Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Technology/Computers  > Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame makes IE less secure      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 subtlecaffeine
Joined: 5/23/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame makes IE less securePage 1 of 1    
Scripts that bypass IE's security checks because they're embedded in advertisement engines that infect your computer with nasty spyware = bad.

something that alerts you to the fact a website has been known to distribute spyware, which chrome does = good.

When microsoft claims something not theirs makes something of theirs less secure, i tend to ignore it. If MS had it's way, we'd all be running nothing but MS supplied software...much like Apple has managed to do with it's OS and applications over the years...they're already forcing stuff like media player, ie, messenger and other things in to the OS.
 NurbyDriver
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame makes IE less secure
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:05:19 AM
"Thoughts, comments?"

Use Linux.

Firefox, Opera, Flock, Chrome= W3C compliant

IE=NOT

As web developer that's a big deal to me. I have to create separate files and incorporate work arounds just to get IE to render sites I design correctly, because MS just refuses to go along with the program everyone else is using, that's reason enough to despise them.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame makes IE less secure
Posted: 9/26/2009 8:52:02 PM
If Microsoft are so worried about plug-ins, why aren't they telling everyone to stop using the Flash plug-in, the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in, the Yahoo! Toolbar plug-in, and the Windows Live Toolbar plug-in?

People have to pay Microsoft for IE, because it is shipped with Windows.

Want to surf the net? You need a browser. Pick IE? Buy Windows. More money for Microsoft.

Want to surf the net using Chrome, Firefox, or any other browser? They're FREE. So no more need to buy Windows, and no money for Microsoft. Boo-hoo, Microsoft. Time to try and dissuade everyone from giving up IE and giving up Windows as well.

Personally, I switched to Opera about a year ago. MUCH faster than Firefox, IE, or Chrome, has phishing and the rest built-in, and no probs (so far!) Much prefer it.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame makes IE less secure
Posted: 9/28/2009 7:54:09 PM
RE Msg: 7 by BladeRunner_IW:
They are stable plug-ins, they use the security features of the app they run in.
The Chrome pug-in ignores those features, and blocks then from working, and if a computer is compromised because of it then its the browser that will take the blame not the plug-in, despite it being the fault of the plug-in not the browser.
The whole design structure outlined for internet browsers is to not allow those things happening from the core, especially for plug-ins, because anyone can write a plug-in. If plug-ins could bypass browser security, that would make browsers just as insecure as any other program, and would defeat the security structure of browsers anyway. So I've got to wonder at any browser that could let you do that.

Also, I've had problems on my last computer with Windows Live accessing the internet separately, bypassing the security of IE, and opening itself to downloading viruses. Same for Yahoo! toolbar and other toolbars, which is why I no longer use them. It's a pain. But it makes my computer far less open to attack.


People have to pay Microsoft for IE, because it is shipped with Windows.
They dont have to pay for it at all.
In fact the reality is exactly the other way round, the cost of Windows without IE would be higher.
You are getting it cheaper because of IE.

The browsers you speak of might be free to download sure, but there are reasons they are free.
There is no support from the makers of the software at all, the only support you will get is your average joe on a forum who has had the problem and fixed it, or seen the fix for it and shares the answer with you.
Its the same with Linux and FreeBSD, sure they are free to get but the support costs to run it are higher than Windows costs to buy it, meaning the total cost of ownership of a "Free" OSS PC that is supported is higher than a "Bought" propretry PC that is supported.

Dont get me wrong I do like OSS, its great, especially from a personal finance stand point.
I can earn much more as a Linux specialist than I can as a bog standard Windows engineer, considerably more, but these days companies are wise to the TCO of "free" OSS software like Linux, and all the ones Ive worked with in the past have been there, done it and moved back to Windows because its cheaper.
The same goes for the home user too, if you want support then it costs!

So dont fool yourself into thinking, or try and convince me into thinking its FREE, because I know it isnt, the cost of OSS [Linux, FreeBSD, Opera, Firefox, Chrome etc etc] is in time, lack of support, lack of accountability, and if you can get any of them then it costs far more than it would if you had gotten it from Microsoft.
I don't know about that. I started working in 95 with IBM AS/400s. Then my mother got a Windows 95 computer with IE built-in, and my headaches began, because I had to fix it. I started to talk about AS/400s like they were wonders. Sure, they were dinosaurs that looked about as colourful as the back end of a donkey in a black-and-white film. But they didn't take 3 days to fix. You told them to do something, they did it. Windows 95 would crash if you just pressed the buttons a little bit too fast. I had been using IE for about 9 years before Firefox came along. I was already so sick of the problems I had in it always crashing, being incredibly slow, and generally being a nightmare to use, that I had downloaded tons of other browsers I could find on the web, just looking for a replacement. Once I started using Firefox, and saw how ruddy easy it was to use compared to IE, I never looked back. It crashed once or twice, but never anywhere near as much as IE did. Very quickly, it had an automatic updater built-in, so when a new version came out, it would just tell me, all I had to do was press Update, and it would update Firefox for me. It had anti-phishing filters before I knew that I needed them, because the first I saw was that I got an email with a link, and when I clicked on it, Firefox's address bar showed an entirely different address than the one the link said it was. I tried the same in IE, and no such luck. It was reporting the link as the same as it claimed to be. It was YEARS before IE got an anti-phishing filter. Same for the multiple tabs. I was using them for years. Plus, every time I heard a new vulnerability came out about Firefox, there was Firefox with an update in a matter of hours. IE was never that fast on updates. I don't think I've EVER got a virus through Firefox. Through IE? No such luck. Really, I don't even bother with IE anymore. No point. It's way too slow, and its way too insecure for me.

Firefox? I never had to do more much than install, and press Update for when a new update came out.

I tried Chrome. But it kept opening up a new process for every window. With several tabs open, it got really slow.

I recently decided to switch to Opera, but only because it's way faster, and it works at least as reliably as Firefox.

As far as Linux goes, I've never really worked on it. I have worked on a Mac, and I don't recall needing to fix it. It never went wrong. What I can say about Windows, is that I've been working on Windows since 95. I hate it, because everyone has a problem with Windows, and 99% of them are a b*stard to fix. A lot of Dlls corrupt. A lot of Dlls' registry settings corrupt. A lot of things go wrong on Windows all the time. I'd recommend to everyone that they Ghost their new install, and just restore it.

The support staff I've met, either do fresh installs, because it's quicker to reinstall everything than even diagnosing a problem on Windows, or they just demand that all employees have to ask their permission before doing anything they haven't already been told they can do, or they fix the problems, and they range from hours to weeks to fix. One person I knew, used to support Windows and Macs. He loved Macs because they almost never went wrong, and when they did, they were easy to fix. Windows, as I explained, were a freaking pain in the backside, and then some, I pointed out to him, though, that 90% of his calls were from Windows machines, and if he only dealt with Macs, he'd have almost no work, because nothing would go wrong.

That's why I'm surprised you said you made much more money in Linux support. There are so many support calls for Windows, and they are so difficult to fix, and the people who own Windows usually know so little about computing, and are entirely at your mercy, that you can pretty much write your own ticket. The only advantage of Linux is that there are a lot less Linux specialists, so the price goes up. But even MCSE for most Microsoft products was just reading a manual of stuff that anyone could find out just by reading the help. MCSE for being a DBA on Microsoft SQL Server might cost you £5,000. But that job would pay £45,000, and you wouldn't need to be all that bright, only know how to read a manual, and how to follow instructions. Development was potentially even more lucrative, because Microsoft development products tend to be focussed on RAD, but have lots of failures in reliability. So provided you don't agree to cover all the support costs in your maintenance contract, but only the first hour, say, and charge for the rest, then you'll have a product ready to go in 3 months, with lots of support calls, that will cost your clients an arm and a leg.

Money for old rope, really.

Sure Microsoft are money grabbing **stards, who would like nothing more that to set up a DD for your wages from you to them every month, but at least there honest about it.
I mean do you have any idea what Opera get from their browser?
Or an even better study would be Google!!!
now theres a story.
Of course Opera are getting money for their browser. So are Google. That much is obvious. SOMEONE has to be paying their wages, and they are produced by private companies, who are there for a profit. But what makes you think Microsoft aren't doing exactly the same deals? Bill Gates is a very savvy guy. His products are loaded with errors and bad design, but are very well marketed, and if anyone has cornered the market on copying what others are doing in IT, it's Bill Gates and Microsoft. If anyone in computing was going to spot a way to make money, especially if it was a way that others are doing already, it would be Microsoft. So have no fear, for every deal that Opera does with eBay or Amazon or Google, or the deals that Google has, there are 10 that Microsoft have already made.
Show ALL Forums  > Technology/Computers  > Microsoft: Google Chrome Frame makes IE less secure