IE7 Features that should be in Firefox...

[sandorski]

The only thing IE7 will have over FF, Opera, and other browsers is a Hacker friendly way into your OS. How many chances are people going to give MS before they realize IE isn't worth using?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The only thing IE7 will have over FF, Opera, and other browsers is a Hacker friendly way into your OS. How many chances are people going to give MS before they realize IE isn't worth using?

This just isn't true today. XP SP2 has tightened IE a lot better. You have to realize, if FF was in the same position IE was supporting ActiveX, it would share the same vulnerabilities. Have most of the vulnerabilities introduced after XP SP2 not been patched by MS? Am I missing something? I know I haven't had spyware in quite a damned long time, and I never bother using Windows Update. I'd also rather have performance than a virus scanner that would just detect one virus every couple years. Security is blown out of proportion IMO. I do think IE should be completely recoded and stripped of its extra 'protocols' and other very prone things.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: sandorski
The only thing IE7 will have over FF, Opera, and other browsers is a Hacker friendly way into your OS. How many chances are people going to give MS before they realize IE isn't worth using?

This just isn't true today. XP SP2 has tightened IE a lot better. You have to realize, if FF was in the same position IE was supporting ActiveX, it would share the same vulnerabilities. Have most of the vulnerabilities introduced after XP SP2 not been patched by MS? Am I missing something? I know I haven't had spyware in quite a damned long time, and I never bother using Windows Update. I'd also rather have performance than a virus scanner that would just detect one virus every couple years. Security is blown out of proportion IMO. I do think IE should be completely recoded and stripped of its extra 'protocols' and other very prone things.

Maybe they have, but with their road record why risk the chance?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe they have, but with their road record why risk the chance?

Well I think IE is easier to use for novice users and a lot of web pages have (unfortunately) been specifically coded for IE.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

FTP is very widely used. It's an integral part of the browser.

And bt is getting more poplular and with a proper setup could replace FTP. Imagine not having to select a FTP mirror, instead connecting to them all via BT simultaneously?

Not until it's legitimized instead of being just another way to pirate donkey porn.

 

[Nothinman]

Not until it's legitimized instead of being just another way to pirate donkey porn.

Which won't happen until more places start offering it which won't happen until it's simpler to use, i.e. base integration into web browsers.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Not until it's legitimized instead of being just another way to pirate donkey porn.

Which won't happen until more places start offering it which won't happen until it's simpler to use, i.e. base integration into web browsers.

Because web browsers need to be more complex. I wonder what's had more security issues, sendmail or firefox...

 

[Nothinman]

Because web browsers need to be more complex. I wonder what's had more security issues, sendmail or firefox...

If simple is what you're looking for you won't find it in any web browser, I mean hell Mozilla/FF still supported Gopher last time I looked.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Because web browsers need to be more complex. I wonder what's had more security issues, sendmail or firefox...

If simple is what you're looking for you won't find it in any web browser, I mean hell Mozilla/FF still supported Gopher last time I looked.

And they shouldn't. This is what I mean, web browsers are too complex and crappy. FF is frickin' huge! Cut them down, simplify. It'll be better for everyone.

 

[Nothinman]

And they shouldn't. This is what I mean, web browsers are too complex and crappy. FF is frickin' huge! Cut them down, simplify. It'll be better for everyone.

So post some patches, I really doubt anyone would object to removing things that noone uses.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

My firefox skin looks perfectly "natural" in the windows environment.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And they shouldn't. This is what I mean, web browsers are too complex and crappy. FF is frickin' huge! Cut them down, simplify. It'll be better for everyone.

So post some patches, I really doubt anyone would object to removing things that noone uses.

I would if I could.

Actually, I think I'd work on Dillo. A couple of fixes and it should be much better. :beer:

 

[Paul Stamatiou]

those things suggested were quoted for a reason, it was my friend who said them, not me

But IE7 does have a certain cool factor right now... not sure if that will still be there when Vista goes RTM... however I have noticed that there are lots of websites, even mine, that don't look right in IE7 that show up fine in FF. For example, some pictures on the wiki don't show up at all, but there is still an invisible link.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

6

Yea, starting with VS.Net they changed the UI so that it looks like Office XP.

Why the hell does the office team keep doing their own UI? They make menus and dialogs look different for no reason (maybe so you can feel like Office 2009 really has more than 1 line of code changed since Office 98).

ftp is necessary. bitorrent isn't. It's bloat that doesn't need to be there.

FTP is not necessary either, people could be told to use a real FTP client just like they currently do with bittorrent.

FTP is used much more for browser-like tasks than BitTorrent.

And bt is getting more poplular and with a proper setup could replace FTP. Imagine not having to select a FTP mirror, instead connecting to them all via BT simultaneously?

Torrents are much harder to get right than FTP. There are a lot of issues involved that I'd rather not have to deal with. Besides, we get enough people asking wehre to find warez in the Mozilla IRC channels as is .

 

[Nothinman]

FTP is used much more for browser-like tasks than BitTorrent.

And Windows is used much more for desktop-like tasks than Linux, so should we all just concede to the defacto standard?

Torrents are much harder to get right than FTP. There are a lot of issues involved that I'd rather not have to deal with. Besides, we get enough people asking wehre to find warez in the Mozilla IRC channels as is

But the core code is already done in many bt clients, integrating one with the download manager shouldn't be _that_ difficult.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Torrents are much harder to get right than FTP. There are a lot of issues involved that I'd rather not have to deal with. Besides, we get enough people asking wehre to find warez in the Mozilla IRC channels as is

But the core code is already done in many bt clients, integrating one with the download manager shouldn't be _that_ difficult.

Torrents open many cans of worms - port forwarding, having to leave it open after the download finishes, users who don't understand why they're suddenly uploading gigs of data per day and getting in trouble with their ISPs, plus a whole slew of new reasons a download could fail (no seeds, the full file isn't available, the tracker is down, etc).

 

[Nothinman]

Port forwarding should be left up to the user, that UPnP crap is, well, crap. Seeding after finishing is a bit of a problem that most people wouldn't be aware of, but I doubt it would be a big deal as long as the mirrors have a few seeds setup where they have their FTP servers. And no seeds, lack of full file or the tracker being down are all things that affect regular mirror services too. The mirror could be in the middle of syncing with the master, the FTP you just clicked on could be down or not allowing more users, etc.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Port forwarding should be left up to the user, that UPnP crap is, well, crap. Seeding after finishing is a bit of a problem that most people wouldn't be aware of, but I doubt it would be a big deal as long as the mirrors have a few seeds setup where they have their FTP servers. And no seeds, lack of full file or the tracker being down are all things that affect regular mirror services too. The mirror could be in the middle of syncing with the master, the FTP you just clicked on could be down or not allowing more users, etc.

What small command line client do you use? Something that doesn't require python or anything crappy like that.

 

[Nothinman]

Generally I use the python bittornado client, it's small enough for all of my machines.

But I recently installed rtorrent to check it out and it doesn't seem bad. It's written in C++ and uses libtorrent, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to drop into Mozilla.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Generally I use the python bittornado client, it's small enough for all of my machines.

But I recently installed rtorrent to check it out and it doesn't seem bad. It's written in C++ and uses libtorrent, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to drop into Mozilla.

I'm just trying to come up with what bittorrent client could be used on a boot floppy to replace FTP. I'm not sure how any of them would fit on there with the rest of the install stuff...

 

[CTho9305]

replied to wrong thread

 

[Nothinman]

I'm just trying to come up with what bittorrent client could be used on a boot floppy to replace FTP. I'm not sure how any of them would fit on there with the rest of the install stuff...

I don't think most Linux distributions support floppy installs anymore, other than for bootstrapping CDs, anyway.

 

[rh71]

*oops wrong thread*

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'm just trying to come up with what bittorrent client could be used on a boot floppy to replace FTP. I'm not sure how any of them would fit on there with the rest of the install stuff...

I don't think most Linux distributions support floppy installs anymore, other than for bootstrapping CDs, anyway.

Unimportant. If you want to replace FTP with bittorrent there has to be something for the rest of us.

Last time I looked Debian tried to have a floppy based network install. They couldn't be bothered to get it to work on one floppy, but they had it.

 

[Nothinman]

Unimportant. If you want to replace FTP with bittorrent there has to be something for the rest of us.

Nothing is stopping mirror people from running both, infact it probably wouldn't work well for a FTP-type install because with bt you generally feed the client a torrent file and it downloads everything in the file. I know some torrent clients let you specify priority and I think even exclude files from being downloaded, so it's possible but I don't know how much work it would be or if it would be worth it for system installations.

Last time I looked Debian tried to have a floppy based network install. They couldn't be bothered to get it to work on one floppy, but they had it.

Yea, I'm not sure how many floppies it ended up being or if it even works. I only played with the CD netinstall since even my 10 year old Alpha boots from an IDE CDROM just fine.

But we're getting pretty far off topic.