Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
Internet Explorer Earlier this week, Google launched Chrome Frame, a plugin for Internet Explorer 6/7/8 which replaces the Trident rendering engine with Chrome's rendering and JavaScript engine for better performance and superior standards compliance. Microsoft has responded to this release, claiming it makes Internet Explorer less secure. Note: What database category do I put this in? Internet Explorer? Google? Choices, choices!
Thread beginning with comment 386042
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:22 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

When someone fixes your crap for you, you thank them. And Google Chrome Frame is basically a copy of Chrome, sans, er... the chrome. It uses the same automatic, silent update system as Chrome. Any security flaws can literally be fixed for all users within 24 hours. You have no argument left Microsoft. Get your act together and instead of scaremongering, fix your crap.

Reply Score: 20

RE: Comment by Kroc
by gustl on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:57 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I am also utterly displeased with Microsoft's response to this.

FUDing around never made Microsoft look good, and with motivations as transparent as here ("let's hold HTML5 back until we get Silverlight shoved down people's throats") is shooting themselves in the foot publicity wise.

Yes, dear Microsoft, it will hinder your controlling the internet protocols, but PLEASE will you give it a rest and start playing nicely?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kalessin on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

Unfortunately, FUD from Microsoft is likely to be at least somewhat effective. The less technically-inclined are likely to actually listen to what Microsoft says, and if they do and they have the say as to what plugins get installed on their corporate network, then lo and behold, Chrome Frame won't get installed on their corporate network, and Microsoft won that small piece of the battle.

Anyone who really pays attention and actually knows anything about the issue will know that it's pure FUD, but unfortunately, FUD still affects what people think - especially when the people doing the listening aren't all that well-informed. So, this move may very well look stupid, but from Microsoft's point of view, it's likely better to spout FUD than admit that Google is actually helping to clean up Microsoft's mess.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by JayDee on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:58 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
JayDee Member since:
2009-06-02

When someone fixes your crap for you, you thank them. And Google Chrome Frame is basically a copy of Chrome, sans, er... the chrome. It uses the same automatic, silent update system as Chrome. Any security flaws can literally be fixed for all users within 24 hours. You have no argument left Microsoft. Get your act together and instead of scaremongering, fix your crap.


In this case, like Thom previously stated, this is a slap in the face for the IE team at MS. Thanking google (a competitor in the browser market) would be like saying thank you for showing us that the work we've been doing for the last few years has been completely and utterly useless. If they had conceded that, it would have meant a restructuring of that team for sure.

Hopefully they can get this right next time around now that the've been shown a lesson.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Hopefully they can get this right next time around now that the've been shown a lesson.


How have they been shown a lesson? They don't want people to use IE6 and they don't want an outside company to encourage its use. Did you notice that IE8 contains an IE7 compatibility mode but not one for IE6? That's because they want people to dump IE6, not use hacks to keep it working.

As I stated earlier the real problem is with IT department heads, not MS.

Even though this plug-in has obvious benefit to some it is going to allow a lot of el cheap-o companies to extend the life of their Windows 2000 workstations.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:38 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What is exactly is being fixed? MS already has a fix for IE6, it's called IE8. They just aren't forcing the update because a lot of software was built around IE6.

If you want to direct your anger anywhere it should be at IT departments who refuse to upgrade or even install an alternative browser along IE6. A lot of IT departments will only upgrade if they absolutely have to.

IE6 only has about 9% share in North America and will continue to drop in the next few years as many businesses dump old xp machines for windows 7.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Ford Prefect on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

The problem is that IE8 is also lagging behind! Its the same crap with MSIE as always. All browsers support feature X but IE. All browsers support feature Y but IE. Same old story, again and again and again.

And if there would bei IE20, and if they even would force it down everybody's ass, you could bet again on the fact that it would be missing standard features, has its own opinion on CSS, etc. and so on.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by B12 Simon on Fri 25th Sep 2009 09:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

It depends hugely on your customer base. If you're writing web apps for consumers, broadly speaking they're reasonably up to date.

If, like me, you're writing webapps for schools and local government (or, unlike me, for corporations) you'll be supporting IE6 and loathing every minute of it for some years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by tomcat on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:43 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

When someone fixes your crap for you, you thank them. And Google Chrome Frame is basically a copy of Chrome, sans, er... the chrome. It uses the same automatic, silent update system as Chrome. Any security flaws can literally be fixed for all users within 24 hours. You have no argument left Microsoft. Get your act together and instead of scaremongering, fix your crap.


Um, dude, Chrome doesn't "fix your crap for you." Chrome has an abysmal security record.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:57 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Um, dude, Chrome doesn't "fix your crap for you." Chrome has an abysmal security record.


Um, dude, no.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-google-chro...

After that though, Google made sure to stay on top of things, and it has paid off. In March 2009, for example, Chrome was the only browser left standing after day one of the famous Pwn2Own contest, where security researchers competed to exploit vulnerabilities in web browsers, while Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer were all successfully compromised. Microsoft argues that Chrome only remained unscathed because nobody attempted to exploit it, but the fact remains that none of the researchers had vulnerabilities for Chrome in mind before going into the contest.


Do try to keep up with things.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by 0brad0 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:20 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Chrome has an abysmal security record.


Because IE has such a stellar record. Keep smoking crack.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Lennie on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:57 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Kroc, I do think it's not as secure as normal Google Chrome, because I don't think this uses process-seperation, does it ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:17 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

What I'd really like to understand is the meaning of "crap" in this context.

Microsoft was criticized for IE6 stagnation, so it re-formed the team and got to work. It was criticized for not having tabs, so it did tabs.

Then it was criticized for not being perfectly standards compliant, since IE5/6 predated the standards. So it worked on standards. And then it was criticized for that not being the default, so it broke IE5/6 compatibility - a huge leap in the dark - and shipped IE8, which gave everyone what they wanted, and struggled to gain any users in the process.

Now IE is just "crap." Not a good analysis of a clear deficiency, just "crap."

I don't work on IE, but I feel really bad for those guys right now. They've tried hard to give people what they want, and the result is just dismissive, unconstructive criticism.

Really, if you, the reader, want to see further standards compliance in IE, the best thing you can do is use IE8 to send a clear message that if Microsoft embraces standards, you will embrace Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What I'd really like to understand is the meaning of "crap" in this context. Microsoft was criticized for IE6 stagnation, so it re-formed the team and got to work. It was criticized for not having tabs, so it did tabs. Then it was criticized for not being perfectly standards compliant, since IE5/6 predated the standards. So it worked on standards. And then it was criticized for that not being the default, so it broke IE5/6 compatibility - a huge leap in the dark - and shipped IE8, which gave everyone what they wanted, and struggled to gain any users in the process. Now IE is just "crap." Not a good analysis of a clear deficiency, just "crap." I don't work on IE, but I feel really bad for those guys right now. They've tried hard to give people what they want, and the result is just dismissive, unconstructive criticism. Really, if you, the reader, want to see further standards compliance in IE, the best thing you can do is use IE8 to send a clear message that if Microsoft embraces standards, you will embrace Microsoft.


Microsoft doesn't embrace the standards.

Exactly those standards that can deliver a "rich, interactive, multimedia" performance from the web via a browser, those are the standards that Microsoft does NOT include in its browser.

Here is a short list where IE falls short:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested

IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid3ie8rc1.png

Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid_3_Test_Chrome_2.0.170.0.jpg

The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter). If there is no need for Silverlight or Flash, then one can run a compliant browser (and therefore fully functional) on ANY platform.

That is worth repeating: One can run a compliant and fully functional browser on ANY platform. This was always the design intent of the web in the first place.

One doesn't need Windows or IE to view the web in all its glory.

Edited 2009-09-25 03:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4