| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Internet Explorer 7 Preview 1 | |
|
||
| Time: 19:29 EST/00:29 GMT | News Source: WinInformant | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
On February 15, 2005, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates publicly revealed during his RSA Conference 2005 keynote address that his company would denounce its previous plans and ship a separate major update to Internet Explorer (IE) before Longhorn. Until that speech, Microsoft representatives were adamant that the security enhancements they had added to the version of IE in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2, see my review) would be it until Longhorn. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:44:03 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 29664 (38.116.145.116) at 2/22/2005 8:12:33 PM |
| damn that's fast... Firefox has them running SCARED! |
| #2 By 22601 (69.194.226.220) at 2/22/2005 9:23:57 PM |
|
Comment to #2
Actually, Netscape has yet to catch up to Firefox. Firefox uses the Gecko 1.7.5 engine, soon to be updated to 1.7.6; the latest released version of Netscape, 7.2, uses the older 1.7.2, which has a few unfixed security problems. Netscape's browser is actually an offshoot of Mozilla, as is Firefox, so Firefox is hardly a renumbered Netscape. |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 2/23/2005 1:21:30 AM |
|
Phaedrus: Just download a toolbar for it. Tabbed browsing is nothing at all, and certainly does not NEED to be put into the next version.
Things that are needed is CSS and PNG support. |
| #4 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/23/2005 7:36:16 AM |
| LinuxIsTheft you have proven unable to show how much netscape code is in Firefox. Do you want to come up with a new method for me to rip appart? |
| #5 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/23/2005 7:49:58 AM |
|
" Considering that IE 7 was due this year in beta anyway ..."
It wasn't due this year in beta for Windows XP.... |
| #6 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/23/2005 2:33:17 PM |
|
"What a $#$@$ you are."
Childish name calling again.. thanks. I didnt tell anyone that it means its from 2005. I was rather detailed in my explanation regarding this and tried to break it down to the simplest level for you. The part you fail to understand is that the header basically says that the initial developer of the code was Netscape and that the portions of the code that were created by netscape are copyright 1998-1999 netscape corporation. This is part of a pretty standard header and is not exclusively in files that date back to 1998 or 1999. therefore searching for 1999 is not accurate. I have re-re-re-re explained this several times now. It seems that you ignore that part every time and instead come up with new wild claims. I find it amusing that you think i'm the one who is exposing oneself as a "moron". I wonder why nobody is coming to your rescue and agreeing with you here. Oh and by the way I reported the above post of yours also for Terms of Use violation. This name calling behaviour of ourse is really getting boring. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 14:47. |
| #7 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/23/2005 5:45:00 PM |
|
The header doesnt JUST say ""copyright 1998-1999" The header says that THE PORTIONS of the code that were created by netscape are copyright 1998-1999 netscape corporation. Stop ignoring the part of the header that isnt "convenient" to your claim. Furthermore this header is in MANY FILES even newer ones no matter what you claim. An example for of a file that clearly do not come from netscape4 yet have the header described above is pageReport.xul. This proves you wrong again. You said "The simple answer is that they wouldn't." Well obviously they would, and they did. Furthermore some files while they are not from Netscape4 might contain portions from Netscape4 code. Those files also while NEW contain the notice stating that the portions of the code are copyright 1998-1999 netscape corp. So what about new files that contain fragments of code from netscape4? Should we count those files as "Netscape4" code? And is that a bad thing?
You still havent answered some very simple questions: Question 1: Was ALL of the source in Netscape4 complete garbage Question 2: If yes to Question 1 above what are your qualifications to give such an answer Question 3: If no to Question 1 above is it BAD that Mozilla/Firefox contain or are based on the code in Netscape4 that was not complete garbage. Question 4: If yes to Question 3 above, Why is it bad to incorporate the parts of netscape4 code that were not complete garbage. Question 5: If no to Question 3 above, why do you insist that Firefox is only a renamed Netscape4 product when only portions of the non-garbage code were used to re-write the browser? This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 18:12. |
| #8 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/23/2005 9:26:27 PM |
|
LinuxIsTheft are you saying XUL was invented already in 1998? If not how could an XUL file be originally written in 1998?
Why did you ignore the rest of my post? LinuxIsTheft i have to say, the one thing you are VERY good at.. is to selectively respond to posts and to ignore anything that you dont know how to answer. Do you think its clever not to adress a large portion of my post while at the same time doing damage to your own credibility by claiming that an XUL file has been written in 1998 .. before XUL was invented? This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 21:35. |
| #9 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 9:07:44 AM |
|
"tgnb ... you are a riot ... in a self-destructive, totally self-humilating way!"
Wasn't it your point to show that 25% of Firefox comes from Netscape4 Wasn't it your point to say searching for "1999" in the source code of Firefox would be a valid method for showing that 25% of the source comes from Netscape4 Wasn't it your point to show that pageReport.xul came from Netscape4 because it contained "copyright 1998-1999 netscape corporation" Didn't the article you posted basically completely prove you wrong? I may have been wrong about the date of the birth of XUL but the interview you posted yourself basically DESTROYS your claim that the file mentioned comes from Netscape4 because it states that XUL was "born" AFTER Netscape4. Your initial point wasnt how old the code was. Your initial point was that Firefox contained 25% code from Netscape4, and you tried to explain that this can be prooven by searching for "1999" in the source code. Well I've searched for 1999 in the source code, and i found lots of files, XUL files such as the one above for example, among many others. AND as your article shows, the XUL files couldnt POSSIBLY come from Netscape 4 because XUL was born AFTER Netscape4 when they re-wrote the browser from mostly scratch! SO you yourself by proving that XUL was born AFTER Netscape4 proved that searching for "1999" in the source code does not accurately reflect what files come from Netscape4. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 09:14. |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 12:43:22 PM |
|
"It was my point that the code was old Netscape code. I didn't mention the version because Netscape 4.5 - 4.8 came out in that era."
Ehem excuse me but please enlighten me, what is the difference between "old netscape code" and "code from netscape4". The two are entirely the same thing and interchangeable for the sake of this discussion. Your whole argument is that Mozilla and Firefox are not a "new product" but a renamed version of "old netscape code". If youre not talking about netscape4 code, then what the hell are you talking about? "tgnb, go ahead. Keep humiliating yourself!!!!!" So far the posts of other people don't reflect the fact that i'm humiliating myself. I made a mistake, owned up to it but it really made no difference to the main issue. In fact my mistake made you point out an article that proved you wrong. And after proving yourself wrong, now your going to do the moonwalk and pretend that "old netscape code" means something different from "netscape4" code. Geez. I really wonder who's humiliating himself here. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 12:46. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 12:50:07 PM |
|
swinkakink, according to LinuxIsTheft you can search the firefox source code for files containing "1999". According to LinuxIsTheft comparing the number of files your find doing this search to the total number of files in the Firefox source and you come up 25%. According to LinuxIsTheft this 25% represents the amount of "Old netscape" code that is in Firefox. According to LinuxIsTheft this is the basis for this statement that Firefox contains 25% code from the "Old Netscape" which I interpreted as "Netscape4" code. Not sure what else "old netscape" code would mean. He is arguing that this method is an accurate way to measure how much "old netscape" code is in Firefox. I am trying to point out that this method is flawed. I am not arguing that Firefox doesnt contain old Netscape code. It does, and it makes absolutely no sense to re-write those portions that were perfectly usable code. LinuxIsTheft however would have you think that its a BAD thing that Firefox contains "old netscape" code. LinuxIsTheft is trying to artificially inflate the amount of supposedly bad (old netscape) code to make his argument that firefox is just a rebranded "old netscape" and therefore inhertits all the terrible bugs in that bad code, making firefox extremely unsecure. What a load of horse doo doo.
swinkakink, Linux is theft will never answer some of the other questions you asked. I have asked those same questions repeatedly and have not gotten an answer as of yet. One can only guess why. Maybe even LinuxIsTheft knows better than to admit that IT IS NOT BAD to re-use some old code. In the end LinuxIsTheft is nothing but a troll by making such ridiculous statements and i am probably doing a disservice to this forum by responding to him at all. Afterall trolls go away only if you ignore them. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 13:03. |
| #12 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 1:06:11 PM |
|
" What I think that he fails to realize is the reasons those dates are in there."
No, he knows exactly. But he is a very good troll at ignoring certain parts of people posts or questions and only answering when his answer doesnt "corner" him into admitting something that would hurt his "cause". |
| #13 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 1:25:18 PM |
|
swinkakink i feel the same way but I have to listen to LinuxIsTheft call me a moron, bigot, open-source zealot who comes here only to berate microsoft products and users who use them. To him anyone who uses or likes open source is automatically an enemy and must be treated with disrespect. But only because we disrespect him first of course ;) using/liking open-source is disrepsectful to him. His name, LinuxIsTheft in itself is not disrespectful to us at all however. I dont know why i even try to have a discussion with him. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 13:27. |
| #14 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 3:19:00 PM |
|
Any admin from ActiveWin should be able to verify to you that I only have 1 account which i access from 2 different IP addresses depending on the time of day.
LinuxIsTheft Do you officially acknowlege then that the method you claimed previously was an accurate way to determine the amount of "old netscape" code in Mozilla is in fact not as accurate as you had claimed? If you continue to claim that Firefox contains 25% Netscape code you better have some proof to back that up with not some method that has now been shown in multiple ways to be flawed and incomplete. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 15:24. |
| #15 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 4:35:57 PM |
| I have a feeling that even if someone from ActiveWin confirms it LinuxIsTheft will still continue to claim that you are really my "second" account created soley to pat myself on the back. Just like he still continues to make his other claims even in the face that they have been disproven in mutliple ways. |
| #16 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/24/2005 6:03:43 PM |
| Halcyon-12 you're 100% correct. Also, trying to counter his FUD always causes me to stumble upon new ideas and thoughts I had previously not considered. So even if its frustrating at times I guess it all serves a purpose :) I see an "opportunity" .. not a problem.. LOL that sounds so gay.. |
| #17 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/24/2005 7:03:34 PM |
|
1) i admited i was wrong while this fact alone has no bearing on the overall point especially considering what was said in the article you posted yourself
2) I never made such a claim 3) I never made such a claim 4) I never made such a claim 5) I never made such a claim 6) I never made such a claim WTF were you smoking when you made THAT post? To address your ONLY valid point, number 1, YES as i stated before i was wrong on this and ate my own words. However XUL was invented after the "old netscape" which was netscape4 according to your interview. Therefore the XUL file I pointed out originally STILL proves that the existance of "1999" in the contents of a file does NOT mean it came from the "old netscape" In other words i was wrong on the birth of XUL but i was not wrong in pointing out that the file i showed you did NOT come from the "old netscape". And there are many more files that did NOT come from the "old netscape" that are found by a search of the source code for files containing 1999. Therefore searching for files containing "1999" does NOT accurately reflect the pecentage of CODE that came from the "old netscape. It does not even accurately reflect the percentage of FILES that came from the "old netscape". You certainly cannot count the number of files to come up with a percentage of code. You can only come up with a percentage of files by counting number of files. Furthermore i have proven that files that contain "1999" do NOT necessarily come from the "old netscape". Therefore your method is invalid. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 19:08. |
| #18 By 7797 (69.180.105.56) at 2/24/2005 9:54:34 PM |
| I tried to warn you swinkakink :) lets just let this troll die.. as you said, people can judge for themselves. |
| #19 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/25/2005 8:39:20 AM |
|
LinuxIsTeft I call you a troll for a much different reason. I couldnt care less if swinkakink agrees with you or not. Hell, I even agree with you on a few certain things.
I agree there is "some" amount of "old netscape" or "netscape4" code in Firefox I don't agree with you that this is a bad thing I don't agree that searching for 1999 in the source code is a way to figure out that 25% of the code comes from "old netscape" I don't know of a truly accurate way to deduce what percentage of Mozilla's code comes from the "old netscape" I don't agree that Firefox is "just a rebranded netscape" I don't agree that "old netscape" code in Firefox makes it necessarily "unsecure" or "buggy" I've tested Mozilla since the very early days around when M3 came out, Do you remember M3? Anyone who tested such an early version will know that you're just spewing crap. Well lots of other people know it too ;) |
| #20 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/26/2005 7:22:19 PM |
| I'm sorry, but LinuxIsTheft has made a great case here, and has provided substantial cites and facts. Excellent work LinuxIsTheft. |
| #21 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/26/2005 8:06:24 PM |
|
Hal,
OSS Zealots/Apologists claimed that Firefox 0.x was "secure" when in fact it WAS not. |
| #22 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 9:49:34 AM |
| Hal, I wasn't in the discussion. But I do believe that the FF beta should be included when it was the FF team, Mozilla AND the OSS "apologists" that claimed FF was secure during beta AND post beta...when in fact it is NOT secure. |
| #23 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/27/2005 11:37:36 AM |
|
"Finally!"
Huh? Finally what? I never denied that there is some amount of old code in Firefox or Mozilla. I just take issue with the method YOU used to come up with 25%. Get that through your head. If you come up with a legitimate method for showing Firefox contains 25% old netscape code then thats great. But so far you havent. Your method is flawed deceiving and inaccurate. "Then you think programmers in 2000-2005 were putting Copyright 1998-1999 in the source files for no good reason? Or do you have a reason? And what about the files that have a copy right from 1991-1994 (JPEG processing code)" I'm tired of answering the same questions over and over and over again for you just because you either can't read or are unwilling to understand. "So it could be 25% or less than 25% or more than 25%." Yep, it could be! But i highly doubt its 25% or more. And so far you havent come up with an accurate method to prove that its 25% or more. I've already admitted that I don't know of a valid method to come up with this information. You continue to argue that a simple search for 1999 in the source code leads you to the "accurate" answer. Anyone with half a brain knows that its much more complex than that. "Give me a valid reason why some files have an old copyright and other files have a newer or older copyright?" Your changing your claims. Your original claim was that a valid method for finding out how much "old netscape" code (which is netscape4 code) is to search for files containing 1999 in the source code and then counting the number of files that contain 1999 and comparing it to the total number of files in the source. Why some files contain 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or whatever year is not at issue here. To refute your claim i simply had to prove that some files that were not "old netscape" code contain 1999. I have shown you such a file proving your method is inaccurate. Thats all that matters. Nobody is arguing over whether or not some of the source code is from the old netscape. This is public knowlege. Your claim about how much of the code is old and your method of how to prove this claim are WRONG and thats all i was interested to prove. |
| #24 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 12:57:43 PM |
|
Hal, it's because they insist that I am wrong and they are right. That truly isn't the case. In their mind, their opinion is that Firefox is secure and IE is not. In my mind, IE and FF are not secure, and that the opensource zealots only see one side. They are blinded or are using intermittent wipers when they choose to look the other way.
And remember, I am not leaning towards "Microsoft". I am leaning towards IE. As I mentioned in a previous post, if I were an MS Apologist, I wouldn't use opensource software on my computer along with proprietary. I wouldn't use Adobe products, Corel products, etc, etc. I happen to feel that IE is a better browser, and my point is to prove that FF isn't necessarily a worse browser, but that it's only *opinion*, not fact that FF is better or not...by both sides. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:44:03 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
