Microsoft Corp. recently held a secret Webcast with some of its closest partners to discuss ways in which the company might improve its Internet Explorer browser and customer confidence in the platform.
Eweek reports that MS is plotting fixes to IE Browser
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It’s embedded in the browser making improvements impossible without a service Pack. (Stupid move Bill) And customer confidence is destroyed and Microsoft double talk and tricks won’t bring it back.
Ah! Now that there is some competition, they are planning to fix IE. Just goes to show, competition is certainly good!
Nothing new in this article. We’ve all known all this for months (years?) but it’s good to see mainstream coverage of the problem. Considering that Longhorn is still more than a year away, I’d take a wait and see approach on this one.
“…One way Microsoft will respond is by promoting the development of smart-client applications, which give users the benefit of a blended Web- and rich-client model that focuses on local resources and user interfaces and can be used online or offline.”
WTF does this mean? These people talk absolute rubbish. How about decoupling the browser from the OS and making it more secure instead of just trying to invent another product category that no-one will give a rat’s backside about. This “feature, features, features” attitude is what has steered them wrong in the firsty place security wise.
“…One way Microsoft will respond is by promoting the development of smart-client applications, which give users the benefit of a blended Web- and rich-client model that focuses on local resources and user interfaces and can be used online or offline.”
WTF does this mean?
Same as always. For many years, MS promotes developing various thin (and not so thin) browser based solutions, incorporationg client-side ActiveX and other technologies.
Little example could be some on/offline banking application, allowing make transfers even being off-line, using little local database and so on. Ideal for laptop users, BTW.
(Un)fortunately developers do not follow MS ideas closely. Building on/offline systems is possible, but getting these work flawlessy needs more investments and resources than creating good online OR offline (but not both at the same time) applications/solutions and selling them.
I though SP2 was supposed to make it secure. Microsoft ificers have stated in public that is the securest browser…oh well.
WTF does this mean?
It means you’ll have clients accessible via a web browser that execute on the local host and look like any other application.
Sounds basically like they’re reimplementing Active X again – or Java.
These people talk absolute rubbish. How about decoupling the browser from the OS […]
I really don’t get this chip on their shoulder some people seem to have with IE – particularly since pretty much every other popular environment has since done the same thing. Interesting that none of you seem to want to rip the browser component out of KDE, or WebCore et al out of OS X, however.
Seriously, it’s not 1998 anymore – let it go.
That would be because it’s a bloody silly idea; I’ve yet to see an area where building some bastardised half-application-half-webpage into IE is a better idea than simply building a dedicated application. Example – banking. If you really want that kind of functionality, it makes a lot more sense to make a nice dedicated banking application.
How long before we see the Ximian clone of it?
LOL
…if at least IE started to support PNG correctly without me having to embed the pngbehaviour.htc in my websites, to force IE to use the DirectX PNG renderer.
And they’re just *now* starting the dialog to see what the end user wants?
Okay, Bill, here’s the hotlist:
1) Active X is by default off
2) Page load speeds (see if you can trump Opera)
3) Tabbed browsing
4) Pop up blocker that is not all or nothing (see Opera)
5) Good cookie control (see Opera)
6) Google in the toolbar
1st quote…
“since pretty much every other popular environment has since done the same thing.”
wrong
2nd quote…
“Interesting that none of you seem to want to rip the browser component out of KDE, or WebCore et al out of OS X, however.”
this is too ridiculous to pass up.
UNIX (OS X) and Linux run “user accounts”. NONE of the browsers that run on these systems have admimistrative authority to wreak havoc on the system like IE does with Windows (by DEFAULT). Not to mention that Firefox, Mozilla, Safari are stand-alone applications.
stop being part of the problem and learn.
… you know their browser has got to suck big time. You certainly don’t see them worrying about Word using market share!
As a web developer still waiting for IE to support elements of the CSS1 spec (now almost 10 years old) I can’t even begin to describe how awful the quirky, bug-ridden rendering of IE is to deal with — debugging a project for IE often takes more time than the entire HTML/CSS markup design. Not to mention the problems a user faces — security holes, a massive memory footprint and lack of modern features like pop-up blocking and browser tabs.
IE captured the browser market not because Microsoft is a monopoly, but because IE 4 beat the pants off of Netscape 4 and anything else around at the time, and Netscape responded by … well, imploding and taking 5 years to develop Mozilla. There was a time when Microsoft innovated and pushed new technologies to the web. Now, Microsoft is on the trailing edge. ActiveX isn’t the solution — it’s on the trailing edge of web technologies, too.
Obviously coupling the browser to the OS was a fatal flaw. Then, deciding last year not to release standalone versions of IE anymore (to cut the cost of developing W2K, Me, 98 and 95 versions) was making the same mistake even after it was already obviously a mistake.
I mean, of all the browsers running on my Mac — Safari, Firefox, Camino, Omnicab, Konqueror, Opera — there isn’t a one I’d take IE 6 over.
IE isn’t just a bad browser. It’s the worst.
NONE of the browsers that run on these systems have admimistrative authority to wreak havoc on the system like IE does with Windows (by DEFAULT).
I wish this meme would die.
Give me ONE truthful, valid reason for your argument.
Remember, there are 100,000 viruses in the wild for Windows and NONE for UNIX.
Choosing to live in denial is your choice.
I’ve yet to see an area where building some bastardised half-application-half-webpage into IE is a better idea than simply building a dedicated application.
Application maintenance and distribution (leading on to end user ease-of-use).
“since pretty much every other popular environment has since done the same thing.”
wrong
KDE, GNOME, OS X. All have an IE equivalent.
There aren’t many other popular environments.
UNIX (OS X) and Linux run “user accounts”. NONE of the browsers that run on these systems have admimistrative authority to wreak havoc on the system like IE does with Windows (by DEFAULT).
IE runs in the user context – always has, always will. It doesn’t have “administrative authority” (unless you’re running it from an admin account).
Not to mention that Firefox, Mozilla, Safari are stand-alone applications.
The standalone applications aren’t comparable to IE.
Interesting you use Safari as an example, which is much more like IE than Firefox or Mozilla. Safari uses OS X’s WebCore and friends, which are collectively analagous to IE.
stop being part of the problem and learn.
Excellent advice, you should follow it. I suggest some basic research into IE’s architecture.
“…Seriously, it’s not 1998 anymore – let it go.”
No, it’s 2005 and spyware is running rampant. Completely different internet landscape.
No, it’s 2005 and spyware is running rampant. Completely different internet landscape.
What do you think “decoupling the browser from the OS” is going to achieve to help that, and how ? Be specific. Explain what you mean by “decoupling” and “OS” as well.
“UNIX (OS X) and Linux run “user accounts”. NONE of the browsers that run on these systems have admimistrative authority to wreak havoc on the system like IE does with Windows (by DEFAULT). Not to mention that Firefox, Mozilla, Safari are stand-alone applications.”
That’s funny, iexplre.exe runs as $username on my system, not as admin. Perhaps you have the uber-elite, geek version of Windows or you’re full of crap. I’m voting for the latter. Thanks for playing, though.
Eweek reports that MS is ploDDing fixes to IE Browser
intrepidly.
NONE of the browsers that run on these systems have admimistrative authority to wreak havoc on the system like IE does with Windows (by DEFAULT).
That’s funny, iexplre.exe runs as $username on my system, not as admin. Perhaps you have the uber-elite, geek version of Windows or you’re full of crap.
Which is why he said BY DEFAULT, meaning Windows doesn’t setup normal user accounts BY DEFAULT.
KadyMae wrote:
> 6) Google in the toolbar
Won’t happen. You know MS is pushing MSN.com against Google. After all, what’s wrong with installing Google Toolbar yourself?
By the way, MSN.com have switched to CSS-based layout. This is a good thing.
Yes, MS should run IE in a “user” context even when using and admin account. As a matter of fact, all my users run as admins, and all of them run IE and outlook as “users.” It is really pretty simple to implement.
And actually, an XP setup ask you to create a user account at setup, just like a linux distro does. Many times you dont see it because of a bastardized OEM installation.
Education is the real issue. The reason our users run as admins are because they dont realize they could just “runas” when installing anything…and telling them how to do it would just go in one ear and out the other. It urks me that the linux user is generally more knowledgable about what is going on:)
What do you think “decoupling the browser from the OS” is going to achieve to help that, and how ?
One simple example is the introduction of trojans. Assume that IE was a browser and Explorer a GUI shell and they were genuinely seperate. NT has a capability based permissions model. It would be very easy to have
1) IE does not have write permission to any directory where that any application on the system can execute any NT level program (i.e. not Java applets, flash….) contained within. This means that the person will have to manually move their download to a different directory before executing it. This would avoid a lot of accidents
2) Plugins run in a universal virtual sandbox and so no plugin can do very much harm (for example maybe they can write to disk but only too a specific subdirectory and one that has a strict quota on it).
Right off the bat you just killed a whole bunch of security problems. Now obviously rules (1) and (2) don’t work because they would completely cripple the shell aspects of Explorer.
Another thing that would be easy would be “reinstall fresh copy” option for IE; where the system dumps all plugins, updates and toolbars, java applets… and you get a virgin IE (with passwords still intact). Suddenly rogue toolbars and other such tricks become much less of a problem.
A third example is that add-ons are no longer system utilities. A pop-up blocker for IE can introduce a system wide virus, an add on for firefox is far less likely too. Now if firefox itself were running in a virtual environment it would become impossible.
“Remember, there are 100,000 viruses in the wild for Windows and NONE for UNIX.
Choosing to live in denial is your choice.”
Remember, if you take the proper (and easy) steps, you can have NO viruses on Windows.
Paving the way for smarter worms… Woo hooo
“Remember, if you take the proper (and easy) steps, you can have NO viruses on Windows.”
And which steps are those? Start->Shut Down?
Windows has viruses because its default filesystem permissions were and still are horrible (nevermind that you can run in user mode, very few do) and because Microsoft has not only left the option up to the user, it hasn’t even stressed the need for usermode and the safety inherent in limiting access to services.
Until XP’s SP2, most windows users never saw firewalls, which block those unsafe services.
But, even with these latest enhancement, Windows is just as susceptable to viruses… as is any OS, including Linux.
So, why aren’t there (many) Linux viruses? Users can be easily tricked into running Z-random-app, and there are plenty of linux users, now.
Is it the extra steps in compiling software manually? The way software is usually installed (package manager)? Open Source scaring the black hats away? The lack of piracy and the ever-present trojans masquerading as cracks? Is it default permissions? Is it binary incompatibility?
Whatever the reasons, you can be assured that if you run windows with it’s default software (IE) you will get your computer infested with trojans and spyware. Even if you keep up to date with Windows Update, you’ll still get bitten by the latest virus, worm, trojan or spyware.
Until ActiveX is completely disabled (or sandboxed), until every user’s windows box runs in User Mode by default, until people become more intelligent on what dodgy software they run, perhaps only until people use whitelists of good software to choose what they install — will Windows ever become a reasonably virus-free environment.
The free-wheeling culture is most of the problem and windows’ default settings only makes it worse. Linux and MacOS users are just a vulnerable to random malicious apps, but so far, in those cultures it isn’t quite as easy to effect large numbers of users — they have quality control, they have user feedback, and they are community orientated.
After all, what’s wrong with installing Google Toolbar yourself?>>
Actually, I run Opera or Firefox, so it’s a bit of a moot point for me.
It’s just that when I help others, I’m always running into the fact that google just isn’t there.
I’m surprised I haven’t seen anything here (or at least not more) mentioning momentum. As has been said elsewhere, Microsoft has lost a lot of interest. Even if they fixed Internet Explorer and made it as good as Firefox or Opera… who’s going to notice? Of those who do notice, who’s going to care?
The momentum has switched to other browsers, and especially Mozilla’s Firefox. Internet Explorer now not only has to become as good as the alternatives… it has to become a lot better to get interest back.
And which steps are those? Start->Shut Down?
1. Run as a regular user.
2. Turn the firewall on.
3. Keep updated.
4. Don’t use IE.
Windows has viruses because its default filesystem permissions were and still are horrible […]
How so ?
(nevermind that you can run in user mode, very few do) and because Microsoft has not only left the option up to the user, it hasn’t even stressed the need for usermode and the safety inherent in limiting access to services.
XP’s online help specifically advises against running as an Administrator.
One simple example is the introduction of trojans. Assume that IE was a browser and Explorer a GUI shell and they were genuinely seperate. NT has a capability based permissions model. It would be very easy to have
1) IE does not have write permission to any directory where that any application on the system can execute any NT level program (i.e. not Java applets, flash….) contained within. This means that the person will have to manually move their download to a different directory before executing it. This would avoid a lot of accidents
2) Plugins run in a universal virtual sandbox and so no plugin can do very much harm (for example maybe they can write to disk but only too a specific subdirectory and one that has a strict quota on it).
These are fine ideas, but they don’t require “decoupling” IE.
IE doesn’t run with any special permissions. It doesn’t run with any sort of behind-the-scenes elevated privileges. It’s just another application. IE can’t do anything more than another program like, say, Firefox.
So, while your ideas are good for increasing security in a general fashion, they really don’t have anything to do with “decoupling” IE.
Right off the bat you just killed a whole bunch of security problems. Now obviously rules (1) and (2) don’t work because they would completely cripple the shell aspects of Explorer.
All the “shell aspects” are is Explorer loading up the IE components to display certains types of content. There’s no reason why this should be broken.
Architecturally speaking, IE is really no different to KDE’s khtml and OS X’s WebCore (the guts of Safari).
A third example is that add-ons are no longer system utilities. A pop-up blocker for IE can introduce a system wide virus, an add on for firefox is far less likely too. Now if firefox itself were running in a virtual environment it would become impossible.
Again, this is nothing to do with IE’s integration. A “plugin” for IE isn’t a system utility. It can no more introduce a system-wide virus than one for Firefox could (ie: if it’s run as an Administrator, it can, otherwise not).
IE doesn’t run with any special permissions. It doesn’t run with any sort of behind-the-scenes elevated privileges. It’s just another application. IE can’t do anything more than another program like, say, Firefox.
Yeah…right. In case you haven’t notice, Internet Explorer also serves as a file browser which has the rights to create, delete and alter files. Simple as that. Even if ran under the user instead of the administrator (as if any ordinary user does that), IE can still delete the user’s My Documents folder easily because it’s integrated into Windows.
I think you’ve misunderstood what’s been said – IE does not have special permissions, specifically. The problem is, IE controls permissions indirectly, because it’s part of the OS. Microsoft made that the crux of the antitrust case they lost (trust me, I’ve read two thick books dealing with the trial): “If we remove IE from Windows, it won’t run.”
I don’t think removing Firefox from Windows or Linux would prevent them from booting.
Architecturally speaking, IE is really no different to KDE’s khtml and OS X’s WebCore (the guts of Safari).
Please spare us. Safari and Knoqueror are browsers that use WebCore, KHTML as core technologies to implement html rendering and services. This is fundamentally different from IE, which is a webrewoser that got integrated into the OS to privde whateve APIs the rest of the OS needed.
There is a significant difference architecturally taking a sperate product and melding it into the OS and creating a core set of technologies that are used by the OS and implementing a browser out of them. Safari, Konqueror and Firfox fit the later.
Please don’t talk about architecture, design and coding, you simply are not qualified to discuss them.
Yeah…right. In case you haven’t notice, Internet Explorer also serves as a file browser which has the rights to create, delete and alter files.
No, that’s Explorer. Explorer can (and does) use the IE components when necessary.
Simple as that. Even if ran under the user instead of the administrator (as if any ordinary user does that), IE can still delete the user’s My Documents folder easily because it’s integrated into Windows.
You may be stunned to know that any program you run “can still delete the user’s My Documents folder easily” if it wants to.
I think you’ve misunderstood what’s been said – IE does not have special permissions, specifically. The problem is, IE controls permissions indirectly, because it’s part of the OS.
IE is a bunch of reusable components, just like khtml, nothing more.
Microsoft made that the crux of the antitrust case they lost (trust me, I’ve read two thick books dealing with the trial): “If we remove IE from Windows, it won’t run.”
Actually the argument was it wouldn’t function correctly because many parts of the OS (that “OS” in marketing and legal speak, not “OS” in academic computer science speak) relied on features IE provided.
I don’t think removing Firefox from Windows or Linux would prevent them from booting.
Try deleting khtml from KDE and see how well it works.
Please spare us. Safari and Knoqueror are browsers that use WebCore, KHTML as core technologies to implement html rendering and services. This is fundamentally different from IE, which is a webrewoser that got integrated into the OS to privde whateve APIs the rest of the OS needed.
No, they all function much the same way.
Maybe I can play your silly game. Do you have any proof for you claims ?
There is a significant difference architecturally taking a sperate product and melding it into the OS and creating a core set of technologies that are used by the OS and implementing a browser out of them. Safari, Konqueror and Firfox fit the later.
Please detail how IE doesn’t fulfil the same technical specifications.
one more time for good measure…
quote from drsmithy…
“1. Run as a regular user.
2. Turn the firewall on.
3. Keep updated.
4. Don’t use IE.”
you want me to bust you up again?
1. “regular user” on Windows is admin! you don’t understand the definition of “user”.
2. XP’s firewall is worthless! iptables or pf on BSD are true OS front lines! you are better off keeping your mouth shut on this one.
3. SP2 and every other patch from MS only appease immediate media/marketing concerns and delay the inevitable… YOU WILL BE OWNED due to poor design!
MS HAS NEVER DESIGNED OR INNOVATED ANYTHING! MS could CARE LESS about your security, only their $$$! not to mention, they have no idea how to fix their OS which isn’t a REAL OS anyway!
refer to DEC which MS stole, FORCE-FITTED onto existing MS technologies, screwed it up and was sued. by the way, what do you think XP is? ask Dave Cutler.
4. your argument was in favor of IE right? so, why are you advocating not using it?
learning anything yet?
dael,
although i agree with your enthusiasm, security is about design not community (although community is very important in many other ways).
happy surfing!
Try and remove IE from Windows.
Go ahead, trash it and see what happens.
1. “regular user” on Windows is admin! you don’t understand the definition of “user”.
False.
2. XP’s firewall is worthless! iptables or pf on BSD are true OS front lines! you are better off keeping your mouth shut on this one.
XP’s firewall is a stateful packet filter. While it’s certainly not heavy on configurability, it’s quite adequate for basic use.
3. SP2 and every other patch from MS only appease immediate media/marketing concerns and delay the inevitable…
YOU WILL BE OWNED due to poor design!
Please detail this poor design.
MS HAS NEVER DESIGNED OR INNOVATED ANYTHING! MS could CARE LESS about your security, […]
That’s “couldn’t care less”.
[…] only their $$$!
Just like every other corporation, you mean ?
not to mention, they have no idea how to fix their OS which isn’t a REAL OS anyway!
So just how isn’t it “a real OS” ? What *is* “a real OS” ?
refer to DEC which MS stole, […]
DEC is a company. Just how did Microsoft “steal” them ?
FORCE-FITTED onto existing MS technologies, screwed it up and was sued. by the way, what do you think XP is? ask Dave Cutler.
You mean Dave Cutler the Microsoft employee ? I imagine he’d say it’s Windows NT 5.1.
4. your argument was in favor of IE right?
No, my argument was correcting your (and others) incorrect beliefs on how IE works.
so, why are you advocating not using it?
Because it’s buggy and not as good as Firefox.
learning anything yet?
Yes. I’ve learnt you’re an aggressive, rude, ignorant troll who contributes nothing in terms of useful discussion to this forum.
>KadyMae wrote:
>> 6) Google in the toolbar
>Won’t happen. You know MS is pushing MSN.com against Google. >After all, what’s wrong with installing Google Toolbar >yourself?
as in:
“What’s wrong with installing Firefox
yourself and stop using IE ?”
A doctor ? indeed ? what as ? must be a medical doctor coz you have not got a clue about CS
you gave the comparison for khtml in kde to IE in Windows… hmmm why ?
khtml is simply the rendering engine.
I think you have been mixed up somewhere by reading that Konqueror is a web-browser and a file-manager. Yes it is, and of course being so, it means I can deleted all my files from the browser if I am silly.
NOTE. I said “I” can delete my files. Not some piece of malware that I downloaded of a dodgy website.
That is the crux of the problem, MS allows everything to run by default…. “Rich-content” I think was how they were marketing it at the time.
you gave the comparison for khtml in kde to IE in Windows… hmmm why ?
Because they’re basically the same. Some might say the KDE crew “stole” the idea of an embeddable, reusable browser component, if they thought ideas were something you could “steal”.
khtml is simply the rendering engine.
As is IE (well, it’s somewhat more, but the principal is the same).
NOTE. I said “I” can delete my files. Not some piece of malware that I downloaded of a dodgy website.
Of course it can. “Malware” is just another application. You are aware other applications like, say, ‘rm’ or ‘rsync’ can delete “your” files, right ?
I’m wondering how you think the OS can tell the difference between “you” and “malware” ?
That is the crux of the problem, MS allows everything to run by default…. “Rich-content” I think was how they were marketing it at the time.
False.
I’m wondering how you think the OS can tell the difference between “you” and “malware” ?
—-
it can definitely stop browsers from messing up the OS. IE is a poor excuse for a browser. stop apologising for it
it can definitely stop browsers from messing up the OS.
How ?
IE is a poor excuse for a browser. stop apologising for it
“Apologising” is some weird troll-speak for recommending not to use it, I suppose ?
as much as we know, IE IS NOT PART OF THE OS! it is just part of the windows GUI (desktop environment, not X-server equivalent). the only ones that say otherwise are microsoft bashers (and microsoft, but it only said it so it won’t have to remove IE from Windows).
There are no problem removing khtml from KDE. KDE works flawlessly without it, with the exception that konqueror (and other programs that need to render html) can no longer display html. You can easily test this by moving libkhtml.so(.4.2.0) to your home folder. Remember to restart kde or else it will be in cashed in memory.
I do not have XP so I can not test how easy it is to remove the html-engine in MSwin.
If I’m not mistaken, IE is run as a core service, that is tied into the rest of the OS. Basically that makes an always on connection to the internet, which provides an attack vector straight to the OS. Microsoft has been playing whack a mole to try and close vulnerabilities for years. At this point, if they did unhook the browser from the OS, it would be admitting a mistake, and that is something they just do not want to do.
DEC is a company. Just how did Microsoft “steal” them ?
FORCE-FITTED onto existing MS technologies, screwed it up and was sued. by the way, what do you think XP is? ask Dave Cutler.
You mean Dave Cutler the Microsoft employee ? I imagine he’d say it’s Windows NT 5.1. Microsoft does not innovate they borrow and get sued.
Has anybody ever tracked the Billions of dollars that Microsoft has paid out on there unique type of R&D.
No, they all function much the same way.
I thought we were talking about the architecture of these browsers.
Maybe I can play your silly game. Do you have any proof for you claims ?
you were talking about the architecture but now want me to give you proof on functionality. Make up your mind.
Please detail how IE doesn’t fulfil the same technical specifications.
I thought I already did. But anyway, Was IE a seperate product prior to winows 98 and win2k?
Were WebCore and khtml a seperate standalone browser product prior to the introduction of Safari and Konqueror? No.
The are libraries and technologies designed and developed to make products like safari and konqueror happen whilst providing web content functionality in the desktop enivronment.
IE was a seperate product microsoft bolted on top and melded into the OS as an after thought with the prime intention of killing competitor. They made ridiculous claims stating that the browser was part of the OS. Safari can be decoupled from the OS with no detriment to system functionality.
Does that not make them sound evil somehow, ploting on fixing? Anyway I wish another OS would really step up & give people a user freindly way out of windows on the pc side.
Microsoft is patching => great
Microsoft is taking security a bit seriously => great
why ? Because it’s some other player microsoft can’t ignore. => great.
Microsoft monopoly as to be defeated. It’ll be good / It is good for everyone, windows users, mac users, *nix users.
windows become “more secure” because some other operating systems are better (that’s a fact) in this area.
KDE become nicer and nicer (no flamewar, gnome is nice too) everyday because some players like OSX are really nice.
Competition is great for us !
There are no problem removing khtml from KDE. KDE works flawlessly without it, with the exception that konqueror (and other programs that need to render html) can no longer display html.
Fantastic logic. There’s no problem removing khtml from KDE – except for the stuff that breaks.
I do not have XP so I can not test how easy it is to remove the html-engine in MSwin.
Much like KDE, Windows works flawlessly without IE – except for the stuff that breaks.
If I’m not mistaken, IE is run as a core service, that is tied into the rest of the OS.
You are mistaken.
At this point, if they did unhook the browser from the OS, it would be admitting a mistake, and that is something they just do not want to do.
More because by doing that they would be removing a feature all their competitors now have.
I thought we were talking about the architecture of these browsers.
you were talking about the architecture but now want me to give you proof on functionality. Make up your mind.
Stop playing your usual silly games with semantics and answer the question.
I thought I already did.
No.
But anyway, Was IE a seperate product prior to winows 98 and win2k?
Firstly, why is that relevant to IE today ?
Secondly, why is it relevant whether or not IE was distributed separately at all ?
Were WebCore and khtml a seperate standalone browser product prior to the introduction of Safari and Konqueror? No.
Safari was certainly available seperately before WebCore, etc were included with OS X and khtml was certainly a seperate piece of code before it was developer into WebCore/Safari.
Not that it matters.
The are libraries and technologies designed and developed to make products like safari and konqueror happen whilst providing web content functionality in the desktop enivronment.
So how is IE different. Try to keep your explanation technical and not political.
IE was a seperate product microsoft bolted on top and melded into the OS as an after thought with the prime intention of killing competitor.
I was after a technical explanation.
They made ridiculous claims stating that the browser was part of the OS.
Define “OS”.
Safari can be decoupled from the OS with no detriment to system functionality.
Safari != IE. Rip out out WebCore, etc and see how well system (and third party) applications that depend on it function.
You can remove IE fully from windows and windows will work fine. I’m running windows 2k pro without IE and a bunch of otehr components. I browse using opera and I use daisy to get my updates.
What question??
Proof for your claim:
“Safari and Knoqueror are browsers that use WebCore, KHTML as core technologies to implement html rendering and services. This is fundamentally different from IE, which is a webrewoser that got integrated into the OS to privde whateve APIs the rest of the OS needed. ”
It is relevant.
Why ?
You didn’t answer my question.
It’s not relevant, however, IE was available before Windows 98.
Webcore is not a App like IE, it is a framework, same applies to khtml.
IE is not just an app, it is also a framework.
What was political about my explanation????
“IE was a seperate product microsoft bolted on top and melded into the OS as an after thought with the prime intention of killing competitor.”
You wouldn’t understand a more technical explanation anyway and we would just rat hole as usual.
You wouldn’t understand a technical explanation. We have been down that road before and I am not willing to give you one.
Try me. I’m sure there are other OSNews readers who would be happy to see a technical explanation for why IE is fundamentally different to khtml and WebCore as well.
Don’t forget some credible documentary evidence for your explanation.
Not falling for that trap. Typical Strawman.
Not in the slightest. It’s impossible to discuss what is and isn’t part of the OS unless you tell me what you consider the OS to be.
Just before I think you can’t say anything more stupid you go ahread and surprise me.
Right, so stating a fact – that ripping WebCore (more correctly, WebKit) out of OS X breaks Safari and third party apps that depend on it – is “stupid” ?
(Curious Mac users can try this at home if you want – just move /System/Library/Frameworks/WebKit.framework somewhere else. It will break Safari (and any third party apps that rely on it – but they’re fairly uncommon at the moment since WebKit is so new). Be sure to move it back afterwards. Note that applications that come with their own version of WebKit, like OmniWeb, obviously won’t be affected.)
No, that’s Explorer. Explorer can (and does) use the IE components when necessary.
Exactly. IE is made up of components which are also used by Windows. The problem is IE is vulnerable to trojans and malware. If IE gets screwed over by malware, Windows gets screwed too.
You may be stunned to know that any program you run “can still delete the user’s My Documents folder easily” if it wants to.
You may be stunned to know that most third-party programs are not used to access sites which may contain malware. They also don’t generally contain vulnerable components like ActiveX.
IE is a bunch of reusable components, just like khtml, nothing more.
I don’t know about Macs but Linux certainly does not require khtml or any of its components to boot or browse the filesystem.
Actually the argument was it wouldn’t function correctly because many parts of the OS (that “OS” in marketing and legal speak, not “OS” in academic computer science speak) relied on features IE provided.
Think again. When the courts issued an injunction ordering Microsoft to stop bundling IE with Windows, they removed IE. The computers didn’t run. Note: They were not just impaired functionally, but didn’t even run at the same level as a Windows 95 system minus IE.
Try deleting khtml from KDE and see how well it works.
KDE is not an operating system. End of the story.
Proof for your claim:
“Safari and Knoqueror are browsers that use WebCore, KHTML as core technologies to implement html rendering and services. This is fundamentally different from IE, which is a webrewoser that got integrated into the OS to privde whateve APIs the rest of the OS needed. ”
IE is a browser. Webcore and Khtml are frameworks.
It’s not relevant, however, IE was available before Windows 98.
Exactly as a browser not as a framework
Try me. I’m sure there are other OSNews readers who would be happy to see a technical explanation for why IE is fundamentally different to khtml and WebCore as well.
No I won’t explain it to you. If other readers want an explanation they can ask for one and I will give it.
Don’t forget some credible documentary evidence for your explanation.
History has a shown that not amount of documentary evidence will convince you.
Not in the slightest. It’s impossible to discuss what is and isn’t part of the OS unless you tell me what you consider the OS to be.
I am sure you will disagree, I don’t want to go that route, so drop it.
Right, so stating a fact – that ripping WebCore (more correctly, WebKit) out of OS X breaks Safari and third party apps that depend on it – is “stupid” ?
The reason I called it is too silly to even comment on, is that your statment is similar to saying “delete the kernel and see the system won’t boot”.
Anyway I have had it with this discussion.
Exactly. IE is made up of components which are also used by Windows. The problem is IE is vulnerable to trojans and malware. If IE gets screwed over by malware, Windows gets screwed too.
You do realise this applies to any essential software on any platform, right ?
You may be stunned to know that most third-party programs are not used to access sites which may contain malware. They also don’t generally contain vulnerable components like ActiveX.
Firefox is certainly used to access “sites which may contain malware”, as are most browsers.
I don’t know about Macs but Linux certainly does not require khtml or any of its components to boot or browse the filesystem.
KDE breaks without khtml.
Think again. When the courts issued an injunction ordering Microsoft to stop bundling IE with Windows, they removed IE. The computers didn’t run. Note: They were not just impaired functionally, but didn’t even run at the same level as a Windows 95 system minus IE.
Because there are parts of Windows (primarily the shell) dependent on Windows.
XP embedded demonstrates the Windows core runs fine without IE.
IE is a bunch of user-mode components. Just like khtml, Webcore, Quicktime, or any of a millions other frameworks.
KDE is not an operating system. End of the story.
A Linux distro using it is, however – take out khtml and that distro breaks.
IE is a browser. Webcore and Khtml are frameworks.
No matter how often you repeat this, it will not change the fact IE is an OS framework, not a standalone web browser.
Of course, if you could provide some documentation to support your assertion, I’d be more inclined to believe it.
[It’s not relevant, however, IE was available before Windows 98.]
Exactly as a browser not as a framework
So was Safari. Your point ?
Not to mention, we’re talking about IE in 2005, not 1995.
Just to refresh your memory, the first Safari beta was released January 2003 and Safari 1.0 was released June 2003. The first version of OS X to include WebCore “out of the box” was 10.3 (although I think it might be present in the last couple of 10.2.x updates, if you have already installed Safari), in October 2003.
A rough comparison of Windows and OSX’s path to componentised browser integration:
IE3/IE4 beta -> Safari beta
IE4 -> Safari 1.0
Windows 98/Windows 2000 -> OS X 10.3
No I won’t explain it to you. If other readers want an explanation they can ask for one and I will give it.
So I’m supposed to take your word at face value but you won’t take mine ?
History has a shown that not amount of documentary evidence will convince you.
Particularly not when it agrees with me.
The reason I called it is too silly to even comment on, is that your statment is similar to saying “delete the kernel and see the system won’t boot”.
So why is a claim that removing IE breaks Windows – essentially equivalent to removing WebCore and breaking OS X – “ridiculous” ?
I’m happily running windows 2000 pro WITHOUT internet explorer or outlook plus a bunch of other stuff COMPLETELY removed
I’m using daisy to get updates and opera as my browser.. removing IE from windows does not break it at all 
No matter how often you repeat this, it will not change the fact IE is an OS framework, not a standalone web browser.
Why isn’t it apparent you that no matter how much you jump up and down, IE was a standalone product melded into the OS after the fact and made into a framework.
So was Safari. Your point ?
Not to mention, we’re talking about IE in 2005, not 1995.
Safari is still just a browser, not the framework. BTW when the antitrust case happened IE still was a browser a not a framework. Microsoft argued otherwise and melded it into windows 98 and subsequent to become a framework.
Just to refresh your memory, the first Safari beta was released January 2003 and Safari 1.0 was released June 2003. The first version of OS X to include WebCore “out of the box” was 10.3 (although I think it might be present in the last couple of 10.2.x updates, if you have already installed Safari), in October 2003.
Safari 1.0 was released based on KHTML. KHTML was later turned into webcore/webkit. Not the same thing as IE.
A rough comparison of Windows and OSX’s path to componentised browser integration:
IE3/IE4 beta -> Safari beta
IE4 -> Safari 1.0
Windows 98/Windows 2000 -> OS X 10.3
Wrong.
IE3,IE4, IE5.0 -> Safari 1,0, 1.2
Webcore + Safari -> windows 2000, Windows XP
If IE is an os framework why is it downloadable as a seperate product and was avaiable for altrernate platforms, like Solaris, MacOS X?
So I’m supposed to take your word at face value but you won’t take mine ?
No. But I think of it as a waste of time to give you a technical explanation becuase history has it that you won’t understand, misinterpret, and confuse the issue.
History has a shown that not amount of documentary evidence will convince you.
Particularly not when it agrees with me.
I have never argued with you when you are on the right. You however have constantly claimed to be right when you weren’t, that’s when I get into a discussion with you.
So why is a claim that removing IE breaks Windows – essentially equivalent to removing WebCore and breaking OS X – “ridiculous” ?
Others have pointed out to you that removing IE doesn’t break windows. Microsoft argued in court that removing media player was not possible becuase it is an essential feature, they are now shipping a version without it.
I’m happily running windows 2000 pro WITHOUT internet explorer or outlook plus a bunch of other stuff COMPLETELY removed
I’m using daisy to get updates and opera as my browser.. removing IE from windows does not break it at all 
How are you dealing with Windows components that use IE (like the help system and the shell) and third party software that relies on its presence (eg: Maxthon, some versions of Quicken).
Why isn’t it apparent you that no matter how much you jump up and down, IE was a standalone product melded into the OS after the fact and made into a framework.
I’m glad you have dragged your point of view out of 1995.
Safari is still just a browser, not the framework.
Safari was distributed seperately (with WebCore) for ~6 months before it (and WebCore) was integrated into OS X.
Strictly, Safari is the browser front end to WebCore. Earlier versions of Safari were distributed with WebCore, whereas later versions rely on it being in the OS.
Similarly, iexplore.exe is a browser front end to the IE components.
Like Safari, iexplore.exe (the browser front end) is removable from Windows. However, the components (WebCore and IE) are not removable (without breaking things).
BTW when the antitrust case happened IE still was a browser a not a framework. Microsoft argued otherwise and melded it into windows 98 and subsequent to become a framework.
Like I said, try to keep the politics out of it.
IE3 was turned into a componentised framework initially with IE 3 (1996).
IE4 was a substantial improvement that started to popularise the IE components (1997).
Windows 98 was the first version of Windows to have IE included in the OS package (1998).
IE5 and IE6 were basically the same as IE4 – system updates – just released later (can’t remember the dates).
Safari 1.0 was released based on KHTML. KHTML was later turned into webcore/webkit. Not the same thing as IE.
Exactly the same thing. Earlier standalone versions of IE (1.x, 2.x) were slightly warmed over and rebranded versions of Spyglass. Later versions were substantially rewritten and componentised into a reusabled framework.
IE3,IE4, IE5.0 -> Safari 1,0, 1.2
Yes, that’s basically what I said (although I didn’t bother with the later Safari or IE versions). Keeping in mind those versions of Safari included WebCore as a system component and allowed other applications to use it – just like those separately-distributed versions of IE.
IE (3.x and later) is a *Windows system update* and *not* a standalone browser like, say, Firefox.
Webcore + Safari -> windows 2000, Windows XP
Windows 98 was the first version of Windows to have IE available out of the box, equivalent in this way to OS X 10.3.
If IE is an os framework why is it downloadable as a seperate product and was avaiable for altrernate platforms, like Solaris, MacOS X?
Firstly, its capabilities as an OS framework is not relevant to it also being available seperately. See Safari + WebCore on OS X for a similar example, or any number of post-release OS updates on any number of platforms.
Secondly, IE on Windows was a system update.
Thirdly, the unix versions (except OS X’s) of IE actually included a fairly comprehensive Win32 thunking layer – they weren’t really “native” unix apps, more like “emulated” Windows apps running on unix. Additionally, the MacOS version of IE was a mostly (if not completely) seperate codebase to the Windows version.
Lastly, both the platform and distribution aspects are – as already stated – irrelevant. See Quicktime as an example of an OS toolkit from one platform (MacOS) being available on another (Windows).
No. But I think of it as a waste of time to give you a technical explanation becuase history has it that you won’t understand, misinterpret, and confuse the issue.
History has a shown that not amount of documentary evidence will convince you.
I have never argued with you when you are on the right. You however have constantly claimed to be right when you weren’t, that’s when I get into a discussion with you.
You mean like when I was right about Windows having defined system areas for appplications, user data etc ?
Or when I was right about those definitions having existed since the days of NT 3.x and Windows 95 ?
Or when I was right about Microsoft having developer guidelines ?
Others have pointed out to you that removing IE doesn’t break windows.
As long as you consider the disclaimer :- that it doesn’t break Windows – except for the bits it breaks, but that doesn’t matter because they can be supplemented with third party tools.
Removing IE *breaks parts of Windows*. You may not consider those parts important, those parts may have third party eqivalents or those parts may be replaceable with equivalents from earlier versions of Windows, but that doesn’t change the fact that *they break*.
Microsoft argued in court that removing media player was not possible becuase it is an essential feature, they are now shipping a version without it.
Microsoft argued that removing it would remove functionality and features both end users and developers expect and that this was breaking the OS because they were considered essential features. There is nothing untrue about that.
How are you dealing with Windows components that use IE (like the help system and the shell) and third party software that relies on its presence (eg: Maxthon, some versions of Quicken).
The shell? Explorer? explorer works fine without all the IE components in classic nonwebrowserfied mode, I never use windows help, I’m using unClean for uninstalling apps (killing IE breaks the app uninstaller in control panel), I’m using Opera for my browser and none of my other apps use IE components. oh and daisy works pretty good for getting updates
all in all with a few 3rd party apps, running a windows system without IE is quite painless.
Removing IE *breaks parts of Windows*. You may not consider those parts important, those parts may have third party eqivalents or those parts may be replaceable with equivalents from earlier versions of Windows, but that doesn’t change the fact that *they break*.
yep, as far as I can tell it breaks windows help, the control panel app uninstaller applet. Gets rid of active desktop. No more preview window and what not in explorer windows (yay
). Windows update is now quite dead.. I think. Automatic updates *may* still work but I havent checked on that. I’m not sure if this is from killing IE or when I removed the fax stuff and scripting things but dialup networking no longer works. Anything that replies on IE for rendering html is of course dead (outlook, winamp mini browser etc). Might be some other stuff that I havent come across yet.
erm.. that should be “anything that relies on ie…
The shell? Explorer? explorer works fine without all the IE components in classic nonwebrowserfied mode, I never use windows help, I’m using unClean for uninstalling apps (killing IE breaks the app uninstaller in control panel), I’m using Opera for my browser and none of my other apps use IE components. oh and daisy works pretty good for getting updates
all in all with a few 3rd party apps, running a windows system without IE is quite painless.
Sounds pretty painful to me for no practical benefit (crippled shell, non-standard uninstaller, special program for updates).
My point remains – take out IE and Windows breaks, just like KDE and OS X do if you rip out khtml and WebCore.
You do realise this applies to any essential software on any platform, right ?
I doubt if Firefox is screwed over by malware, it will seriously affect my system. If I open the wrong website in IE on the other hand, next thing I know, I have dozens of spyware crawling around in my memory.
The problem here is IE can execute files because its components need to do so as part of Windows Explorer and also because of nasty ActiveX. This capability is shared between the two.
Firefox is certainly used to access “sites which may contain malware”, as are most browsers.
Doesn’t this contradict your earlier stand that IE just like most software?
KDE breaks without khtml.
But I don’t *need* to use KDE. If khtml breaks, I just go to XFCE or GNOME. If you screw Windows up, though, it’s going to be hard to get back to the GUI.
Because there are parts of Windows (primarily the shell) dependent on Windows.
XP embedded demonstrates the Windows core runs fine without IE.
And the shell integration is what makes using IE (in particular with ActiveX enabled) so hazardous.
A Linux distro using it is, however – take out khtml and that distro breaks.
A distro is not an operating system. KDE is an application and not *required* for Linux to run. A user can switch to GNOME or XFCE or whatever other windowing system they prefer. On the other hand, take out IE and the system (and several of its applications) are seriously impaired.
I doubt if Firefox is screwed over by malware, it will seriously affect my system.
Why not ? Firefox runs with the same levels of access IE has.
If I open the wrong website in IE on the other hand, next thing I know, I have dozens of spyware crawling around in my memory.
If the “wrong website” happens to know about and exploit a Firefox flaw, you’ll have the same problem.
The problem here is IE can execute files because its components need to do so as part of Windows Explorer and also because of nasty ActiveX. This capability is shared between the two.
Any application can “execute files”.
Doesn’t this contradict your earlier stand that IE just like most software?
Uh, I don’t think so…
But I don’t *need* to use KDE.
Well that line of reasoning basically makes the whole discussion moot. If you “don’t need to use KDE” then you’re in the same position (for the purposes of comparison) as you would be if you “don’t need to use Windows” – so why care if it’s broken ?
And the shell integration is what makes using IE (in particular with ActiveX enabled) so hazardous.
No, it’s not.
A distro is not an operating system. KDE is an application and not *required* for Linux to run. A user can switch to GNOME or XFCE or whatever other windowing system they prefer. On the other hand, take out IE and the system (and several of its applications) are seriously impaired.
If your linux distro only comes with KDE and you “take out KDE”, it too is “seriously impaired”. Stop comparing apples and oranges.
Sounds pretty painful to me for no practical benefit (crippled shell, non-standard uninstaller, special program for updates).
Well, the shell isnt crippled. you just don’t have some of the advanced features that can be turned off anyways. My system actually runs a bit better without all the extra crud going. But yeah, removing IE does break stuff that normal users would want. I doubt many users would want to use 3rd party apps for stuff when the built-in ones work fine. I like it though