard of a guy that got Win2k source code somehow, tried to sell it, next day FBI bagged him.


What p2p are you talking about? I HIGHLY doubt that the it's the REAL source code...

Do you have any proof? I've seen many things similar, advertising that it is the source code and stuff but would highly doubt it......

--ZaNkY

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I wonder why...
by JonO on Wed 25th Jan 2006 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder why..."
JonO Member since:
2005-09-23

Zanky, you should just stop talking.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: I wonder why...
by sappyvcv on Wed 25th Jan 2006 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder why..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I hate to incriminate myself, but I did see the source code. Yes, it was real. Microsoft said so. It's common knowledge that it was a small -- and possibly outdated -- portion of the codebase that was leaked.

Edited 2006-01-25 04:27

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I wonder why...
by abraxas on Wed 25th Jan 2006 05:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder why..."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Actually it is true. It was all over the tech news sites but contrary to what the grandparent poster claims, exploits did arise from the release of the Win2000 source code.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/32882.html

Reply Score: 1

qroon Member since:
2005-10-21

Copying what from IE? From the looks of IE on the screenshots, there is nothing that FOSS can copy. Most of the features that is on IE is already present on other browsers, be it FOSS or not.

Reply Score: 2

confused???
by cwdrake on Wed 25th Jan 2006 01:34 UTC
cwdrake
Member since:
2005-08-09

I am a little confused by this article. I have been using a beta version of IE7 for a few months now. Microsoft sent it to me in my TechNet Plus subscription. I can understand the source code being something that was wrongly "leaked", but the betas for IE7 have been available for quite some time.

Reply Score: 2

not that impressive
by archeas76 on Wed 25th Jan 2006 04:27 UTC
archeas76
Member since:
2006-01-25

Just based on the screen shots it seems that a lot of the functionality that normally resides on the window is gone or hidden. The UI seems plain and kinda ugly.

Reply Score: 1

Build code. Not source code.
by Resolution on Wed 25th Jan 2006 13:38 UTC
Resolution
Member since:
2005-11-14

The article says build code, not source code. I don't believe there was ever a source code leak, however, a RAR archive containing the latest build of IE7 is available for download online on certain sites.

Reply Score: 1

Who cares shit
by Ford Prefect on Wed 25th Jan 2006 13:47 UTC
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

I don't understand the interest in Internet Explorer. It's just a program that really, really sucks. Even if IE7 don't suck that much, it's also commonly known that in it's actual state it isn't any better than what is out on the market, with sources available, yet!

Reply Score: 1