IE 8 is more powerful than firefox?

Shipping is a feature.

 

Well, now you've proved to me you don't know what you're talking about.

Or you find it has to be changed because the users of the standard can't follow the standard for some reason. I'm following you but you claim things are changed to be difficult and that's not the reason as I said above.

The Mozilla Review Process
Do you sell shovels? You keep digging deeper and deeper.

It's your inability to speak clearly and make yourself understood. I asked twice for examples of some mysterious bug you keep bringing up but you never answer. But you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about, so the words mean nothing. Actually, it's weird cause the words do have a semblance of belong to a subject elsewhere, someplace they actually fit, but totally incoherent to this discussion.

Perhaps you should do this. Write to Microsoft and tell them that they, as members of the W3C who helped write the standards all the browsers follow, did a terrible job of it and you want an explanation as to why Microsoft wrote those standards with such anti-Microsoft hatred since they are Microsoft.

While you're at it, say "hi" to Chris Wilson for me. It'll gain you a connection with him.

 

People still use firefox?

 

Okay, yeah... I think I'm done here.

Thanks for playing, though.

 

Yeah.... i use firefox at browsing in internet. i prefer firefox than IE7

 

IE looks ugly..I prefer Firefox to IE

 

I like IE8 and it's better with addon IE7pro !

 

I just recently started using IE 8. I was using Firefox, switched to try Google Chrome, now I am back using Internet Explorer. Is it better, its really hard to determine. My guess would be that it all depends on the person and what you want it to do.

 

Browser preference due to the user interface and functionality will always exist. However, NO ONE SHOULD EVER USE ANY VERSION OF INTERNET EXPLORER for this reason alone: INTERNET EXPLORER HOLDS BACK THE WEB FROM MOVING FORWARD USING CURRENT AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES.

I've said this so many times before it's become ridiculous. Under the hood, IE is an incompetent, inept, hodge-podge of gooey leaks and spills that don't work together and prevent web developers from using all kinds of wonderful modern marvels you aren't even aware of yet and some you are.

Would you like to run video or audio in your browser just by adding a tag? You can in every browser....but not IE. How about drawing pictures on the screen just be describing it in text? You can in every browser...but not IE. How about linking one line in an online document, then being able to click that line and return to where you were? You can't in IE. And that's just the simple stuff!

So what's a web developer to do? Ignore IE as he creates web pages or ignore the technologies until IE gains them? As if it ever would.

So who loses in all this? YOU do! Keep using IE and you'll NEVER see the modern marvels cause we developers can't use them cause IE won't work with them. Use IE, shoot self in foot.

 

I gave Firefox two months a while back, and refused to use anything else... just to make sure I gave it a fair shot.

The overwhelming majority of sites look just fine in Firefox, because everything that's wrong with its rendering engine is weird and ideosyncratic. If you don't write your HTML and CSS by hand (which is what you do when you *COUGH* know the standards really well), you'll never see them, because all the HTML generators out there generate code that works in IE and Firefox.

It's not that you can't write code that will work; you can. It's easy. The problem is that you can write code that should work, and DOES work in every other browser, but Firefox stuffs it up. There are still a dozen other things you can do, and they'll work in every other browser TOO. But the principle of the thing is that the one thing you tried that should work, and does work everywhere else, ought to work in Firefox.

Oh, and why don't I give examples of these bugs? Because I fix them in my code. I don't have the damn time to determine a minimal reproduction case, write something up in BugZilla, and then have the bug closed as "Bogus" by a developer who writes in the comments box "This is simply impossible."

I am trying to get other things done. I am not trying to do their damn job. I have my own job. I have a site to deliver. I have a client waiting to pay me money. And if the developers don't care enough to load the repro case I sent them - which CLEARLY REPRODUCES THE PROBLEM - it is not worth my damn time to argue with them. Been there. Done that. Sick and freakin' tired of it.

Hence "no QA process." If I send you a bug report with a repro case attached, someone should open it. If anyone did, they would see the bug. If they saw the bug, they would not call it "impossible" - because it would be right there on their screen. So when someone closes the bug and calls it "impossible," guess what? There's no QA process. There may be a QA department. There may be a QA policy. There may even be a process they call "QA." But if it does not assure quality, it is not quality assurance. Perhaps it stands for "queer arrogance" instead.

Dammit, I said I was done with that. Pay no attention to it.

What I was in the process of getting to is that Firefox has this killer application that nobody else has. It's called "plug-ins." It's these things you attach to your browser, right? And you download them off the internet? And they're native code, that runs on your local computer? And they hook to the browser with a proprietary API? That isn't based on any web standard? And they can do all of this awesome stuff.

Oh, wait, that sounds familiar. I think it was invented by some company that starts with an "M" and they called it like, "active" something or other.

It's not really "the principle of the thing" for them. If it was the principle of the thing, Firefox would support the existing technologies used by IE because one standard is always better for the end user than two.

Instead, they create their own competing standard, and then point their finger at Microsoft and say "they made a proprietary standard, boo! So we fixed it, but now there are two standards because they suck."

No, there are two standards because YOU suck. If you wanted to fix the standard, the fixed standard should be backwards-compatible with the broken one - down to the point that we have an HTTP_REFERER to this day, even though it is incorrectly spelled. It would break things if we added the HTTP_REFERRER header, and since nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed. The name of the header is, after all, an arbitrary symbol which does not affect operations... so backward compatibility is infinitely more important.

These are basic principles of UNIX and internet architecture. They are good principles. They have built some of the greatest and most reliable software on the planet (some of it at Microsoft). And if you are not using these principles - along with several others, like "always support text and interactive input," and "always provide automation capabilities," and "silence means everything is fine," and "do one thing and do it well" - you are not building the best software you can build.

Even if you are agile and open source and cross-platform. You can, and people do, use agile methods to write open source cross-platform garbage.

If your "fix" is not backwards-compatible, you've created a problem, not a solution. And if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

 

No it doesn't. You can extend IE with an ActiveX control that supports rendering tags nothing else understands; indeed, InfoPath does precisely this on many corporate intranets. It's no different from a Firefox plugin. And that tag nothing else understands? The standard already specifies that the tag must be ignored, but the contents of that tag - if any - must not.

So if you create the "GetMyCar" tag, which - when clicked - uses your login credentials to look up your car in the company parking database, cross-reference with valet parking, and page the attendant to bring your car around front? You can write an ActiveX control to render it with a cute little image, while you code it like this:

<GetMyCar>Your browser does not support the GetMyCar function.</GetMyCar>

HTML:

Now, every browser that doesn't support the GetMyCar tag is REQUIRED to render the text "Your browser does not support the GetMyCar function." as though the tag simply did not exist - and you don't have to do anything to make that happen. That's the beauty of the standard.

But what did people say when ActiveX came out?

"Oh, holy crap, IE will download programs off the internet and run them without your permission - and they can do anything! It could be a virus! It could be a trojan! OMFG this is terrible!"

So Microsoft came out and said "Wait, we don't do that by default. There's a dialog box that says you need this, and asks if you want it. You give your permission."

And the anti-MS crowd said "That doesn't matter! Nobody knows what that means! They just click OK no matter what!"

So ActiveX was effectively crippled, and for years, only Microsoft and a few holdouts were making ActiveX controls.

And then Firefox came out with their plug-ins, and said "look how great this is, how wonderful, you just click this button and it installs a program on your browser that can do ANYTHING AT ALL!"

And some people said "but what if it's a virus, or a trojan?!" - and they said "not to worry, we will remove it from the database if anyone reports anything like that!"

And everyone went "oh, that's fine, then." As if they weren't just told that we'll find out it's a virus or a trojan AFTER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VICTIMISED.

Now, who held back the web? Who was it, hmm? Was it Microsoft who prevented people from having a vast array of plugins and extensions for their browsers, that could do anything at all?

No. It was the anti-MS community that held it back. It was YOU. YOU did this to us. Don't act like it's someone else's fault. IT WAS YOU.

 

I'm sure you won't provide a link or example markup to prove your point but, from your previous posts, I am thoroughly convinced you coudln't code your way out of a paper bag and your statements here show you dont' know what you're doing but I'll give you a chance to show the markup. I'm sure you blundered somewhere.

Well, there ya go. I spoke too soon. I knew you wouldn't show your code.

I just showed you two links to that but you still say it doesn't exist.

Well, Jethro, I hate to tell you this but once again you've shown you don't know the difference between an apple and an orange.

Hmm. Javsacript and XML are not standards? News to me.

Blah! I'm tired of this rambling. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

OK. Show me an XHTML web page that's served as XHTML that runs on IE. Show me a web page with SVG images that works on IE without 3rd party plugins. Show me <video> running in IE. Show me <canvas> running in IE. Show me IEs support for DOM level 2 (I'm just getting started).

How cute. Can that run on Linux and Macs and PCs and all mobile devices? I mean, it's only XML and javascript. Oh...wait....ActiveX doesn't work on all of those...

The rest of your rambling is about the whole vulnerabilities thing you want to forget about that ActiveX had and you're trying to say it's the same thing as XUL, XML, javascript and plugins in the browser. If you knew anything about all that you'd realize you're comparing apples and oranges like I said before. ActiveX is linked into the operating system while plugins from Firefox and the others are not. Plugins are based on web standards. ActiveX is not.

 

Translation: "These things work, they just don't work exactly the way I wish they would work." Cry me a freakin' river. If they work, the technology isn't being held back.

It is not appropriate, nor has it ever been appropriate, to implement support for an unstable draft standard.

DOM Level 2 is being replaced by the aforementioned unstable draft standard. It is rather a waste of time to try and support it as documented now.

You could MAKE it work on all of those. All you needed to do was read the specification and implement support for it on your preferred operating system, and then ActiveX would have been available to you.

Microsoft tried quite hard to convince third-party developers to do that, but they insisted that if Microsoft wanted their technology supported on this platform, then Microsoft needed to reach into its pockets and pay them.

They tried to do this for the Mac. (Did you know Microsoft develops more Mac apps than anyone except Apple?) When the project was announced, everyone had a screaming fit that Microsoft was buying their way onto another platform when the market didn't want their damn ActiveX crap in the first place. So the project was cancelled.

You won't build it yourselves, and you don't want Microsoft to build it. Ergo, you don't have it. Cry me a freakin' river.

No, no, no. Those weren't vulnerabilities in ActiveX. They were vulnerabilities in an insecure single-user operating system connected to the internet without a firewall. Firewalls were available, but hardly anybody had one, because only a few deep-magic geeks were reading Cheswick and Bellovin.

Wait, do you understand the difference between the ActiveX API and an ActiveX object? Because if you don't, you're never going to understand any of this.

Has no resemblance to any of the bolded technologies, and I never said it did. Stop making things up. If you are telling the truth, you don't have to do that.

Of course, if you're full of crap, and you know it...

Excuse me, but that's absolutely moronic.

Firefox plugins only work in Firefox. Because they're supported by a specific application, not the operating system.

ActiveX objects work in anything. Because they're supported by the operating system, not a specific application.

Linking Firefox plugins to Firefox and only Firefox is not a Good Thing. It's a limitation. ActiveX was built into the operating system because it was a plugin architecture for every application you ever installed. And that was a Good Idea.

Did they do a bad job? Well, yeah, sort of. A dozen years ago, they didn't do as good a job as we could do today. Hmm. And yet, they still accomplished very nearly the same things... with less memory... and less CPU... and less bandwidth...

You know, I'm not so terribly impressed at companies who puff out their chests at how Moore's Law has finally allowed their bloated crappy code to run worth a damn. If you count the instructions in your sort routines and interlace loops to get a few extra bytes into memory, I'm a lot more impressed than I am at your ability to nest a dozen loops for a brute-force solution.

Of course, if you asynchronously demand-loaded the inner loop's code from disk during the outer loop, I might be a little impressed. Especially if you could properly handle an I/O exception from the storage location.

(Done thaaaaaat... fear me)

The web standards that Firefox plugins are based on didn't exist when ActiveX was developed. Anyone who wanted such an architecture had to roll their own.

Now, there is no reason why ActiveX couldn't have become a web standard. The technology could have been abstracted sufficiently to work on any and all platforms. Indeed, Microsoft wanted that very thing.

But there was resistance, because it came from Microsoft. That's not a technological argument, it's a political one, and you still can't tell the difference.

 

Whats the definition of a powerful browser then?

 

Yes, they work, they just don't work on IE. None of those things have ever worked in IE. Microsoft has not said if they ever will work in IE. That's just some of the reasons IE is incomplete, incompetent and inept. Even little Opera and Konqueror does all those things. How about....nah....there are hundreds of browsers that can do more than IE.

CSS 2.1 was only finalized two years ago. Are you saying no one should use CSS until 2 years ago? Standards are based on usage. In fact, the HTML5 charter states the draft is not considered final until there are two complete implementations. So you can't have a final till there is implementation.

More proof you don't know what you're talking about. The DOM is a completely seperate specification from every other standard. HTML works on top of the DOM and cannot and will not ever replace it. In fact, you act like Level2 is the last spec but there's a Level 3, too, which IE does not support but you didn't know that either.

More proof you don't know what you're talking about. ActiveX requires Windows internal software components to run. How is the Mac or Linux to obtain these Windows software components and run them?

More proof you don't know what you're talking about. Linux and BSD are non-profit organizations that determine what goes into the kernel. You can't buy your way in. Microsoft weaseled their .NET stuff into Mono through Novell without a struggle. You don't think Novell wouldn't let them put ActiveX into their product?

But why in the world would a non-Windows system need or want virus-riddled, insecure ActiveX components anyway when *nix already has built-in much safer ways to do the same thing and more? But I'm sure you know nothing of that.

Answered your own question. The same is true of Mono.

Again you are cryptic in your statement by whatever "it" is.

Oh. It wasn't ActiveX. It was Windows.

So far, you don't seem to understand any of this yourself.

Well, you don't explain yourself and the tech you brought up before about Firefox plugins can only be explained in one way so if you think FF plugins are created another way then you either don't know that or can't explain it.

Exactly what I said but they do NOT work in anything. They only work in Windows and nothing else.

You can run Firefox plugins on any Firefox installation on any operating system. Besides Windows, where can ActiveX run?

So good that Microsoft spent more money trying to protect the OS from it than anything else and everyon gets those wonderful "Are you sure you want to run this?" popups. Lol.

rambling again.

As I said, that would never happen to any technology requiring Windows or any proprietary softwware.

 

You're right. It's a nebulous statement.

 

Yes they do. I can write XHTML and it displays just fine!

Oh, wait, you wanted to serve it under a different MIME type? Aww. Poor baby.

And I can display SVG in the browser just fine, too!

Oh, wait, you wanted MICROSOFT to write the code? Instead of someone who was perhaps better qualified? Aww. Poor baby.

No, I'm saying nobody should use an unstable draft standard. You know, standards that say this:

"Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways."

Well, amazingly enough, that means a company like Microsoft - which operates on something of a waterfall schedule, where REALLY BIG changes are rolled out on a very infrequent basis - can't really support this standard effectively! I wonder who's behind it?

"The WHATWG was founded by individuals of Apple, the Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software in 2004, after a W3C workshop."

Why, that's... every major competitor to Microsoft in the browser market. Are you telling me Microsoft doesn't want to be involved in that?

Or are they being, I don't know, deliberately excluded?

LOL, this is funny:

"Draft Standard - January 15, 2010"

IT'S BEEN MODIFIED WITHIN THE LAST HOUR.

And you can't have implementation until it is STABLE. STABLE and FINAL are different words. They mean different things. This is why we have different words. Most of us learn this in grade school.

"This specification is intended to replace (be the new version of) what was previously the HTML5, HTML4, XHTML1, and DOM2 HTML specifications."

Excuse me, when did I ever say anything of the sort?

That would be "no, I do not understand the difference between the ActiveX API and an ActiveX object."

But we're not talking about the kernel. We're talking about a compatibility layer. There are plenty of things in the Windows kernel that aren't in the UNIX kernel, because they simply are not required to be.

I am already aware that you do not understand the difference between the ActiveX API and an ActiveX object, so you can stop reminding me.

That's not what I was bringing up. I'm talking about how they are loaded by an end user. You're talking about how they are created by a developer.

And Firefox plugins only work in Firefox and NOTHING else.

One application... lots of applications. I see a big difference here.

Besides Firefox, where can those plugins run?

Windows is bigger than Firefox. ActiveX runs in more places than Firefox plugins.

Let me see if I can explain this. I don't think you'll get it... but I think maybe, just maybe, other people will start to see just how hard you're trying not to get it.

Over here, we have an API. That is a series of rules. Like SOAP. Or JSON. They have a series of rules that say "this is what a SOAP object must do" and "this is what a JSON object must do."

Over here, we have an object. And it is made by following a series of rules. When the rules conform to an API, that is the kind of object it is. So when you conform to the SOAP API, you have a SOAP object. And when you conform to the JSON API, you have a JSON object.

None of this is a security problem. There is no security problem here. There is no need for anyone to ever spend any money to protect anybody from anything.

The security problems Windows had were primarily buffer overruns which allowed people to execute arbitrary code. And the arbitrary code people most frequently wanted to run happened to be "load this ActiveX object and send it this command," because that meant they didn't have to write the ActiveX object's code themselves. Their exploit could be smaller, and delivered over a low-bandwidth channel.

So Microsoft had to spend a shocking amount of money fixing all these buffer overruns. The ActiveX involvement was incidental.

And anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of security knows it.

An API does not require either one. It is a series of rules. Anyone can implement those rules on any architecture and any platform they like.

 

Have anyone of you used SAFARI.It is a very attractive browser.

 

Firefox is more powerful, Ie8 may have security issues not yet discovered just like the previous versions.