Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 15th Jun 2008 22:40 UTC
"Internet Explorer 8 is set to be Microsoft's most standards compliant browser ever. After originally stating that IE8 would default to the same non-compliant behavior exhibited by IE7, Microsoft relented and plumped for standard-by-default. The first beta of IE8 was released in March and it did indeed default to standards compliance. Web developers have been clamouring for standards compliance for a long time; IE is a long way behind the competition, requiring considerable hacks and workarounds to get pages working properly. IE8 should make things a lot better - but it will still fall far short of the standards set by Firefox, Safari, and Opera. Some of these problems are technical, but others are cultural. Where the other browser developers are open and communicative, Microsoft is still leaving web developers in the dark."
Thread beginning with comment 318570
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.
Member since:2006-01-06
And if you examine those facts without your blinding ideology, you'll see that the mean time between a security issue being raised, and the patch being issued is a factor smaller than with IE
I just love the lame justifications: "Buh-buh... we fix our greater number of vulnerabilities FASSSSSSSSSSSTER". As if that's supposed to make me feel better about using a less secure product, in the first place.
for whom Microsoft not only does not fully disclose many vulnerabilities, and tries to mask them as Windows bugs
Example?
... they leave people in a state of complete insecurity for weeks, months and even years before finally patching that zero-day exploit.
Clue phone: ALL browsers have unpatched security bugs. It's just the nature of the beast.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=37&tag=nl.e589
In 2006, IE was insecure for 284 days waiting for patches, where Firefox experienced just one 9-day period for that year.
Hilarious. And ancient history. You'd rather not talk about IE7 compared to Firefox, so you've scraped the bottom of the barrel to come up more than 2-year old IE6 data. Hilarious. Try talking about the latest browsers. It's a very different conversation.
As a computer doctor fixing messed up, virus-ridden machines every day, I *know* Firefox is more secure than IE, and the facts back it up.
Ooooooh. If you SAYYYYYYY so.... LMAO...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Secondly, IE is not standards based. It has standards tacked on.
Reference?
Try developing something serious for it, and then get back to me on how good it dealt with the standards.
I have. It handles HTML, Javascript, and other core technologies more or less the same as Firefox etc.
There's no native SVG
It doesn't come with a ham sandwich, a flat tire repair kit, or the Season 5 Seinfeld DVD, either. So, what's your point? SVG isn't part of HTML, Javascript, or CSS. It's an optional add-on technology.
... the Javascript implementation is a complete disaster...
Explain. Try to keep the foam in your mouth while doing so ...
... the DOM is still full of proprietary junk...
It's a superset of the DOM that you find on all other browsers, so it doesn't impede you at all.
The CSS engine still fails at the basics.
Example?
Member since:2005-07-13
As a computer doctor fixing messed up, virus-ridden machines every day, I *know* Firefox is more secure than IE, and the facts back it up.
Not that I'm an IE-proponent or anything, but let's step back for a second, just because you opened the door.
How do you *know* Firefox is more secure? What facts are you referring to? Have you scrubbed the code? Have you run it through pen tests? Can you cite the last major virus-inflicting vulnerability that involved either Firefox or IE that didn't involve a plugin, such as flash, or a site-based XSS exploit?
Like I said, IE isn't exactly my cup of tea, but let's not fall into cliches when dissecting it. There's much to not like about it, but frankly, Adobe scares me more than Microsoft does when it comes to browser vulnerabilities, or Google with the frequent cross-domain hacks that they seem to be constantly addressing. Because, let's face it, that's the direction the black hats are moving in. The browsers are fairly secure nowadays, regardless of who makes them.
Except maybe for Apple.
Uh-oh, did I say that out loud?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-10
And if you examine those facts without your blinding ideology, you'll see that the mean time between a security issue being raised, and the patch being issued is a factor smaller than with IE; for whom Microsoft not only does not fully disclose many vulnerabilities, and tries to mask them as Windows bugs, they leave people in a state of complete insecurity for weeks, months and even years before finally patching that zero-day exploit.
In 2006, IE was insecure for 284 days waiting for patches, where Firefox experienced just one 9-day period for that year. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_explore...
As a computer doctor fixing messed up, virus-ridden machines every day, I *know* Firefox is more secure than IE, and the facts back it up.
---
Secondly, IE is not standards based. It has standards tacked on. Try developing something serious for it, and then get back to me on how good it dealt with the standards. There's no native SVG, the Javascript implementation is a complete disaster, the DOM is still full of proprietary junk. The CSS engine still fails at the basics.