Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Oct 2006 14:38 UTC
"We've gotten some questions here today about public reports claiming there's a new vulnerability in Internet Explorer 7. These reports are technically inaccurate: the issue concerned in these reports is not in Internet Explorer 7 (or any other version) at all. Rather, it is in a different Windows component, specifically a component in Outlook Express. While these reports use Internet Explorer as a vector the vulnerability itself is in Outlook Express." Meanwhile, Adam has published an article on IE7 on his blog: "IE7 is a major plus for anyone who understands the internet and networks, and especially for those who do web development. Read on for a lengthy review."
Thread beginning with comment 173812
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-12
You say, " [..] Migrate the Linux today!
No. I didn't, nor did I used the word Linux once (I don't use Linux or Windows but that's irrelevant). Your world is pretty black-and-white, isn't it?
I said it would be better to ignore MS and move on the better solutions. A good IT policy should not be dependent on vendors but on standards. Every company chooses which way they like to go with every new system/solution or upgrade thereof. Migration does not necesserally mean to "pull the plug all of a sudden", but to change gradually by e. g. not upgrading but planing and moving to viable alternatives.
network admins who run Windows networks, which is about 90% of networks
Most companies I know have switch to "Windows clients - Linux or Unix servers". I wouldn't call that a "windows network". BTW, the Internet uses TCP/IP. Call it an open-standard success story ...
You can't just switch out OSes without THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of dollars of re-training your IT staff, retraining your users, migrating your applications, etc.
1. That's exactly what MS wants us to believe. Funny thing that most big companies shelled out money and managed to migrate from Unix to NT, from NT to 2000, from 2000 to XP or to Linux, etc. In fact, migration (or change) is the only constant in the computer history and will always cost money and retraining.
2. It's not that a switch to IE7 commes for free. Switching to new or upgraded MS software costs too. E. g. the company I work for uses web-bases apps and migration to IE7 costs money for re-testing and possible adaption. So droping IE support and staying FF-only would actually be cheaper for us.
3. People don't have the usage of MS software hardcoded in their brain. Except for standard software, most people and staff has to be trained anyway.
4. There is also a thing called TOC. You can't just look at current costs to determin current actions.
I'm a realist, not a Microsoft fan.
By your reasoning people are condemned to upgrade and use MS till judgement day. I call that FUD and is of form of MS fangirl behaviour (the "oh god, we're so helpless and have to use MS"-kind). Pathetic!