As security holes continue to multiply in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser, consumers and enterprise users alike are paying more attention to alternative browsers. After all, Microsoft hasn’t upgraded its starship software package since before the release of Windows XP. Numerous alternative browsers are now available to give Microsoft a run for the money. Microsoft’s IE is free, but it comes with a cost. It is embedded in the operating system and can’t be turned off.
I'm using Firefox 1.0 and IE 6.whatever on WinXp with SP2. I've set Firefox as my default browser. I only ever get IE pop up if I click a link in MSN Messenger. Since I abandoned Outlook for Thunderbird (God Bless the email client Gods) and Hotmail for GMail, I rarely ever see IE anymore. In fact, I can honestly say I can't recall the last time it popped open. If only everyone could have the IE-less bliss that I do, the world would be a better place.
For those using Firefox and IE of necessity there are simple entensions downloadable frmo the extensions plage to add an Open in IE and open in Firefox option the popup menus for opening links in the respective browsers. I can use this to open applications poorly enough coded to require a specific browser (as by using MS's ActiveX to avoid coding things portably or in Java.) The more serious problem is that the explorer DLL is not a documented interface, otherwise there would be lots of nice little drop in replacements. This was part of Gates epiphany, just build the core of whatever market it wants to destroy into the kernel and call it from all MS software. Fortunately there are better mailers than Outlook and IM tools than MSN Messenger so to avoid Explorer just avoid the MS suite, and you can still itneroperate but with many fewer problems.
SecureIE?? What if what is insecure is in the core browser code? Give me a break. I will admit that I was amazed how much faster IE could be when I tried a 'fake' browser called NetSight, which was used for some special tricks in the AI movie promo games, however the problem isn't just (or ever) related to all the garbage MS staples to the core. You would have to replace damn near everything about IE to 'secure' it and even then, you can't do anything about all those bugs that make everything using IE a security risk. Why? Because wrapping a new shell and more stable controls around the main browser core doesn't fix anything. Outlook and other applications that use IE components don't use any of the 'broken' stuff a third party can actually fix. - But besides that... There is a more fundimental issue. The defacto-standard is proprietary. You may as well ask why you can't buy a Japanese car with a Russian engine in it. Yeah, you might, with the right equipment, cobble them together, but you have to have the tools and parts. Microsoft will sell you the parts, and laugh all the way to the bank, but try making any of the parts it on your own... Oops, you can't, no source code available. And why would you. The only thing ever broken in IE's 'defacto' standard is ActiveX, which they could have added, but chose not to, precisely because it was **the** number one source of security risks. Duh! - In any case, Lol seems to be missing the point, much like everyone else. In there world there are only two 'facts': a) IE and all other browsers are just as inherently insecure and b) IE gets more problems because it is more widely used. Problem is, (a) is opinion, not fact backed by any sort of evidence. MS releases 5,000 security patches to 'fix' things, most related to IE and its business as usually. Someone finds '1' flaw in an alternative, and even if it was in the PHP design, which ironically effects IE itself, it is held up as proof that others are just as bad. - Here is a clue. If you try to support de-facto standards that are 'broken' or just flat out wrong according to the standards of the real specifications (and the features themselves don't do anything you couldn't have done without breaking the standard), and you try to support the standard at the same time, neither will work right. Microsoft knows this, which is why they break the standard or more or less ignore it everytime you turn around. Its part of their marketing strategy. "Who cares if developers, users, W3C people or even our own customers are stupidly inconvenienced, they have to keep buying our version for anything to work." Nope, we just have to pull the rug out from under your feet hard enough to get your real attention and we are getting closer to having enough fed up and annoyed regular users and professionals to do it.
Loading ...
Try Using Alternative Browsers: Microsoft Dares You
Posted by: Jack M. Germain January 1, 2005 01:30 AMAs security holes continue to multiply in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser, consumers and enterprise users alike are paying more attention to alternative browsers. After all, Microsoft hasn’t upgraded its starship software package since before the release of Windows XP. Numerous alternative browsers are now available to give Microsoft a run for the money. Microsoft’s IE is free, but it comes with a cost. It is embedded in the operating system and can’t be turned off.
The more serious problem is that the explorer DLL is not a documented interface, otherwise there would be lots of nice little drop in replacements. This was part of Gates epiphany, just build the core of whatever market it wants to destroy into the kernel and call it from all MS software. Fortunately there are better mailers than Outlook and IM tools than MSN Messenger so to avoid Explorer just avoid the MS suite, and you can still itneroperate but with many fewer problems.
-
But besides that... There is a more fundimental issue. The defacto-standard is proprietary. You may as well ask why you can't buy a Japanese car with a Russian engine in it. Yeah, you might, with the right equipment, cobble them together, but you have to have the tools and parts. Microsoft will sell you the parts, and laugh all the way to the bank, but try making any of the parts it on your own... Oops, you can't, no source code available. And why would you. The only thing ever broken in IE's 'defacto' standard is ActiveX, which they could have added, but chose not to, precisely because it was **the** number one source of security risks. Duh!
-
In any case, Lol seems to be missing the point, much like everyone else. In there world there are only two 'facts': a) IE and all other browsers are just as inherently insecure and b) IE gets more problems because it is more widely used. Problem is, (a) is opinion, not fact backed by any sort of evidence. MS releases 5,000 security patches to 'fix' things, most related to IE and its business as usually. Someone finds '1' flaw in an alternative, and even if it was in the PHP design, which ironically effects IE itself, it is held up as proof that others are just as bad.
-
Here is a clue. If you try to support de-facto standards that are 'broken' or just flat out wrong according to the standards of the real specifications (and the features themselves don't do anything you couldn't have done without breaking the standard), and you try to support the standard at the same time, neither will work right. Microsoft knows this, which is why they break the standard or more or less ignore it everytime you turn around. Its part of their marketing strategy. "Who cares if developers, users, W3C people or even our own customers are stupidly inconvenienced, they have to keep buying our version for anything to work." Nope, we just have to pull the rug out from under your feet hard enough to get your real attention and we are getting closer to having enough fed up and annoyed regular users and professionals to do it.