Tech doesn't buoy Netscape browser

CNET News.com ^ | August 28, 2002, 9:32 AM PT | Matthew Broersma

[dheretic]

Instead of fixing their browser to properly display the websites, they are asking the websites to reprogram their code to accomodate them!

Mozilla is built to be compliant with W3C specs for HTML, Javascript, etc. If a page won't render correctly in Mozilla (ergo NS 6 and 7) it means the site was built specifically for IE. If the site uses IE specific features and not W3C standards then you shouldn't expect Netscape to load it properly. What Netscape is doing is saying "WRITE TO THE F%#$ING ACCEPTED STANDARDS!!!!" in a more polite way. Many users have been bitching about this for years. The Mozilla hackers are more concerned with standards that'll work consistantly on all supported platforms, not locking in developers.

[dheretic]

You might want to try K-Meleon. It's a Win32 front end for the Mozilla renderer. URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/kmeleon In my experience it, Galeon (GNOME version) and Chimera (OSX) are damn fast compared to IE, NS, etc.

[B Knotts]

As a desktop, Linux is just a toy.

When did you last use Linux? I'm using KDE 3.1 beta, and it continues to make great strides towards usability for the unwashed masses.

They have VNC seamlessly built into this version, so that anyone that can click a mouse can allow someone to help them remotely.

LAN browsing works just as easily as Network Neighborhood in Windows, except that it also shows any HTTP or FTP shares.

With KDE and StarOffice, most office workers would be able to accomplish their work. They might not be able to open and run those email viruses, though. :-)

Linux isn't for everyone (i.e., graphic designers), but it's come a long way, and gets better every day. I've used it exclusively for my desktop for years.

[Bush2000]

The Mozilla team doesn't have that luxury. They have to be a bit more conscious of the potential problems with releasing bad code.

Welcome to Fantasyland. Open source hasn't prevented bad code from being released. Mozilla is a buggy piece of crap, just like most other software.

Aug 6 2002	Mozilla Web Browser Input Validation Flaw in FTP View Feature May Let Remote Users Conduct Cross-Site Scripting Attacks
Jul 30 2002	Mozilla Web Browser JavaScript 'Same Origin Policy' Flaw Allows Remote Users to Create Malicious JavaScript to Retrieve Web Data from a Victim's Internal Network
Jul 25 2002	Mozilla Web Browser Allows Javascript Code to Read and Modify Cookies from Other Domains
Jun 18 2002	Mozilla Mail Download Can Be Crashed By Remote Users Sending Malicious E-mail via POP3
Jun 11 2002	Mozilla Web Browser Bug in Processing Stylesheets May Let Remote Users Crash the Browser
May 29 2002	(Conectiva Issues Fix) Mozilla Browser XMLHTTP Redirect Bug Lets Remote Users View Files on a User's Computer
May 16 2002	(Red Hat Issues Fix) Mozilla Browser XMLHTTP Redirect Bug Lets Remote Users View Files on a User's Computer
May 4 2002	(Vendor Issues Fix) Re: Mozilla Browser XMLHTTP Redirect Bug Lets Remote Users View Files on a User's Computer
Apr 30 2002	Mozilla Browser XMLHTTP Redirect Bug Lets Remote Users View Files on a User's Computer
Jan 22 2002	Mozilla Web Browser Cookie Processing Bug May Let Remote Web Sites Steal a User's Cookies for Any Domain
Dec 22 2001	Mozilla Web Browser Can Be Crashed By Malicious Image Source Tag Javascript Supplied By Remote Users
Oct 20 2001	Mozilla Browser Will Return HTTP Cookies to an FTP Server at the Same Domain as the HTTP Server, Which Could Be a Different Domain if the HTTP Server is Hosting Virtual Domains

[AdA$tra]

When did you last use Linux?

Doesn't really matter...Although I have a brand new install of Mandrake on an old server in my basement. I just am not willing to support all the interoperability issues when we have literally thousands of clients using MS office. Even if Star Office works fine with Excel and Word files....are you going to take all the calls from the idiot accounting clerks I support. You MS haters are really ignorant when it comes to practical solutions. Hate MS at any cost, regardless of the ROI. I guarantee something, some day will come along and end the MS dominance of today's market. It just has to be truly better, not just an imitation of the Windows paradigm that works almost as well.

[Bush2000]

Here are advisories for the Apache web server:

Aug 14 2002	(HP Issues Fix) PHP Flaw in Processing Multipart/Form-Data May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Aug 9 2002	Apache Web Server (2.0) Has Unspecified Flaw That Allows Remote Users to Obtain Sensitive Data and Cause Denial of Service Conditions
Jul 26 2002	(Sun Issues T-Patches) Re: Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jul 15 2002	Apache 2.x Web Server ap_log_rerror() Function May Disclose Full Installation Path to Remote Users
Jul 15 2002	(SGI Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jul 3 2002	(HP Issues Fix for HP Secure OS for Linux) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jul 2 2002	(HP Issues Fix For HP-UX) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 25 2002	(Caldera Issues Fix for Linux) Re: Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 24 2002	(Mandrake Issues Revised Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 22 2002	(Mandrake Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 20 2002	(Apache Issues Fix) Re: Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 20 2002	(Trustix Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 20 2002	(IBM Plans to Issue Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 20 2002	(Slackware Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 20 2002	(Conectiva Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 19 2002	(SuSE Issues Fix) Re: Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 19 2002	(Engarde Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 19 2002	(Debian Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 19 2002	(Apache Issues Fix) Re: Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Jun 17 2002	Apache Web Server Chunked Encoding Flaw May Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code on the Server
Mar 21 2002	Apache Web Server for Windows Has Batch File Processing Hole That Lets Remote Users Execute Commands on the System
Mar 15 2002	(SGI Issues Fix) Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Mar 15 2002	(SGI Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Virtual Hosting Split-Logfile Function Lets Remote Users Write Log Entries to Arbitrary Files on the System
Jan 7 2002	(Vendor Responds to Say This is Due to a Major User Misconfiguration) Re: Apache Web Server in Virtual Hosting Mode Can Be Crashed By a Local User Removing a Log Directory
Jan 7 2002	Apache Web Server in Virtual Hosting Mode Can Be Crashed By a Local User Removing a Log Directory
Jan 5 2002	(HP Issues Fix for HP Secure OS for Linux) Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Jan 5 2002	(FreeBSD Issues Fix For mod_auth_pgsql) Several 3rd Party Apache Authentication Modules Allow Remote Users to Execute Arbitrary Code to Gain Access to the System or Execute Stored Procedures to Obtain Arbitrary Database Information
Dec 5 2001	(Red Hat Issues Fix) Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Nov 29 2001	(Mandrake Issues Fix for Single Network Firewall) Apache Web Server May Display Directory Index Listings Even if Directory Listings Are Disabled
Nov 28 2001	(Mandrake Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Virtual Hosting Split-Logfile Function Lets Remote Users Write Log Entries to Arbitrary Files on the System
Oct 24 2001	(Red Hat Issues Fix for mod_auth_pgsql) Several 3rd Party Apache Authentication Modules Allow Remote Users to Execute Arbitrary Code to Gain Access to the System or Execute Stored Procedures to Obtain Arbitrary Database Information
Oct 24 2001	Apache suEXEC Wrapper Fails to Observe Minimum Group ID Security Settings in Certain Situations
Oct 20 2001	(Engarde Issues Fix) Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Oct 20 2001	(Engarde Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Virtual Hosting Split-Logfile Function Lets Remote Users Write Log Entries to Arbitrary Files on the System
Oct 18 2001	(Conectiva Issues Fix) Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Oct 18 2001	(Conectiva Issues Fix) Apache Web Server Virtual Hosting Split-Logfile Function Lets Remote Users Write Log Entries to Arbitrary Files on the System
Oct 14 2001	(Apache Issues a Fix) Re: Apache Web Server Virtual Hosting Split-Logfile Function Lets Remote Users Write Log Entries to Arbitrary Files on the System
Oct 14 2001	(Apache Issues Fix) Re: Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Oct 14 2001	(Apache Issues Fix) Re: Apache Web Server for Windows Lets Remote Users Crash the Web Server Application
Oct 14 2001	Apache Web Server Virtual Hosting Split-Logfile Function Lets Remote Users Write Log Entries to Arbitrary Files on the System
Sep 28 2001	(Conectiva Issues Fix for mod_auth_pgsql) Several 3rd Party Apache Authentication Modules Allow Remote Users to Execute Arbitrary Code to Gain Access to the System or Execute Stored Procedures to Obtain Arbitrary Database Information
Sep 18 2001	(Mandrake Issues Fix) Apache Web Server May Display Directory Index Listings Even if Directory Listings Are Disabled
Sep 11 2001	(SuSE Issues Fix for mod_auth_mysql) Several 3rd Party Apache Authentication Modules Allow Remote Users to Execute Arbitrary Code to Gain Access to the System or Execute Stored Procedures to Obtain Arbitrary Database Information
Sep 8 2001	(Conectiva Issues Fix) Several 3rd Party Apache Authentication Modules Allow Remote Users to Execute Arbitrary Code to Gain Access to the System or Execute Stored Procedures to Obtain Arbitrary Database Information
Aug 30 2001	Several 3rd Party Apache Authentication Modules Allow Remote Users to Execute Arbitrary Code to Gain Access to the System or Execute Stored Procedures to Obtain Arbitrary Database Information
Aug 13 2001	Apache Web Server Discloses Internal IP Addresses to Remote Users in Certain Configurations
Jul 29 2001	(Apple Issues Mac OS Fix) Re: Apache Web Server on Mac OS X Client Fails to Enforce File and Directory Access Protections, Giving Remote Users Access to Restricted Pages
Jul 13 2001	Apache Web Server May Disclose Directory Contents Even If an Index.html File is Present in the Directory
Jun 28 2001	(EnGarde Releases Fix) Re: Apache Web Server May Display Directory Index Listings Even if Directory Listings Are Disabled
Jun 15 2001	(Trustix Issues Fix) Re: Apache Web Server May Display Directory Index Listings Even if Directory Listings Are Disabled
Jun 13 2001	(Exploit Code Released) Re: Apache Web Server May Display Directory Index Listings Even if Directory Listings Are Disabled
Jun 11 2001	Apache Web Server on Mac OS X Client Fails to Enforce File and Directory Access Protections, Giving Remote Users Access to Restricted Pages
May 18 2001	Apache Web Server on Microsoft Windows Platforms Allows Remote Users to Crash the Web Server
Apr 16 2001	(Additional Information) Re: Apache Web Server for Windows Lets Remote Users Crash the Web Server Application
Apr 13 2001	Apache Web Server for Windows Lets Remote Users Crash the Web Server Application
Mar 13 2001	Apache Web Server May Display Directory Index Listings Even if Directory Listings Are Disabled

[B Knotts]

You sound like a Linux hater. I simply suggested that Linux is not a toy. It may not work well for you, but that doesn't make it a toy.

[AdA$tra]

You sound like a Linux hater.

If I was a "Linux hater," as you suggest, there would be oodles of virii infecting Linux systems all over the world!

[AdA$tra]

You know where the Apache server got its name. No, it isn't a violation of the sacred Native Tribe. It is short for A Patchy Server!

[AdA$tra]

They have VNC seamlessly built into this version, so that anyone that can click a mouse can allow someone to help them remotely.

If you need VNC, it is a free download for any platform. It is installed on my screaming new Inspiron 8200. Don't tell anyone I'm running XP, because I have got time for the flames.

[dheretic]

It is short for A Patchy Server!

Because the majority of its contributions were written by a diverse group of people and supplied as patches. A patchy server because it was patched by so many people.

[TheEngineer]

Back to the point of the article, MSIE's market share dominance... :-)

IMO, IE was the biggest blunder that I've ever seen MS commit. I really doubt they will do it again. Let's analyze: They bought the market out from under Netscape. Why? To prevent an upstart from becoming a big player in the computer business? There must be a better reason.

I figured that, after running Netscape down, they would start charging bucks for IE. But they haven't. I contend that, inside MS, IE is seen as a big loadstone around their neck. It is constantly under attack from hackers. They continually patch it for free. Everything related to IE is available for free download. The bandwidth for these downloads is very expensive. In short, IE is a very expensive program to maintain. But where is the return on investment?

They have 96% market share today, but if they asked everyone to send in $50 tomorrow for IE, their market share would probably be less than 25% by the end of next week: There is too much free competition.

Back in the MS's growing years, their approach was different. Apple was the company that wanted profit from every aspect of their computers: They wanted profit from the hardware and the OS, and they wanted to create most the software.

But MS's approach was different. Compared with Apple, MS's was the OS with which you could get "under the hood". MS had the better tools/compilers for building applications. MS became what it is today, in large part, because its OS supported more 3rd party apps than anyone else.

Lately, though, they seem to be taking more of the Apple approach: They want the entire "pie". But, if they have to "buy" business to make this happen, then what's the point? As I recall, the dot-com failures were caused by a lack of money-making activity (although initially fueled by grandiose plans for a website or something). It makes me wonder... Did Balmer hire any of those dot-com MBA's?

[discostu]

I've seen "The Meo" (tm) that Bill sent around that made IE a real product. IE has accomplished exactly what they wantd it to.

There were two big problems Gates saw. First the internet was a standard being used by millions of people that MS hadn't created. More importantly MS had no share in this at all. People should keep this in mind when they complain that IE doesn't follow W3C standards, duh. MS didn't take over this market to be told what the standards are, as evidenced by the number of web developers here that have confessed to coding to IE rather than W3C, IE is the real web interpretting standard. The second thing to keep in mind is that even in the pre-java days browsers were already showing the ability ot be desktop replacements. With form inputs, CGI and Perl the ability was there (though under utilized) to have web apps thatdid everything. That made Netscape a threat to the Windows market.

The problems come in because they had to integrate with the desktop to avoid the Netscape suit (which IMHO was bogus, I've never agreed that monopolies should be banned from normal business practices like loss leaders; the fact that one company that gave the browser away was suing another company trying to force them to charge for the browser shows how idiotic this stuff can get). If they hadn't had to integrate IE to the desktop things would be easier for them, but i think the stability/ security issues they inherrited because of that are considered a small price to pay for accomplishing the goals.

At this juncture they CAN'T ever charge for IE. Not only is integrated deep into the OS it's integrated into most of their software. One of the cool things about browsers is their ability to handle elasticity (moving stuff around in the window while the user resizes it), subsequently browser controls are a crutch that both MS and many OEMs use. Truly amazing amounts of software actually display in a browser window, you'll only know this if you watch the install VERY closely (and then only if you have an old IE on your system), you might be able to see them installing IE.

MS is a lot like Rome. If you check the documentation of Rome's major expansion you see something very interesting. According to Rome all of her expansion was defensive, Rome was (or believed it was) constantly under threat of being destroyed by oustide forces. MS has the same attitude, somewhere in the bowels of Redmond is papers describing how every application out there can be used to destroy MS, subsequently they must crush these clear threats. That's why they want the whole pie, because every piece they don't have could be the key to their destruction.

[AdA$tra]

Because the majority of its contributions were written by a diverse group of people and supplied as patches. A patchy server because it was patched by so many people.

If you were caller number nine, I would give you a prize!

[AdA$tra]

Looks like AOL won't be using Netscape 7.0 either^.