world wide web

[gmac]

I keep hearing two sides to the story. On the one hand the techie support on some web sites that i have to use tell me they won't design their site to work with mozilla et al because IE is the standard and more secure. On the other hand I am told that MS refuse to use international standards and are trying to force everybody to adopt their system. I use mozilla firefox and thunderbird and much prefer it to IE and to me a computing numpty it does seem a lot better.

 

Most recently I was told by the techie at a security company whose universal internet security pass i will have to use -it's one designed by origo that mozilla design their browser so it doesn't work properly with the vast majority of website providers and refuse to be compatable with everybody else.

 

What is the real position on this?

[devries]

IE is less secure then other browsers because of it's integration in Windows.

 

Standards: it depends. In the early days of the web there weren't many standards so browsers like IE had to make do. Of course MS also tried to take control of the web by shipping IE with every copy of Windows that they sold so it would become a de facto standard. However there are now standards (made by an independent group) for the www so we now have the situation that most browsers on the planet are IE but these browsers don't comply with the standards set by this group (mostly because IE development has stood still for most part of this century)

[ianw1974]

Slowly I see people moving forward. My banking website now works a lot better with Mozilla than it did before. I think soon all other sites will follow so that they integrate more with the browsers of the peoples choice, rather than being dictated to use IE.

[spinynorman]

... mozilla design their browser so it doesn't work properly with the vast majority of website providers and refuse to be compatable with everybody else.

One of the key benefits of Mozilla is that it is the most standards compliant browser there is.

Source: www.mozilla.org/why/support.html

[Reiver_Fluffi]

I believe you might find this interesting:

 

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/history

 

 

What you are hearing is typical M$ bull**** propoganda, developed because Microsoft wants to be the authority in every case! M$'s strong market position is what influences the narrowminded views of the few, i.e "IE is the most secure web browser around and we only support its use", which is just bull as they should be acknowledging the standards of the open organisation, who's creator founded what we call the world wide web today! But like always, M$ wants you to do what it wants you to do, rather than let you do what you want to do without satisfying its desire to control you!

[AussieJohn]

Hello gmac.

It just goes to show that the techies you refer to are imbeciles and really know nothing. On the other hand if they are not imbeciles and are technically qualified then they are out and out liars and are beneath contempt.

It is one thing to make incorrect statements out of ignorance and that can be forgiven. To repeat lies and while knowing they are lies is totally unforgivable.

 

Instead of listening to these kind of jerks, do a bit of googling and you will soon find swags of material that confirms that Mozilla, Galeon, Firefox, Konqueror and I think, Opera and others all use the accepted internet browser standards. Guess which one isn't included in the list ???. Yes you guessed it, scumbag Microsoft.

 

That socalled security company tech is stupid enough to believe that of all the browser types out there that only Microsoft is in step.

 

Every day I advance more to the conclusion that the name Microsoft was originated to represent those who promote and shill for Microsoft.

MICRO= extremely small. SOFT= spongy, will soak up anything no matter what it is, can be easily manipulated and shaped to any form desired by its extrenal user.

Need I say more ???. You can add in your own extra definitions.

 

You know there is something scary about the letters S and O. They appear in ScO, SOny and in micrOSOft. What a trio, the worlds 3 most reviled computer world companies.

 

Cheers. John.

[arctic]

Long time ago, when the www started, Netscape was THE default browser. Almost nobody used IE because it was real crap. Back in those days, every website was optimized for display in Netscape and not IE. Then, Microsoft started to integrate their Explorer more and more into the base system and making big propaganda about it. Normals users are dumb. Sorry, but this is a fact. They believed the Microsoft-created hype and managed to gain the numero uno spot with IE. But they did not play fair (actually, what they did was highly illegal), thus Netscape and other companies had issued several lawsuits against Microsoft (and MS lost them). Now, everyone thinks that IE is the default browser and the best browser (yes, some people know better) but it is still insecure, bloated and a real danger for any critical work-station. Slowly, the Netcape based browsers gain their territory back but it is a hard fight, as Microsoft continues to spread lies about their browser.

 

It is a shame, but some admins and/or it-techies still claim that IE is a marvelous browser and will tell everyone so. Those people should be fired imho. Plain dumb guys.

[gmac]

posted by aussiejohn

Instead of listening to these kind of jerks, do a bit of googling and you will soon find swags of material that confirms that Mozilla, Galeon, Firefox, Konqueror and I think, Opera and others all use the accepted internet browser standards. Guess which one isn't included in the list ???. Yes you guessed it, scumbag Microsoft.

 

That socalled security company tech is stupid enough to believe that of all the browser types out there that only Microsoft is in step.

 

I don't, listen I mean, that's why i've been playing about with mandrake. He did say it would work with mozilla but not to use mozilla to download it. He obviously has a vested interest in working with microsoft. On the other hand there isn't a version that works with linux.

 

Most sites I use for work are currently accessed using passwords that I don't keep anywhere on my computer or ask to be remembered but this is an electronic password to access secure sites with one electronic signature instad of umpteen passwords and it looks like i will have to use it eventually. The individual password suits me as I am not restricted to one computer and can use a clients if appropriate.

 

It just seems bizarre that in the interests of security I must have software on my computer that if hacked in to gives access to a load of confidential information on supposedly secure web sites. Can't think what use it would be to anyone but it is the principle of the thing. Since I am liable for the security of my data when i ask the obvioius question-if you are insisting I use this software and leaving me with no choice will you indemnify me against it being hacked they dodge the question saying it won't happen because it's more secure and it is up to me to keep a firewall etc. while the brighter of my colleagues twig what I'm getting at.

 

Best case scenario the bloke believed what he was saying which makes me wonder how interested he is in his job-you may not work with linux but if you are in IT how can you not be aware of open s which hardly inspires trust.

 

Funniest response I've had when asking if someones software worked with linux was "it works with any version of windows."

[Reiver_Fluffi]

It is a shame, but some admins and/or it-techies still claim that IE is a marvelous browser and will tell everyone so. Those people should be fired imho. Plain dumb guys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably to do with the way training of these individuals today, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest brainwashing, but many courses will feature M$, but little knowledge is shared with regards to alternatives. It is indeed a shame that this is the way things are, we can only hope that things change in due course (i.e. end users have, and are not afraid of choice)!

[Ixthusdan]

I am an independent IT guy for small businesses that can't afford IT but can't afford not to have IT. I introduce Firefox into every single organization that I get, and I move them away from the big name antivirus companies. Why? So I can spend their money doing the job instead of getting rid of yet another attack. It always makes me look good. I am not as successful at removing windows completely, but I am working on it. B)

[gmac]

posted by Ixthusdan

I am an independent IT guy for small businesses that can't afford IT but can't afford not to have IT. I introduce Firefox into every single organization that I get, and I move them away from the big name antivirus companies. Why? So I can spend their money doing the job instead of getting rid of yet another attack. It always makes me look good. I am not as successful at removing windows completely, but I am working on it. cool.gif

 

When are you opening a branch in scotland? I was impressed with your command of the english language till it dawned on me Valparaiso IN means Valparaiso Indiana USA. (at least i think it does). I would love to find somebody locally that can offer tech support for linux but the only one I did find let me down rather badly. there is a finite amount of time i can afford to spend teaching myself IT. Right now I am trying to decide whether it is worth the effort to learn how to compile a data base for myself or throw myself on the mercy of a software company for a hefty licence fee.

 

I use firefox whenever i can but keep meeting the MS mafia.

 

posted by reiver_fluffi

I believe you might find this interesting:

 

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/history

 

Came across this issue inadvertently. Not sure how IE works with braille readers etc but would be willling to bet not very well or without buying extra software.

 

http://www.webswonder.co.uk/accessibility.shtml