IE will look, feel and essentially be depricated for web browsing.

Next up to bat Android is about to hit a home run. I think it's pretty cool how Mozilla and Google tag teamed to wipe out their competition.

And it actually worked. Most of the really good MS employees now work there anyway so it's no surprise.

As a web developer and DBA, I must say good riddance. The only browser that ever ate up $60/hour customer time was IE. IE has wasted billions of dollars in developer hours for what amounts to bad design and programming obscurities and probably contributed to the economic disaster this past year by wasting resources.

GOOD RIDDANCE!

A clue: You need to add all the "IE" versions together if you want to talk about just "IE". Once you do that (IE6 + IE7 + IE8), your argument falls flat on its face.

but "probably contributed to the economic disaster this past year by wasting resources." LOL, ROFTL that's just pure crapp ... at least stick with reality.

yes, IE6 should be retired that i agree with. but the rest of your rant seems rather lame.

figuerres said:

"The only browser that ever at up $60/hour customer time was IE."  perhaps you mean "ate up?

but "probably contributed to the economic disaster this past year by wasting resources." LOL, ROFTL that's just pure crapp ... at least stick with reality.

yes, IE6 should be retired that i agree with. but the rest of your rant seems rather lame.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-yearly-2008-2009

that page is more interesting and more usefull...

i see that opera, safari,chrome and all the rest are very flat. ok firefox is climbing a few points and ie has dropped a few ok so? not like it went from 70% to 10% ... and not like firefox has "crossed over" ... now if that trend keeps up perhaps next year they might have a meeting point.

Most people won't care. Video is so fragmented each browser needs a different codec and so video will remain served by Flash and to a less extent Firefox. SVG is a niche format. Worker threads are a developer feature and 3D DOM scripting is, err, is what exactly? <canvas /> is 2D. What is this mysterious 3d you're going on about? (Oh and dear god but it's slow under Firefox.)

figuerres said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-yearly-2008-2009

that page is more interesting and more usefull...

i see that opera, safari,chrome and all the rest are very flat. ok firefox is climbing a few points and ie has dropped a few ok so? not like it went from 70% to 10% ... and not like firefox has "crossed over" ... now if that trend keeps up perhaps next year they might have a meeting point.

I'm not going to argue, but consider that your graph is using data that is over a year and a half old while the one I posted is current.

"Video is so fragmented each browser needs a different codec"

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#attr-source-type

Mozilla and Google have agreed on default support for ogg. I don't believe that the video DOM object has a tag for changing the encoding type, only a canPlay filter for js and a source type filter.

"so video will remain served by Flash"

Flash only plays flv encoded video and audio frames.

figuerres said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-yearly-2008-2009

that page is more interesting and more usefull...

i see that opera, safari,chrome and all the rest are very flat. ok firefox is climbing a few points and ie has dropped a few ok so? not like it went from 70% to 10% ... and not like firefox has "crossed over" ... now if that trend keeps up perhaps next year they might have a meeting point.

They would cross over in 2012. IE would still have 12% in 2018 (what's with that date anyways?). Firefox wouldn't pass IE's current number till 2019.

Sorry OP, you're going to be stuck supporting IE for a while.

DCMonkey said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

They would cross over in 2012. IE would still have 12% in 2018 (what's with that date anyways?). Firefox wouldn't pass IE's current number till 2019.

Sorry OP, you're going to be stuck supporting IE for a while.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-US-daily-20080701-20090705

I can't wait for the day when we don't have to support IE at all any more. There is no bigger waste of time.

May28th2018 said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

I'm not going to argue, but consider that your graph is using data that is over a year and a half old while the one I posted is current.

"Video is so fragmented each browser needs a different codec"

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#attr-source-type

Mozilla and Google have agreed on default support for ogg. I don't believe that the video DOM object has a tag for changing the encoding type, only a canPlay filter for js and a source type filter.

"so video will remain served by Flash"

Flash only plays flv encoded video and audio frames.

The W3C has given up trying to get them to agree.

Apple refuse to implement Ogg and went with H.264. Opera refuse to use H.264 because of the licensing costs. Google use H.264 and Ogg but can't redistribute H.264 in an open source way and say Ogg just isn't ready for sites like YouTube. Mozilla refuses H.264 because of patent problems.

So you have two browsers not supporting the prefered format for the web's main video site YouTube. And there's no way to nominate a codec in the spec. So how exactly is this going to work?

(And again users don't care what format their video is in as long as it gets shown. And Flash supported H.264 in Flash 9 in December 2007. Flash works right now. Users see the piano playing kitten. That's all they care about)

May28th2018 said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-US-daily-20080701-20090705

I can't wait for the day when we don't have to support IE at all any more. There is no bigger waste of time.

Why not stop now? I'm sure IE users will weep at the loss of access to your blog.

May28th2018 said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-US-daily-20080701-20090705

I can't wait for the day when we don't have to support IE at all any more. There is no bigger waste of time.

Are you sure you want to stick to those figures?

On 7/1/2008 - FireFox: 26.69%

On 7/5/2009 - FireFox: 29.32%

More than a year, for not even a 3% gain? David indeed...

May28th2018 said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-US-daily-20080701-20090705

I can't wait for the day when we don't have to support IE at all any more. There is no bigger waste of time.

I don't think it is going to happen in your lifetime, though. I hope you believe in reincarnation.

Once again, you seem to keep ignoring the fact that you need to add IE6 + IE7 + IE8 in those graphs.  It looks "good" when you put on blinders and only look at IE7 by itself in that graph, while showing all FF versions together.  Not sure why the graph shows it like that. Is there only one version of FF?  I guess it makes anti-MS fanboys happy.

Interestingly enough, when you switch to OS share on that same site, once again it gives Win 2000, XP and Vista (Win7?) each in it's own curve, yet shows OS X as one version.  I guess there is only one version of OS X then. Weird. Or maybe putting all MS OSes into the same curve will be too painful for anti-MS fanboys? Not sure.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-daily-20080701-20090705

BTW, what is that RED thing flat-lining at the bottom?

May28th2018 said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-US-daily-20080701-20090705

I can't wait for the day when we don't have to support IE at all any more. There is no bigger waste of time.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-daily-20080701-20090705

You know there is a world outside of the US right? And on a global scale, Firefox is only marginally ahead of IE6.

What is very apparent from those graphs (in so much as such things can be accurate) is that adoption of newer versions of Firefox is much quicker than adoption of newer versions of IE. Which probably fits in with the general consensus that Firefox is mostly used by early adopter types and doesn't have much take up in enterprises, where a version change isn't something that happens lightly.

AndyC said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-daily-20080701-20090705

You know there is a world outside of the US right? And on a global scale, Firefox is only marginally ahead of IE6.

What is very apparent from those graphs (in so much as such things can be accurate) is that adoption of newer versions of Firefox is much quicker than adoption of newer versions of IE. Which probably fits in with the general consensus that Firefox is mostly used by early adopter types and doesn't have much take up in enterprises, where a version change isn't something that happens lightly.

From these charts it seems that Chrome completely died out... strange... I wonder how valid the data is. Is Chrome really no longer used?

littleguru said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

From these charts it seems that Chrome completely died out... strange... I wonder how valid the data is. Is Chrome really no longer used?

Chrome just doesn't really have a market that truely wants it: the trendies/hipsters and techies are more likely to use Firefox which is significantly more customizable (e.g. Adblock) and already has a massive ecosystem surrounding it. Then there's Chrome's massive memory usage to contend with: the situation with plugins is not bad enough to warrant process-per-tab design.

Ultimately had Google introduced Chrome in 2004 it would have stopped Firefox from getting anywhere, but it's just a product that nobody feels they need. It's like Metacafe and Vimeo trying to take on YouTube.

AndyC said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-daily-20080701-20090705

You know there is a world outside of the US right? And on a global scale, Firefox is only marginally ahead of IE6.

What is very apparent from those graphs (in so much as such things can be accurate) is that adoption of newer versions of Firefox is much quicker than adoption of newer versions of IE. Which probably fits in with the general consensus that Firefox is mostly used by early adopter types and doesn't have much take up in enterprises, where a version change isn't something that happens lightly.

Also because Firefox completely drops support for older versions.

CreamFilling512 said:

IE 7 and 8 made huge leaps in standards support, why are you assuming they're going to stop now?

Where is Microsoft's roadmap on HTML5 implementation ?
Where are the IE HTML5 milestones?

(birds chirping...)

May28th2018 said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

Where is Microsoft's roadmap on HTML5 implementation ?
Where are the IE HTML5 milestones?

(birds chirping...)

HTML5 is nowhere near finalisation, you know that MS doesn't implement non-final specifications so why raise the point?

W3bbo said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

HTML5 is nowhere near finalisation, you know that MS doesn't implement non-final specifications so why raise the point?

Somebody needs to relocate to Excuseville, WA.

May28th2018 said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Somebody needs to relocate to Excuseville, WA.

Where is Mozilla full support for HTML5? Are they doing their usual half-assed support thinghie?

Pathetic.

May28th2018 said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Somebody needs to relocate to Excuseville, WA.

What's your obession with W3bbo? He's one of the most vocal MS cynics on this board

May28th2018 said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

Where is Microsoft's roadmap on HTML5 implementation ?
Where are the IE HTML5 milestones?

(birds chirping...)

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Why should someone implement something that might change from one day to the other?

The Open Web platform (HTML/CSS/JS) has to compete against Flash, not Internet Explorer or Silverlight.  It's interesting that Internet Explorer's lack of adoption of HTML 5/CSS 3 strengthens Adobe's position, not Microsoft's.

May28th2018 said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

Where is Microsoft's roadmap on HTML5 implementation ?
Where are the IE HTML5 milestones?

(birds chirping...)

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5.htm

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/dd638025.aspx

and the std is not complete so they are working on it ... no one has it 100% cause it is not yet a "standard"

figuerres said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5.htm

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/dd638025.aspx

and the std is not complete so they are working on it ... no one has it 100% cause it is not yet a "standard"

Won't be a standard until a couple of browsers have implemented it.. so uh- what comes first.

blowdart said:

When most people experience HTML5 SVG/video/audio DOM, worker threads, and DOM 3D scripting that should finish IE off for good.

Most people won't care. Video is so fragmented each browser needs a different codec and so video will remain served by Flash and to a less extent Firefox. SVG is a niche format. Worker threads are a developer feature and 3D DOM scripting is, err, is what exactly? <canvas /> is 2D. What is this mysterious 3d you're going on about? (Oh and dear god but it's slow under Firefox.)

People may not care about or have any oppinion about the software infrastructure of a browser but what they will care about is whether their browser can run that cool page (application) that they just browsed to. - A developer feature is a user (experience) feature by proxy, whether they realize it or not.

littleguru said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Why should someone implement something that might change from one day to the other?

W3C specifications only hit the final "TR" stage when there are at least two independent implementations. This does create a chicken/egg scenario for Microsoft as they won't implement specifications until they're finalised, which means it's up to the more flexible and supple development groups at Mozilla, Apple, and Opera to implement them first, which means IE will always have to play catch-up.

Microsoft needs to change their policy so they'll at least implement the major things that are unlikely to change, like rounded corners and client-side databases,

exoteric said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

People may not care about or have any oppinion about the software infrastructure of a browser but what they will care about is whether their browser can run that cool page (application) that they just browsed to. - A developer feature is a user (experience) feature by proxy, whether they realize it or not.

I disagree. What we're talking about here are things flash and silverlight already do and do well. People watch video through flash on YouTube and play games on PopCap with it. Cool is not a sufficent reason for non-geeks at all. Developers that implement things just to be cool will always play second fiddle to developers that actually develop for their users.

W3bbo said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

W3C specifications only hit the final "TR" stage when there are at least two independent implementations. This does create a chicken/egg scenario for Microsoft as they won't implement specifications until they're finalised, which means it's up to the more flexible and supple development groups at Mozilla, Apple, and Opera to implement them first, which means IE will always have to play catch-up.

Microsoft needs to change their policy so they'll at least implement the major things that are unlikely to change, like rounded corners and client-side databases,

"This does create a chicken/egg scenario for Microsoft as they won't implement specifications until they're finalised,"

They won't release a version of IE which implements draft versions, that doesn't mean they don't have one or aren't working on one.

blowdart said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

I disagree. What we're talking about here are things flash and silverlight already do and do well. People watch video through flash on YouTube and play games on PopCap with it. Cool is not a sufficent reason for non-geeks at all. Developers that implement things just to be cool will always play second fiddle to developers that actually develop for their users.

The question is whether developers will use these features and create compelling applications with them - talking about the full palette of features being implemented in browsers atm. I'm not convinced developers will not touch them because Silverlight and Flash exists.

exoteric said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

The question is whether developers will use these features and create compelling applications with them - talking about the full palette of features being implemented in browsers atm. I'm not convinced developers will not touch them because Silverlight and Flash exists.

On a personal note:  HTTP and HTML are getting so overloaded with stuff... IMHO

figuerres said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

On a personal note:  HTTP and HTML are getting so overloaded with stuff... IMHO

What is HTTP getting overloaded with?  The standard hasn't changed since HTTP 1.1 was finalized in 1997.

figuerres said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

On a personal note:  HTTP and HTML are getting so overloaded with stuff... IMHO

^ This, with a vengeance. I hate writing web applications. It's my job, but I hate it. I hate having to ditch smooth development of rich desktop applications in favor of having to write unreliable hacks in a language that's intended to display pages about cats rather than serve as an application framework. In order to work around the many disadvantages web applications have over rich client applications, we keep stacking more and more stuff on it, like AJAX and whatnot, and it just becomes more and more of an unworkable mess.

Whenever I'm writing a web application, the ways in which I have to stuggle and wrestle with http, HTML, Javascript and CSS to do what I want feel like I'm using a wheelbarrow to push a dead horse over a finish line.

So because we've all collectively decided that we should just keep adding to these awful outdated technologies to bring applications to the web, my job consists of pushing a dead horse over a finish line, using a wobbly wheelbarrow. Every. Single. Day.

Lately, I've opted to to try and automate our development process rather than write more web stuff. I'm actually preferring having to wrestle with the EnvDTE namespaces, rather than writing for the web. It's that bad.

CannotResolveSymbol said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

What is HTTP getting overloaded with?  The standard hasn't changed since HTTP 1.1 was finalized in 1997.

doing more and more stuff ... it was designed to deliver web pages and is stateless

today we have hacked it into servering applications, having state on the server, doing web services, rss, streaming data/video/audio/other files.

sure using port 80 and http makes dealing with firewalls simple. but at some point dumping all this traffic and more on to http just gets silly. we do have other ports and we might be better served by having a few standard transports for non-html data interchnage.

not the end of the world... just seems like we have made a mess that at some point should be re-thought to make things a bit cleaner.

and possibly better with good examination of what we are doing and planning to do.

Bas said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

^ This, with a vengeance. I hate writing web applications. It's my job, but I hate it. I hate having to ditch smooth development of rich desktop applications in favor of having to write unreliable hacks in a language that's intended to display pages about cats rather than serve as an application framework. In order to work around the many disadvantages web applications have over rich client applications, we keep stacking more and more stuff on it, like AJAX and whatnot, and it just becomes more and more of an unworkable mess.

Whenever I'm writing a web application, the ways in which I have to stuggle and wrestle with http, HTML, Javascript and CSS to do what I want feel like I'm using a wheelbarrow to push a dead horse over a finish line.

So because we've all collectively decided that we should just keep adding to these awful outdated technologies to bring applications to the web, my job consists of pushing a dead horse over a finish line, using a wobbly wheelbarrow. Every. Single. Day.

Lately, I've opted to to try and automate our development process rather than write more web stuff. I'm actually preferring having to wrestle with the EnvDTE namespaces, rather than writing for the web. It's that bad.

I think a lot of the problem is how ill-conceived the basic/fundamental existing stuff is. That's certainly what seems to waste much of my time whenever I design a webpage. We don't so much need new stuff as better stuff. Most web standards should be taken outside and set fire to, then replaced with something better, except it's too late now and we're stuck with the stupid things.

I mean, who the heck creates a layout system that doesn't allow for one item's x and y positions, widths, heights, etc. to be relative to other items'? (Sure, CSS can do it in a few cases, but they are exceptions and not the rule. You cannot say that one div should have the same height and half the width, and be placed relative to, another arbitrary div. You definitely cannot take properties from multiple other divs. What an absolute crock of failure.)

Then again, I could say the same about most desktop UI frameworks.

Basic XML itself is okay and useful but the technologies (and specs, documentation/books/etc.) layered on top of XML are pretty awful, on the whole. (Pet hate: Specs/docs which talk about things they haven't actually defined yet, without even telling you they haven't defined them yet, for great confusion, re-reading and wondering if you accidentally skipped a page somewhere.) I mean, if XSLT didn't suck so much it could've done what CSS does so much better, IMO. As it is, I'd sooner convert XML content into HTML via C# or C++ code than mess with XSLT, and that can't be right.

littleguru said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Why should someone implement something that might change from one day to the other?

And if MSFT does implement it and it changes, then MSFT gets roasted over the coals for not following standards.

Bas said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

^ This, with a vengeance. I hate writing web applications. It's my job, but I hate it. I hate having to ditch smooth development of rich desktop applications in favor of having to write unreliable hacks in a language that's intended to display pages about cats rather than serve as an application framework. In order to work around the many disadvantages web applications have over rich client applications, we keep stacking more and more stuff on it, like AJAX and whatnot, and it just becomes more and more of an unworkable mess.

Whenever I'm writing a web application, the ways in which I have to stuggle and wrestle with http, HTML, Javascript and CSS to do what I want feel like I'm using a wheelbarrow to push a dead horse over a finish line.

So because we've all collectively decided that we should just keep adding to these awful outdated technologies to bring applications to the web, my job consists of pushing a dead horse over a finish line, using a wobbly wheelbarrow. Every. Single. Day.

Lately, I've opted to to try and automate our development process rather than write more web stuff. I'm actually preferring having to wrestle with the EnvDTE namespaces, rather than writing for the web. It's that bad.

Bas, fancy swapping jobs?

W3bbo said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Bas, fancy swapping jobs?

Depends on what you do, really, but I'm open to the suggestion.

Bas said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Depends on what you do, really, but I'm open to the suggestion.

W3bbo is a gigollo for the rich & famous.

TommyCarlier said:

Bas said:

*snip*

W3bbo is a gigollo for the rich & famous.

It's a deal.

Bas said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Depends on what you do, really, but I'm open to the suggestion.

I'm a student currently in his holiday time who wakes up at 1300h every day, gets washed/breakfast, arses around with his current pet project, then gets dinner, then goes to bed at 0200h. This cycle is getting repetitive and depressing.

I've done subcontractor work for other C9 forum members in the past with positive feedback, so if you've got a job that could use my web skillz and isn't too badly paying I'd do it for you.

W3bbo said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I'm a student currently in his holiday time who wakes up at 1300h every day, gets washed/breakfast, arses around with his current pet project, then gets dinner, then goes to bed at 0200h. This cycle is getting repetitive and depressing.

I've done subcontractor work for other C9 forum members in the past with positive feedback, so if you've got a job that could use my web skillz and isn't too badly paying I'd do it for you.

Did you do some/all the work on Anolis.Resourcer? Nice work if so. Seems a great app!

joechung said:

Internet Explorer isn't dead, not by a long shot.

The Open Web platform (HTML/CSS/JS) has to compete against Flash, not Internet Explorer or Silverlight.  It's interesting that Internet Explorer's lack of adoption of HTML 5/CSS 3 strengthens Adobe's position, not Microsoft's.

I can totally agree that FF3 killed FF2 and Chrome. And from June 2009 to July 2009, IE8 obviously killed both IE7 and FF3. Just look at the chart. Both IE7 and FF3 drops when IE8 rise. Now, oh no no no, that's screaminging IE8 taking over the world, the end is ni.

LeoDavidson said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Did you do some/all the work on Anolis.Resourcer? Nice work if so. Seems a great app!

 

Yes. Thought Sven Groot deserves some credit for helping me figure out some nasty bits involving PInvoke.

LeoDavidson said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I think a lot of the problem is how ill-conceived the basic/fundamental existing stuff is. That's certainly what seems to waste much of my time whenever I design a webpage. We don't so much need new stuff as better stuff. Most web standards should be taken outside and set fire to, then replaced with something better, except it's too late now and we're stuck with the stupid things.

I mean, who the heck creates a layout system that doesn't allow for one item's x and y positions, widths, heights, etc. to be relative to other items'? (Sure, CSS can do it in a few cases, but they are exceptions and not the rule. You cannot say that one div should have the same height and half the width, and be placed relative to, another arbitrary div. You definitely cannot take properties from multiple other divs. What an absolute crock of failure.)

Then again, I could say the same about most desktop UI frameworks.

Basic XML itself is okay and useful but the technologies (and specs, documentation/books/etc.) layered on top of XML are pretty awful, on the whole. (Pet hate: Specs/docs which talk about things they haven't actually defined yet, without even telling you they haven't defined them yet, for great confusion, re-reading and wondering if you accidentally skipped a page somewhere.) I mean, if XSLT didn't suck so much it could've done what CSS does so much better, IMO. As it is, I'd sooner convert XML content into HTML via C# or C++ code than mess with XSLT, and that can't be right.

 

Sounds more like you're underpaid. Otherwise you wouldn't really care. I can't say I *really* care about it, except that IE just makes my job annoying. IE7 caused a huge problem today as a matter of fact where it was switching a DOM element between absolute and relative positioning for no reason at all when the CSS on the element was fixed at relative positioning. This was caused by the user simply clicking random points on the screen and anchor tags before the page load had completed.

There is no firebug to edit CSS variables in real time and IE6, 7, 8, oh why the hell not, even 9 just sucks. I haven't used 9 yet, but from historical development, I already know it will suck.

Just to test in IE6, I have to start a virtual machine and go into Windows XP to run multiple IEs. What a complete joke. FF runs side by side on any operating system.

What a horrible joke that such shoddy development got 90% of the market share.

At least when I come home I get to do PHP programming with ZF, and Java programming where I don't have to care if it works in IE.

If this keeps going I'm going to have to use Google App Engine exclusively.

May28th2018 said:

LeoDavidson said:

*snip*

Sounds more like you're underpaid. Otherwise you wouldn't really care. I can't say I *really* care about it, except that IE just makes my job annoying. IE7 caused a huge problem today as a matter of fact where it was switching a DOM element between absolute and relative positioning for no reason at all when the CSS on the element was fixed at relative positioning. This was caused by the user simply clicking random points on the screen and anchor tags before the page load had completed.

There is no firebug to edit CSS variables in real time and IE6, 7, 8, oh why the hell not, even 9 just sucks. I haven't used 9 yet, but from historical development, I already know it will suck.

Just to test in IE6, I have to start a virtual machine and go into Windows XP to run multiple IEs. What a complete joke. FF runs side by side on any operating system.

What a horrible joke that such shoddy development got 90% of the market share.

At least when I come home I get to do PHP programming with ZF, and Java programming where I don't have to care if it works in IE.

If this keeps going I'm going to have to use Google App Engine exclusively.

You pretend like there are no possible problems with Firefox.

There is no single application on my machine that crashes, locks up, or just plain breaks more often than Firefox. Since v2 it has refused to update. I have to uninstall it completely and download the latest installer from the website.

At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet.

May28th2018 said:

LeoDavidson said:

*snip*

Sounds more like you're underpaid. Otherwise you wouldn't really care. I can't say I *really* care about it, except that IE just makes my job annoying. IE7 caused a huge problem today as a matter of fact where it was switching a DOM element between absolute and relative positioning for no reason at all when the CSS on the element was fixed at relative positioning. This was caused by the user simply clicking random points on the screen and anchor tags before the page load had completed.

There is no firebug to edit CSS variables in real time and IE6, 7, 8, oh why the hell not, even 9 just sucks. I haven't used 9 yet, but from historical development, I already know it will suck.

Just to test in IE6, I have to start a virtual machine and go into Windows XP to run multiple IEs. What a complete joke. FF runs side by side on any operating system.

What a horrible joke that such shoddy development got 90% of the market share.

At least when I come home I get to do PHP programming with ZF, and Java programming where I don't have to care if it works in IE.

If this keeps going I'm going to have to use Google App Engine exclusively.

ZF looks similar to ASP.NET MVC to me... do you know what exactly the differences are? Would be interesting...

kettch said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

You pretend like there are no possible problems with Firefox.

There is no single application on my machine that crashes, locks up, or just plain breaks more often than Firefox. Since v2 it has refused to update. I have to uninstall it completely and download the latest installer from the website.

At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet.

FF 3.5 on my netbook (Win7 / 1GB / SSD) is just plain broken. Simple pages peg out CPU.

Whereas FF 3.5 on my Mac Mini (OSX / 1 GB) is just the best browsing experience I've ever had.

Go figures.

P.S.

Yet another IE vulnerability. We keep hearing that IE isn't any less safe than other browsers, but why are these stories keep coming up for IE?

littleguru said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

ZF looks similar to ASP.NET MVC to me... do you know what exactly the differences are? Would be interesting...

http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/

RTFM buddy.

There are a million MVC frameworks. Spring/Hibernate for Java(aspect oriented programming), ZF for PHP, ect...

ZF is constantly updated and favored by Google, which is part of why I use it. ZF also has training and certification available where other PHP frameworks do not. ZF has it's own IDE in Zend Studio which refactors the MVC parts automatically and there are other reasons.

ZF seems to include default APIs for the latest vogue SaaS on the web as soon as it becomes available and popular enough. ZF is nothing special as far as MVCs go architecturally except that it is the chosen one.

The first MVC I ever worked with was the dreaded Doc/View SDI/MDI in Microsoft C++. It was so badly crafted and hard to use that it made me hate MVC frameworks for a long time.

May28th2018 said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/

RTFM buddy.

There are a million MVC frameworks. Spring/Hibernate for Java(aspect oriented programming), ZF for PHP, ect...

ZF is constantly updated and favored by Google, which is part of why I use it. ZF also has training and certification available where other PHP frameworks do not. ZF has it's own IDE in Zend Studio which refactors the MVC parts automatically and there are other reasons.

ZF seems to include default APIs for the latest vogue SaaS on the web as soon as it becomes available and popular enough. ZF is nothing special as far as MVCs go architecturally except that it is the chosen one.

The first MVC I ever worked with was the dreaded Doc/View SDI/MDI in Microsoft C++. It was so badly crafted and hard to use that it made me hate MVC frameworks for a long time.

I have seen that ZF is a MVC framework. I was just curious to know how it differs from ASP.NET MVC. I'm not a big fan of PHP and avoid it as much as I can. It would have been nice to see if there's something in that framework that would be nice to have in ASP.NET MVC. That's why I was wondering if there's some charts that compare these both framework...

Nevertheless the framework seems to be nicely crafted. I like the idea of having all components to be independent and yet form a powerful framework when brought together.

littleguru said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

I have seen that ZF is a MVC framework. I was just curious to know how it differs from ASP.NET MVC. I'm not a big fan of PHP and avoid it as much as I can. It would have been nice to see if there's something in that framework that would be nice to have in ASP.NET MVC. That's why I was wondering if there's some charts that compare these both framework...

Nevertheless the framework seems to be nicely crafted. I like the idea of having all components to be independent and yet form a powerful framework when brought together.

You sound lazy. The framework features are documented in a table of contents that I so nicely linked in my last post.

You need to RTFM or STFU. I mean that in the nicest way.

May28th2018 said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

You sound lazy. The framework features are documented in a table of contents that I so nicely linked in my last post.

You need to RTFM or STFU. I mean that in the nicest way.

You sound lazy. The framework features are documented in a table of contents that I so nicely linked in my last post. You need to RTFM or STFU. I mean that in the nicest way.

I can see you getting very quickly on the path of your predecessors...

Be corteous, polite and respectful. Don't assume you know more than anyone else (because you don't) and don't insult other niners.

Minh said:

kettch said:

*snip*

FF 3.5 on my netbook (Win7 / 1GB / SSD) is just plain broken. Simple pages peg out CPU.

Whereas FF 3.5 on my Mac Mini (OSX / 1 GB) is just the best browsing experience I've ever had.

Go figures.

P.S.

Yet another IE vulnerability. We keep hearing that IE isn't any less safe than other browsers, but why are these stories keep coming up for IE?

That's not an IE vulnerability, but an vulnerability with a particular ActiveX control.

Of course ActiveX is IE only... but still it's not a problem with the IE code.

I am sure everyone has their own crappy story about other platforms. We are the developers, shits happens, and we debug. That's not going to happen. Just like those HTML5 standards, assume you get 40% FF3 and 25% FF2 markets, you still need to code HTML4 for that 25% of FF2. Develope backward compatible software is always difficult. And * just happens. If you are so frustrated by web developement, try a software development, at least now you only have to fix your own mess or your teamates' mess.

blowdart said:

Minh said:

*snip*

That's not an IE vulnerability, but an vulnerability with a particular ActiveX control.

Of course ActiveX is IE only... but still it's not a problem with the IE code.

 

The thing is when are we going to kill ActiveX? The whole system seems to have too much freedom for attacks. Why not making something much more protected, like read only or something.

magicalclick said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

The thing is when are we going to kill ActiveX? The whole system seems to have too much freedom for attacks. Why not making something much more protected, like read only or something.

If Flash, PDF, Silverlight, QuickTime, Mesh, and Windows Media, were ported over to a new plugin architecture then I would probably be 95%+ covered.

The remaining cases are all either miscellaneous Microsoft plugins or specialized stuff like WebEx, which I've only used once.

magicalclick said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

The thing is when are we going to kill ActiveX? The whole system seems to have too much freedom for attacks. Why not making something much more protected, like read only or something.

How is it anymore open to attacks than NSAPI?

kettch said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

You pretend like there are no possible problems with Firefox.

There is no single application on my machine that crashes, locks up, or just plain breaks more often than Firefox. Since v2 it has refused to update. I have to uninstall it completely and download the latest installer from the website.

At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet.

"At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet."

It's a fair point. It would almost be forgivable if the HTML rendering was perfect, at least it would make for a good reference renderer. It's not though, it has its own share of unique HTML rendering bugs too.

May28th2018 said:

LeoDavidson said:

*snip*

Sounds more like you're underpaid. Otherwise you wouldn't really care. I can't say I *really* care about it, except that IE just makes my job annoying. IE7 caused a huge problem today as a matter of fact where it was switching a DOM element between absolute and relative positioning for no reason at all when the CSS on the element was fixed at relative positioning. This was caused by the user simply clicking random points on the screen and anchor tags before the page load had completed.

There is no firebug to edit CSS variables in real time and IE6, 7, 8, oh why the hell not, even 9 just sucks. I haven't used 9 yet, but from historical development, I already know it will suck.

Just to test in IE6, I have to start a virtual machine and go into Windows XP to run multiple IEs. What a complete joke. FF runs side by side on any operating system.

What a horrible joke that such shoddy development got 90% of the market share.

At least when I come home I get to do PHP programming with ZF, and Java programming where I don't have to care if it works in IE.

If this keeps going I'm going to have to use Google App Engine exclusively.

WTF does how much I'm paid have to do with anything?

Everyone has better things to do than fight with poorly designed technology (HTML + CSS).

I could be paid $1,000,000 per second I still wouldn't want to waste time fighting with bad tech when I could be getting on with something else. Web design isn't my job or my hobby; it's just a chore I go through to get things on the web. Even if it was my job, and I was paid by the hour rather than by the site, I'd much rather get on with another site instead of have each one take longer over fiddly details which, if CSS wasn't so awful, should be trivial. There's satisfaction in finishing and delivering things and it's more interesting to get something done and move to the next thing than it is to spend forever on boring, tedious work.

I suppose if I was super rich I could pay someone else to do that, but I don't see how that validates your argument.

HTML + CSS suck; end of story. Things don't stop sucking if you're paid a lot for the time they make you waste or if you can pay someone else to hide them from you.

Time is worth more than money.

(And FYI, my last salary was enough that, after resigning for other reasons, I've been able to spend most of the last two years working on pet projects which pay me zero.)

kettch said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

You pretend like there are no possible problems with Firefox.

There is no single application on my machine that crashes, locks up, or just plain breaks more often than Firefox. Since v2 it has refused to update. I have to uninstall it completely and download the latest installer from the website.

At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet.

If you've getting a lot of FF crashes, try removing your extensions. If you still get them then you might need to clear our your Firefox profile (probably due to some junk in it created by an extension).

Extensions are a huge blessing, and the main reason I use Firefox, but they can also cause things to go catastrophically wrong due to being so intertwined with the browser's code.

Firefox 2 and 3 have been very stable for me, FWIW, and when people have a lot of crashes it usually seems to be due to extensions gone wrong. (Of course, it can also be because different people visit different sites and some sites trigger bugs.)

It's like Windows Explorer: If it crashes then 99% of the time it's because of a bad shell extension (and there are a lot of them!). Problem is that Explorer.exe still gets the blame and looks bad.

LeoDavidson said:

kettch said:

*snip*

If you've getting a lot of FF crashes, try removing your extensions. If you still get them then you might need to clear our your Firefox profile (probably due to some junk in it created by an extension).

Extensions are a huge blessing, and the main reason I use Firefox, but they can also cause things to go catastrophically wrong due to being so intertwined with the browser's code.

Firefox 2 and 3 have been very stable for me, FWIW, and when people have a lot of crashes it usually seems to be due to extensions gone wrong. (Of course, it can also be because different people visit different sites and some sites trigger bugs.)

It's like Windows Explorer: If it crashes then 99% of the time it's because of a bad shell extension (and there are a lot of them!). Problem is that Explorer.exe still gets the blame and looks bad.

 

I have no extensions, because I don't use the browser. You aren't pinning the blame for crappy software on the user this time.

AndyC said:

kettch said:

*snip*

"At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet."

It's a fair point. It would almost be forgivable if the HTML rendering was perfect, at least it would make for a good reference renderer. It's not though, it has its own share of unique HTML rendering bugs too.

In my experience cases where Firefox's rendering has differed from WebKit is when it's within the specification, like the default typeface and line-height settings which can be easily overridden in the stylesheet.

Do you have any examples where Firefox has gone against the spec?

kettch said:

LeoDavidson said:

*snip*

I have no extensions, because I don't use the browser. You aren't pinning the blame for crappy software on the user this time.

Fair enough. Might be a bug triggered by pages I don't view or something.

W3bbo said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

In my experience cases where Firefox's rendering has differed from WebKit is when it's within the specification, like the default typeface and line-height settings which can be easily overridden in the stylesheet.

Do you have any examples where Firefox has gone against the spec?

I'm no web expert, I merely hear the swears from across the office. A quick perusal of Twitter feeds apparently reveals that "setting text-decoration on buttons doesn't work" was the latest. Whatever that means?

CreamFilling512 said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

How is it anymore open to attacks than NSAPI?

I didn't think about NSAPI. This is not about comparing who is worse, but to think about a safer way to the same stuff as ActiveX. Something like ReadOnly ActiveX, and then, you have special user granted WriteToMyDocumentOnly ActiveX, and then, the finally Admin granted nasty ActiveX. I think it is better to kill ActiveX and think of something with security in mind.

magicalclick said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

I didn't think about NSAPI. This is not about comparing who is worse, but to think about a safer way to the same stuff as ActiveX. Something like ReadOnly ActiveX, and then, you have special user granted WriteToMyDocumentOnly ActiveX, and then, the finally Admin granted nasty ActiveX. I think it is better to kill ActiveX and think of something with security in mind.

 

PS. I removed the Skype add-in for FF 3.5 and life is good w/ FF 3.5 + Netbook again. Nothing near FF 3.5 on OSX but I'm happy.

PSS. wrt NSAPI... the security note says that the ActiveX control has no business being instantiated by the browser... so if you look at the potential target for NSAPI exploits, it'd be shoddy components interfacing w/ NSAPI. Whereas, exploits targeting ActiveX controls can aim for EVERY ActiveX control written... even if they never were meant for the web.

At least that's my limited knowledge of NSAPI...

kettch said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

You pretend like there are no possible problems with Firefox.

There is no single application on my machine that crashes, locks up, or just plain breaks more often than Firefox. Since v2 it has refused to update. I have to uninstall it completely and download the latest installer from the website.

At this point I don't care if the browser renders everything with pixel perfect precision. I just want it to work! This is why I've relegated FF to being the (red headed) stepchild who gets drug out once in a while for a beating and stuffed back in the closet.

I've found FF is good for using ABC's crappy video player. For some reason they don't recognize the IE8 user agent.

W3bbo said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

W3C specifications only hit the final "TR" stage when there are at least two independent implementations. This does create a chicken/egg scenario for Microsoft as they won't implement specifications until they're finalised, which means it's up to the more flexible and supple development groups at Mozilla, Apple, and Opera to implement them first, which means IE will always have to play catch-up.

Microsoft needs to change their policy so they'll at least implement the major things that are unlikely to change, like rounded corners and client-side databases,

I somewhat agree with your opinion that Microsoft needs to make a move and be more active. But implementing the standard partially is also not a good solution. IE had been non standard in the past and have bad reputations, even now after IE is fully standard. You definitely do not want make those people to come back and start pointing fingers at IE anymore.

What I think Microsoft needs to do is to have some kind of a fork from ie for community review. Whatever they call this product, this will completely for review only and will never see an official release. The product may only consist of the trident engine without any bells and whistles on it. That way Microsoft can get community reviews while contributing to the standardization process. Microsoft can even put a proof of concept on new suggestions there and noone will probably complains about it.

magicalclick said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

The thing is when are we going to kill ActiveX? The whole system seems to have too much freedom for attacks. Why not making something much more protected, like read only or something.

Short of pushing out an update disabling ActiveX under IE and XP, which would make loads of business software and numerous websites all of a sudden non-functional, what else should they do (other than patch whatever needs to be patched, of course)?

Seeing as the latest vulnerability is mitigated completely in Windows Vista and Windows 7 due to it's improved security, I would say they've done what they needed to do as far as ActiveX without breaking existing applications that depend on it.  

If a seven year old operating system and web browser is as much a security problem as it's perceived to be and there's evidence that Vista and Windows 7 solve those, I'm pretty confident as to what the logical answer is.

AndyC said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

I'm no web expert, I merely hear the swears from across the office. A quick perusal of Twitter feeds apparently reveals that "setting text-decoration on buttons doesn't work" was the latest. Whatever that means?

text-decoration:; works fine on <button /> but I don't know about <input type="button/submit" />. But that's a very minor thing, why would you want underlined or strike-through on text on a button anyway?

Little tidbit: <button type="submit" /> isn't correctly implemented in IE6 so you can't use it in ASP.NET without some hackery. Also PocketIE doesn't support it at all, despite being finalised over 10 years ago.

W3bbo said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

text-decoration:; works fine on <button /> but I don't know about <input type="button/submit" />. But that's a very minor thing, why would you want underlined or strike-through on text on a button anyway?

Little tidbit: <button type="submit" /> isn't correctly implemented in IE6 so you can't use it in ASP.NET without some hackery. Also PocketIE doesn't support it at all, despite being finalised over 10 years ago.

W3bbo said:

you can't use it in ASP.NET without some hackery.

How so? I've run and used ASP.NET with IE6, even including AJAX, with no problems. Care to clarify?

fknight said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

Short of pushing out an update disabling ActiveX under IE and XP, which would make loads of business software and numerous websites all of a sudden non-functional, what else should they do (other than patch whatever needs to be patched, of course)?

Seeing as the latest vulnerability is mitigated completely in Windows Vista and Windows 7 due to it's improved security, I would say they've done what they needed to do as far as ActiveX without breaking existing applications that depend on it.  

If a seven year old operating system and web browser is as much a security problem as it's perceived to be and there's evidence that Vista and Windows 7 solve those, I'm pretty confident as to what the logical answer is.

 

While that Vista and Win7 is protected someone, that doesn't change the fact that ActiveX open to other attacks. To cover all the possibilities are hard. I think it is more important to move to a new design wtih security in mind. ActiveX is simply a dirty man's trick to make something happen, but just like C++, too much freedom comes with a price, and in our current computer era, this is not somehting we should cheat as old days.

As for backward compatibility, I am sure you can reenable the old style dirty ActiveX.

magicalclick said:

fknight said:

*snip*

While that Vista and Win7 is protected someone, that doesn't change the fact that ActiveX open to other attacks. To cover all the possibilities are hard. I think it is more important to move to a new design wtih security in mind. ActiveX is simply a dirty man's trick to make something happen, but just like C++, too much freedom comes with a price, and in our current computer era, this is not somehting we should cheat as old days.

As for backward compatibility, I am sure you can reenable the old style dirty ActiveX.

 

All binary extensions are susceptible to such problems and they really aren't going to go away. You can put more barriers in the way, but you can't really get total mitigation without crippling the whole purpose of extensions in the first place. Ultimately browser plugins need to be developed with security as their #1 priority. And sadly few are.

magicalclick said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

I didn't think about NSAPI. This is not about comparing who is worse, but to think about a safer way to the same stuff as ActiveX. Something like ReadOnly ActiveX, and then, you have special user granted WriteToMyDocumentOnly ActiveX, and then, the finally Admin granted nasty ActiveX. I think it is better to kill ActiveX and think of something with security in mind.

 

The whole IE process with ActiveX controls is running with Vista's super-low privilege mode and doesn't have write access even to the user profile.

SlackmasterK said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

How so? I've run and used ASP.NET with IE6, even including AJAX, with no problems. Care to clarify?

The <button /> element is incompatible with the HtmlButton control class and you cannot respond to server-side events for it.

So you can use it, but you can't take full advantage of WebForms with it.

CreamFilling512 said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

The whole IE process with ActiveX controls is running with Vista's super-low privilege mode and doesn't have write access even to the user profile.

Sounds great. What does that exactly do? Does that mean when I unlock the ActiveX control on IE8, the virus still can't attack my machine while using my Admin account?