X-No-Archive: Yes
One reason I changed streaming service providers is becuase Live 365
does not work with Firefox, and I was catching HELL for that. I
just cannot UNDERSTAND why so many people HATE Internet
Explorer. WHAT is so BAD about Internet Explorer to make Live
365 broadcasters lose listeners, after Firefox no longer worked with
the Live 365 player Window?
Volker Birk wrote:
> Beside that, Internet Exploder got its nick name because of a very bad
> track record of security holes.
Which is quite strange, since cross-site scripting (including injection of
code into websites that are trusted by default) is even a well documented
feature. That is, how can someone break security that was never claimed to
be there? :-)
BTW, didn't it also get this name because it made designs explode? Heck, it
even shows HTML comments, this doesn't even get the SGML parsing right.
In article
>
> One reason I changed streaming service providers is becuase Live 365
> does not work with Firefox, and I was catching HELL for that. I
> just cannot UNDERSTAND why so many people HATE Internet
> Explorer. WHAT is so BAD about Internet Explorer to make Live
> 365 broadcasters lose listeners, after Firefox no longer worked with
> the Live 365 player Window?
IE is bad and disliked because it exposes your OS to more than any other
accepted browser does. It does not follow the WWW standards and will
render broken code/pages as it think the coder meant to code them, which
can be a threat.
Personally, the only thing I use IE for is bank sites when FireFox
doesn't work on them, and I use IE for Outlook Web Access to our
Exchange 2003/2007 servers since non-IE browsers don't play well with MS
Made Websites.
When we code we ensure that our sites work with IE6, IE7, FireFox and
Opera. We start with a reloaded image, so that the test station is
virgin, then test on each browser on 2000/XP/Vista and then were
possible on OS/x and Ubuntu and Fedora.
--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Chilly8
> WHAT is so BAD about Internet Explorer
It uses ActiveX as plugin concept, which is a security design flaw,
because ActiveX de facto just is COM, and that means you have access to
all installed software components by scripting a web site.
Beside that, Internet Exploder got its nick name because of a very bad
track record of security holes.
Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X
In article
void@nowhere.lan says...
> IE is bad and disliked because it exposes your OS to more than any other
> accepted browser does. It does not follow the WWW standards and will
> render broken code/pages as it think the coder meant to code them, which
> can be a threat.
The upcoming IE8 will default to standards mode, meaning some sites may
not work if they are coded to be IE-specific!!
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Andrew Rossmann wrote:
> In article
> void@nowhere.lan says...
>> IE is bad and disliked because it exposes your OS to more than any other
>> accepted browser does. It does not follow the WWW standards and will
>> render broken code/pages as it think the coder meant to code them, which
>> can be a threat.
>
> The upcoming IE8 will default to standards mode, meaning some sites may
> not work if they are coded to be IE-specific!!
It still won't be able to display the most simplest standard confirming
websites either. For example:
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
If your browser displays this, it is obviously broken, since this is a
comment!<-->
Among the obvious security and rendering problems over the years, IE is
also a resource hog. q.v. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b9ude
-Gary
Chilly8 wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> One reason I changed streaming service providers is becuase Live 365
> does not work with Firefox, and I was catching HELL for that. I
> just cannot UNDERSTAND why so many people HATE Internet
> Explorer. WHAT is so BAD about Internet Explorer to make Live
> 365 broadcasters lose listeners, after Firefox no longer worked with
> the Live 365 player Window?
>
>
>
>
Many in this thread have given you a variety of good reasons; I'll offer
one more.
One of the reasons IE, and even Office, is disliked is because Microsoft
refuses to accept standards that just about everyone else has agreed upon.
This means anyone involved with webpage/webapp design is basically
forced to program things twice: once to work in IE and once for just
about everything else.
Anywho. Cheers.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:16:29 -0000, Gary
wrote:
>Among the obvious security and rendering problems over the years, IE is
>also a resource hog. q.v. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b9ude
That's nice to know. For a while there Firefox was actually harder on
system resources in comparison with IE.
blessed style wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:16:29 -0000, Gary
> wrote:
>
>> Among the obvious security and rendering problems over the years, IE is
>> also a resource hog. q.v. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b9ude
>
> That's nice to know. For a while there Firefox was actually harder on
> system resources in comparison with IE.
If you leave away 50% of the site because you can't render it, this is easy.
If you don't trade CPU time for doing extensive incremental rendering for a
better user experience, it's even easier.
If you don't need to decompress the data because you don't support it when
combined with E-Tags, it buys you a bit.