New bug in IE
polycounter lvl 19
There's a newly discovered security flaw in Internet Explorer. It's bad enough for Microsoft to warn its customers not to use the browser until there's a fix.
Sux for anyone still on XP too - theirs will never see a fix!
More on it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-cybersecurity-microsoft-browser-idUSBREA3Q0PB20140428
Sux for anyone still on XP too - theirs will never see a fix!
More on it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-cybersecurity-microsoft-browser-idUSBREA3Q0PB20140428
Replies
And I don't feel very bad for XP users. It's time to move on... and to be honest, if you're still on XP, I don't there's much hackers would want from them
Haha, quite. Although I think I remember hearing that there are millions still using XP in China and Asia.
lol, yeah, but isn't that the source of most hackers these days?
My netbook is still using XP, but again, i use chrome on that.
Keep IE handy only for the rare occasion where I need to use an MS service that requires it.
I also do a lot of .NET development at work, which is why I may be a bit biased - but I honestly rarely have trouble with IE. I find Firefox extremely bulky and has a large load time when initially booting up. Google Chrome tends to eat Memory, not close down properly when a window is closed and have runaway tasks, and often bugs out when trying to load the initial page of a new tab - these are all issues that I've run into over the past year or so habitually, that come to mind.
Most of the problems I find in IE are attributed to site developers error and not IE - Not to say that IE doesn't have it's problems, it definitely does - but yeah. Also, not a huge fan of the whole Google bandwagon - especially Android, Android is craptastic.
Speaking of stupid shit, does FF still sync your awesome bar search with whatever search engine you have selected on the side? That made me leave FF, on top of some hearsay that it wears down your SSD because of high amount of writes.
I use chrome now, just because it offends me the least.
There there man; There are those who have to have IEE updates for coding. There fore they need IE.
Lies and heresy! IE stutters and stunts on a lot of standardised practices. It's like a painting platform that doesn't use a photoshop (standardised) UI and so holds everyone back ;') -edit forgot- Except you are forced into having support them along with the other major browsers. I've had to rebuild a entire site just so it displayed & functioned in IE properly.
IE has it's quirks, but chrome has always seen me right after the firefox slowdowns.
So has MS basically said screw every XP user? I know a lot of firms have tailored software that only works on XP and they forked out a lot of have it built, so moving OS is a horrific amount of work to get everything over. I was over in Cambridge the other day and the chain hotels still use XP in a good % of cases.
On further reading, this actually only affects IE itself not XP. Suppose they don't care then!
I find that to be a completely ridiculous statement. IE does not follow standards, and even when they attempt to, they still implement it wrong. Even with html5, they only supported part of the standards. I believe IE10 still detects 'canvas' as an activeX plugin, requiring the user to accept it.
How about recently, where I have to add specific css code, to make IE10's scrollbar render properly, so it doesn't appear over the page content? The fade in scrollbar is a nice touch, but when it's still 15px wide, it tends to cover up any controls on the right side of a menu bar.
Not to mention, no other browser requires code to check for the version number, so you run the correct supported code. In chrome, and firefox, it just works. Sure, there are times that versions add new features, that old versions won't support, but firefox and chrome are MUCH better at that.
Bah, now I've started ranting... I honestly just don't understand why MS doesn't do a better job of following standards, instead of trying to reinvent them. Focus on other things, like better javascript, and rendering speeds (which it is good at).
Sorry, going to have to disagree with you here. If anyone is calling the shots and pulling the leashes on standards, it's Google.
There's one person in the world that controls the direction of HTML5...ONE! That person is Ian Hickson, and guess who's payroll he's on? Google's.
Anything that goes into the HTML5 standards has to be approved by him, that's how the whole HTML5 thing is rolling now. You can even find archived emails on W3C where he admits that certain ideas that were thrown into the standard, that make absolutely no sense, were just stuff that he thought was "cool" and was on his white board. There's no bearing for this sort of thing, especially in the web development industry - and especially when web data and current best practices are being thrown out the window.
So of course Google Chrome's browser works better with HTML5 websites, they have the person calling all the shots telling them what needs to be pushed out in the next release of Chrome.
Furthermore, if I was Microsoft - I would be quite hesitant on doing anything with HTML5 too. So far, it's been a marketing gimmick with the orange HTML5 logo and branding everywhere that's pointless. The standard is still well into it's infancy...kind of sound familiar? It sounds familiar to me too, it sounds like XML 2.0.
Take a look at most websites with an HTML5 logo and you'll find that there's nothing related to HTML5 in it at all, it's just a changed DOCTYPE - an HTML5 boilerplate that's using nothing HTML5.
Oh, and don't get me started on <header> <footer> <aside> <nav>...that BS is crazy and goes against everything that I know as a developer. <div> is reusable, and scalable. Sure, looking through a bajillion <div>'s can get ridiculous - but the only person who's at fault for that is the web developer for not properly commenting out their code - lazy coders, who would of thunk it? When something is reusable, you use it. When you start getting into specialty tags that do the same thing - that's bad coding, and goes against everything we've worked for, for the past 20 years.
I'm not a web developer (thank god) but I know enough from being an LOB developer to know that the web development community is still some of the most sloppiest, disorganized bunch of developers I've come into contact with. Web development as a whole is sloppy - nothing is standardized, and when it is there's a half dozen standards that no one seems to follow anyways. Not to state that every web developer is, but looking at the majority it's a fairly safe observation to make.
I don't hate change, change is good and the web development community has needed it for quite some time. When WHATWG came around and circumvented W3C, the web development community praised it as a sign for change. You immediately had bandwagoners jumping on board to something that didn't even have a functioning board to begin development of the specifications for HTML5. Eventually one was created, but after a couple of years of hype. The way I see it is, the web development community needs change but as it stands right now HTML5 is more of a marketing gimmick for Ian Hickson's own egotistical needs than it is for listening to the web development community and actually standardizing things.
Which is why I will continue to not get into web development, and if I need to put something on the web I'll continue to use ASP.NET - less maintenance, much more stable and targeted towards business.
I develop with ASP.net too... currently for web applications. I rarely use any of the asp controls though, unless there is a very specific need. Most of my calls are going through AJAX now, and using jQuery/javascript/bootstrap to manipulate the presentation. Every js library I use, has tried moving toward a smaller, more efficient package, which always involves losing support for IE < 9. This is why most sites haven't moved into HTML5... because too many clients/users still use obsolete versions of IE. That's why there is so much praise about moving away from XP, since it maxes users out at IE8.
And I know what you're getting at, with the new elements, but if you think they are bad, then you don't understand why they exist. They were all put into place, so browsers would have a standard interpretation. Most web developers were already using DIVs, and naming them 'header', 'footer', 'menu', etc.. Except they aren't consistently named that, so the browsers can't make assumptions based on the developers feelings that day. Why is it important? For one, these are important navigational aids, for people with impairments. More about this
Additionally, most sites are still designed by people who are caught in their ways. They've always used DIVs, and they'll continue using DIVs. That's likely why you don't see the adoption yet. It may seem like a gimmick right now, but honestly, the HTML5 standard isn't supposed to be a 'requirement' until 2015, to give time for browser integration. My point is, MS was lagging everyone else, because firefox and chrome, are already supporting these standards. Hell, I think Opera is too, but I having used it in a while now.
Oh, and don't get me started on compatibility mode... again, something other browsers don't require... because they've done their best to follow standards throughout time.
And, to be honest, the browser culture is one of the reasons I've never liked developing for the web. Prior to this job, I was developing windows applications, to control external hardware. It's nice having definitive control over your applications, and no chance of someone clicking a 'back' button, or randomly appearing on a page, without its context.