Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Dec 2011 16:56 UTC
Internet Explorer As it turns out, Google's idea of silently and automatically updating web browsers for security's sake is actually a pretty darn good idea - Chrome is pretty much always up-to-date. Microsoft agrees with this, and has announced it's going to automatically update Internet Explorer on Windows XP, Vista and 7.
Order by: Score:
Not too excited by these news
by dquadros on Thu 15th Dec 2011 17:21 UTC
dquadros
Member since:
2010-01-20

The reason I do not use Chrome is that its EULA requires that you use only the latest version. It will download and install new version whenever it wants and you can do nothing about it (except say goodbye to Chrome).

Firefox is testing my patience with a new (n+1).0 version every month, that breaks all the Add-ons (and Add-ons was one of the reasons for using Firefox).

I want the freedom to decide if and when I will upgrade. I also expect good backwards compatibility and a sensible version numbering scheme.

Edited 2011-12-15 17:22 UTC

Reply Score: 9

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Microsoft are providing a tool to do that.

My main concern is that I particularly hate churn change, security updates in version is fine ... but behavioural changes would be a problem IMO.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not too excited by these news
by ilovebeer on Thu 15th Dec 2011 17:36 UTC in reply to "Not too excited by these news"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Firefox is testing my patience with a new (n+1).0 version every month, that breaks all the Add-ons (and Add-ons was one of the reasons for using Firefox).


I use around 30 plugins and none of them have broken because of the new Firefox versioning. Guess you just have bad luck. *shrug*

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not too excited by these news
by fran on Sat 17th Dec 2011 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too excited by these news"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

I had a experience with a IE6 plugin that made me realise just how expensive and serious the problem can be.
The short version is it involved $6000 worth of MRI scans a surgeon could not read because the scan file only run on a IE6 plugin. Incidently he upgraded from IE6 long time ago.
I was not angry at Microsoft, but at companies that choose to run such files in a browsers based plugin and not updating their plugins.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well MS essentially encouraged such practices... when some open format* looms, that's what MS discourages (already forgot the circus around OpenDocument & Office "Open" XML?) / they were the ones who insisted on doing things their own way back then, in the times of IE6.

* the place of MRI data is in an open format, able to be reliably read by virtually anything
(anyway, I doubt the situation in question was really that much of a problem, there aren't that many MRI vendors, but there are many tools - also conversion tools - and often free ones, for example http://www.dclunie.com/medical-image-faq/html/
...with some quite ~standard formats (say, Analyze))

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not too excited by - plugins
by jabbotts on Thu 15th Dec 2011 19:14 UTC in reply to "Not too excited by these news"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

NoScript
Convergence
Pentadactyle
Ghostery

When Chrome has those plugins available then I'll have a hard time not changing primary browsers. I'm not sure that NotScript is the same as NoScript. Pentadactyle is there I think but haven't checked the latest. Ghostery I haven't looked for at all. Convergence is going to be a while before it shows up.

There are a number of other more interesting plugins I keep handy but for those types of special needs I can always keep a use dedicated FF install handy.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Ghostery is already in the Chrome store btw

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

cheers.

I believe Pentadactyle is also if I remember stumbling on it there first when looking for a vimperator equivalent. now if they could only adjust the API to support Convergence.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I only spotted ghostery today by chance ... tbh I don't really run any plugins except for JSONView, Gmail, Adblock and YSLOW

Reply Score: 2

andih Member since:
2010-03-27

Pentadactyle <3

I hopefully never will have to return to stock FF ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not too excited by these news
by Finalzone on Thu 15th Dec 2011 21:54 UTC in reply to "Not too excited by these news"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Firefox is testing my patience with a new (n+1).0 version every month, that breaks all the Add-ons (and Add-ons was one of the reasons for using Firefox).


Have you installed Add-ons compatibility reporter?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-...

That addons will do a great service to report Mozilla about broken addons.

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

LMFAO... you know the situation has gotten out of hand when there's a damn add-on to tell you how many others of your add-ons will not work with the latest Mozilla seemingly monthly, minimal-change, high version inflation release. This just goes to show how pathetic the situation really is.

Edited 2011-12-16 01:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

LMFAO... you know the situation has gotten out of hand when there's a damn add-on to tell you how many others of your add-ons will not work with the latest Mozilla seemingly monthly, minimal-change, high version inflation release. This just goes to show how pathetic the situation really is.


The addons hosted by Mozilla at it addon site addons.mozilla.org are all checked automatically.

This tool allows people to check and report on addons which they are using which have nothing to do with Mozilla.

It isn't Mozilla's fault in any way if the user wants to install external software that reports itself as incompatible even when it isn't. If you want to laugh at anybody, laugh at the external-to-Mozilla addon authors who haven't followed guidelines, test only for the browser version like they are NOT supposed to, and yet they also haven't kept their addons up to date with the browser versions.

Sheesh! At least try to get the story even half right.

Edited 2011-12-16 02:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Which translate to "blame the add-on developers for not spending a week testing their code on a dozen of versions". Much better than blaming Mozilla for not being able to offer a stable API, which is the part they should have copied from Chrome before copying the version scheme.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It the open source mentality ... churn is okay.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not too excited by these news
by Damnshock on Thu 15th Dec 2011 22:34 UTC in reply to "Not too excited by these news"
Damnshock Member since:
2006-09-15

The reason I do not use Chrome is that its EULA requires that you use only the latest version. It will download and install new version whenever it wants and you can do nothing about it (except say goodbye to Chrome).


Use Chromium instead.

I want the freedom to decide if and when I will upgrade.


Man, use a package manager!

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't like how Chrome works and I can't trust Chromium either.

Ever since they made a mistake where cookies/ids got send to Google and could be correlated even in Chromium not just Chrome.

I feel I just can't trust Chromium, it is better than the situation with Microsoft obviously because the source isn't even available.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Try SRWare Iron, it is Chromium with the spyware removed:

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Also a visibly small effort with a bit unknown level of trustworthiness, one which would most likely replicate mistakes from Chromium (which doesn't have spyware... but has reliably trustworthy packagers in many distros), and lags behind it a bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not too excited by these news
by lemur2 on Thu 15th Dec 2011 23:17 UTC in reply to "Not too excited by these news"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The reason I do not use Chrome is that its EULA requires that you use only the latest version. It will download and install new version whenever it wants and you can do nothing about it (except say goodbye to Chrome).

Firefox is testing my patience with a new (n+1).0 version every month, that breaks all the Add-ons (and Add-ons was one of the reasons for using Firefox).

I want the freedom to decide if and when I will upgrade. I also expect good backwards compatibility and a sensible version numbering scheme.


Firefox doesn't break add-ons ... although some addons (hosted external to addons.mozilla.org) do break themselves.

By this I mean that addons themselves check the browser version that they are running under. If the browser versions says it is higher than expected by the addon, the addon simply declares ITSELF incompatible, whether it actually is, or not.

In truth, well over 99% of addons will still work fine under a new version number, even if the addons themselves think they won't. You can download a tool from the addons.mozilla.org site, called the Addon compatibility Reporter, that will force a recalcitrant addon to run even if the addon has declared itself incompatible. This tool will let you re-instate the majority of addons that have refused to run under a new browser version.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not too excited by these news
by pulse301 on Fri 16th Dec 2011 14:48 UTC in reply to "Not too excited by these news"
pulse301 Member since:
2009-09-03

The reason I do not use Chrome is that its EULA requires that you use only the latest version. It will download and install new version whenever it wants and you can do nothing about it (except say goodbye to Chrome).


Although the EULA does say you have to stay up to date, Google released an Administrative template for group policies to disable the auto update, and there are also registry keys to disable it. We use the group policy at work so that we can test updates before they are pushed to make sure it doesn't break our Chrome Frame enabled software.

http://www.sitepoint.com/how-to-disable-google-chrome-updates/

Reply Score: 1

Comment by joekiser
by joekiser on Thu 15th Dec 2011 17:27 UTC
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

So does that mean that we'll finally get an update to IE8 on Windows XP?

I know, I know, XP is 10 years old, but my workplace is still rolling out new installs (Dell 790's) with XP on them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by joekiser
by jabbotts on Thu 15th Dec 2011 19:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by joekiser"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

joking aside, IE8 is the "latest version supported by the OS" so it's unlikely to see an IE9 update. Let's just hope the IE8 patches keep flowing until XP support ends.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by joekiser
by fithisux on Thu 15th Dec 2011 19:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by joekiser"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

So does that mean that we'll finally get an update to IE8 on Windows XP?


I hope it meant that we'll finally get IE removed on Windows XP

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by joekiser
by cmost on Fri 16th Dec 2011 05:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by joekiser"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Your workplace is seriously behind the times. It's also opening itself up to significant security risks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by joekiser
by Lennie on Fri 16th Dec 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by joekiser"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Actually the numbers say something else. Exploits on Windows XP is going down and exploits on Windows Vista/7 is going up.

Obviously it will take time for Windows 7 to be as bad as Windows XP.

Reply Score: 2

johnnysaucepn
Member since:
2006-08-22

Opera does it semi-automatically - it automatically downloads the update in the background, but does prompt you that it's ready to go when you are.

Although I think there is a setting to make it fully-silent if you specifically want that.

Reply Score: 6

Hmm...and it's about time!
by WarpKat on Thu 15th Dec 2011 17:31 UTC
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

Maybe now IE can stop being the poster child of not supporting newer or updated technologies.

I, myself, am not a fan of IE for the simple reason that what works on other browsers just simply breaks on IE <your version here> without applying some kind of craptacular hack that will HOPEFULLY make what I'm trying to do work.

I just pray to whatever god or deity is listening that they don't hose the versions of Windows that still have IE tied to the OS because of some bad module that got overlooked in QA.

Reply Score: 2

Firefox updates automatically too
by AnythingButVista on Thu 15th Dec 2011 17:48 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

I don't know about you guys but Firefox already updates automatically. Firefox downloads new versions in the background and the next time you launch the browser... boom "User Account Control. Do you want to allow this program to make changes to your computer?..." Answer YES (or CONTINUE in Vista) and the update is installed. They just don't do it behind your back.

Reply Score: 6

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Though TBH, exactly that the kind of "scary OS prompt" puts people off ...or, if they get used to it, opens the way for malware installers, etc.

Reply Score: 2

Woah!
by 1c3d0g on Thu 15th Dec 2011 18:26 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

Finally some common sense coming out of M$! Woohoo, I'm so happy for all the web developers out there. This is a great day for all of us!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Woah!
by TechGeek on Thu 15th Dec 2011 18:49 UTC in reply to "Woah!"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You obviously don't work for a company whose entire business process works through an online app written for IE 6. I am a Linux user myself, so I don't care personally. But this is just stupid. Microsoft is going to break a lot of peoples system doing this. And they were the ones who insisted on doing things their own way back then. Its their fault that there is all the fragmentation. Now you are just going to have to turn off updates altogether which isn't good for anyone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Woah!
by lucas_maximus on Thu 15th Dec 2011 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Woah!"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Did you read the article?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Woah! - updateds already off
by jabbotts on Thu 15th Dec 2011 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Woah!"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Places that rely on an IE6 only webapp probably already have system updates turned off. They'll likely be feeding updates in from a WSUS or similar appliance after vetting the patches.

It also depends on how the update is fed in too though. Will IE have it's own internal update mechanism or will it actually become a required update through the monthly Windows Update site.

Given Windows update history; it shouldn't have automatically installed updates in the first place really. Notification of available updates; sure. Maybe even download updates and let the user decide when to install. Fully automatic updates lead to things like the programming abortion known as Microsoft Office File-Validation plugin not to mention the PowerPoint update which broke PowerPoint's ability to open saved files.

Reply Score: 3

muszek Member since:
2007-04-25

We have (tens, hundreds of?) thousands of web developer who have spend millions of hours working around "bugs" in IE. And it's probably the least pleasant part of our job (well... maybe trying to sell our services is worse).

And why? I strongly believe that all these "bugs" are a result of a conscious decision to make IE render pages differently than all other browsers. It pays off to disobey standards when you have a 90% monopoly (like they used to) - a large number of "web developers" didn't even check their sites in other browsers. And it's the other browsers that looked bad, not IE. Just like Open/Libre Office pays for MS fscking up efforts to establish a common document format. How many times have you heard that OpenOffice sucks because it messes up MS Office documents?

So, to sum up - incompetent managers rely on technology from an evil company and hire incompetent developers. Why the hell am I to pay for it???

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Most problems with IE (especially past 7) is a result of sloppy web developers, some who don't understand why the browser has problems rendering pages when they put block elements within a inline element.

IE7 can be a PITA with absolute and relative positioning if you aren't careful, but static positioning it is largely fine.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It's the web developer's fault that IE6/7 can't render standards compliant HTML that renders properly in every other browser? Wow.. just... wow.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It's the web developer's fault that IE6/7 can't render standards compliant HTML that renders properly in every other browser? Wow.. just... wow.


They can render standard compliant markup absolutely fine in the vast majority of cases. Yes you need a valid DOCTYPE declaration ...

http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html

A lot of times, complaints are made by web developers that would know a inline element from a block element.

IE (including 8) is stricter than other browsers, most web browsers let you get away with all sorts of things that are wrong.

But it doesn't seems to matter what someone says ... people have been told to believe "IE does everything wrong, and Firefox does it right".

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06


vast majority of cases


Yet there are still enough cases where the web developer has to use dirty hacks and hoops to get a page to display in IE when it displays fine in FF, Chrome and Safari. Granted, in other cases FF has caused grief and dirty hacks. It's not like it doesn't have room for improvement also but it's grief has been far less frequent.

Reply Score: 2

muszek Member since:
2007-04-25

They can render standard compliant markup absolutely fine in the vast majority of cases.


No they can't. Sure, if you write a really simple code. But if you want to implement more complex designs, you're almost always running into problems. And almost always it's problems with IE, not any other browser.

Yes you need a valid DOCTYPE declaration ...


... and you're doing it again. First you implied that positioning is the only problem, now we're supposed to think a proper doctype solves everything. We're not saying IE renderns faulty code wrong. We're saying we write a valid code, this piece of crap renders it wrong and we need to spend a lot of our time finding the problem and working around it.

Reply Score: 1

muszek Member since:
2007-04-25

I have a car that only turns left. So if you only turn right, you will largely be fine.

IE<8 has tens of more-or less common rendering bugs that. The scope of their fsckups is much broader than just positioning.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The car analogy ... really?

Most of the rendering bugs are pretty easy to code around and are well documented by now.

All browsers have bugs, IE7 is 5 or 6 years old now? If I compared it to Firefox 1.5 or 2, I know that both these browsers have problems with things like inline-block just as IE7 does.

I'd rather know what those bugs are, then have something like Firefox that has new and interesting problems every 6 weeks.

Edited 2011-12-19 15:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I agree that killing off the more incompatible IE versions is a good thing. IE6 is a horrible mess for any web dev to have to support.

http://www.ie6countdown.com/

Interesting that I got modded down for suggesting users review updates before isntalling. I can't really take the modding system seriously though. Meh.. can't please everyone.. even with solid recommendations for practicing safe hex. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Woah!
by 1c3d0g on Thu 15th Dec 2011 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Woah!"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

No, you don't know what I do. And if the company is too lazy, ignorant or stupid to update their application, then they deserve to go bankrupt. It's their own fucking fault.

Microsoft has done an excellent move here. The Internet continues to evolve, if you can't handle it, DON'T be a web developer. Better yet, unplug from the Internet and go fishing or something, where you can use the same old tools as the Vikings.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Woah!
by BushLin on Thu 15th Dec 2011 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Woah!"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

I think he was referring to the companies using the product which relies on IE6, rather than the developer of said product.

For a small business using say, an IE6 only CMS... that still represents a big deal in terms of investment for them and maybe they don't see value in replacing it.

I'm sure you enjoy being on the cutting edge but not everyone is set up to be so flexable; The people this might affect probably wouldn't even know it's coming until it's pushed out and they can't do their job

I'm guessing that Microsoft will allow those using WSUS (or perhaps group policy) to opt out as they created this compatibility mess in the first place *shakes fist*.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Woah!
by TechGeek on Fri 16th Dec 2011 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Woah!"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Exactly. Its easy to say that they should just update their software. But there are probably companies who have many millions of dollars tied up in their business process that hinges on IE 6. And while hopefully all of them are in the process of upgrading, its not an overnight process. For Microsoft to just announce something so drastic like this out of the blue, is just asinine on their part. Thats assuming that this really will be a "no choice update whether you like it or not thing", and not a "no, really, update IE, please?" thing.

Edited 2011-12-16 00:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Woah!
by Lennie on Fri 16th Dec 2011 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Woah!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't believe this is to get people to move of of IE6.

Microsoft wants a new IE release every year, this system is to prevent people still running IE10, IE11, IE12, IE13 in a few years from now.

Reply Score: 2

ahh this is totally nice :p
by andih on Thu 15th Dec 2011 19:42 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

@work we use a couple of programs that work only on IE8... (recently went from IE7 only to 8 lol)

So if they do this, those programs will AUTOMATICLY FAIL HORRIBLY!!

I recoice!

As this will put an end to users depending on this junk browser and to the junk programs that depends on this junk!

Thank you God for MS's stupidity

Reply Score: 2

RE: ahh this is totally nice :p
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:41 UTC in reply to "ahh this is totally nice :p"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You aren't aware then that IE9 (and 10) have a IE8 rendering mode ... and the only thing you need to do to force it into IE8 mode is a meta tag in the head.

Edited 2011-12-16 13:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

If Opera can refrain from...
by Kochise on Thu 15th Dec 2011 19:45 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

...pushing into user's throat some heavily modified UI and/or function (eg. the mouse gesture in 11.50) that would be nice. Keeeping a consistent and minimalist UI, yet without changing everything "just to see if that please some peers over the mountains"

Right now using 11.52 and don't plan to change anything with that : stable, plugins updates without annoyance, smooth, a good release. My father told me he upgraded Opera and had all of its UI messed up.

The typical Opera annoyance :/

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

RE: If Opera can refrain from...
by Spiron on Thu 15th Dec 2011 22:32 UTC in reply to "If Opera can refrain from..."
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

The UI wasn't messed up, just the outlying DEFAULT skin. If you want to same look as you have now you can just change the skin and maybe change a .few other UI options depending on how you had it set up

Reply Score: 2

Thank You!!
by Brunis on Thu 15th Dec 2011 20:39 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

That would be useful, if they lowered the os requirement for ie9+!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by graudeejs
by graudeejs on Thu 15th Dec 2011 21:29 UTC
graudeejs
Member since:
2011-08-11

Now after silent update of IE, it will "silently" reboot windows, as usual practice of installing/reinstalling/updating software on Windows ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by graudeejs
by dvhh on Fri 16th Dec 2011 02:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by graudeejs"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Note that safari also have the same issue of requiring a reboot on MacOSX

Reply Score: 4

Lets wait for the forth of July
by oiaohm on Thu 15th Dec 2011 22:27 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

All those business internal web apps that cannot get past IE 6 that now will not work will be fun.

Reply Score: 2

Automatic, Forced Updates
by Peter Besenbruch on Fri 16th Dec 2011 00:47 UTC
Peter Besenbruch
Member since:
2006-03-13

They are a Godsend for the clueless. Personally, I like having my Linux package manager handle things for me by notifying me when updates are available. Firefox is a part of that system. For the clueless, however, that isn't enough. They may get the notification, but they will never actually do the update. There is merit to forced updates.

Reply Score: 2

automatically update? - NO
by l3v1 on Fri 16th Dec 2011 06:42 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

who have turned on automatic updating via Windows Update


So that's that. If someone has automatic updates enabled, shouldn't be surprised when an automatic update actually happens.

In other news, I set the alarm for 6 o'clock and at 6 the alarm went off.

Reply Score: 2

Good deal but...
by frderi on Fri 16th Dec 2011 07:36 UTC
frderi
Member since:
2011-06-17

does this mean that IE9 is coming to XP?

This would be a Good Thing for organizations. IE has a longer update cycle with incremental updates making it easier to manage in corporate environments.

Reply Score: 1

Why .au and .br? Slashdot has the answer:
by kragil on Fri 16th Dec 2011 07:45 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

They decided to do it alphabetically. So they spent $13 million conducting market research in which they asked focus groups to name a country that starts with A and another that starts with B. After spending another $4 million running statistical analysis on the results (plus an additional $87 million trying to keep the analysis computers running, since after all they were Windows machines), they came to the conclusion that the ideal A country is Australia and the ideal B country is Brazil. Shortly they will be running a $150 million ad campaign depicting Kermit the Frog and Al Gore traveling from Australia to Brazil.

Reply Score: 2

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

Newsflash Andorra and Belize launch a protest at the United Nations ...

Reply Score: 1