Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blacken]

...

I find it hilarious that you devoted so much time bashing arguments in the context of "Upgrading IE6" that were written in the context of "Upgrading IE6, Windows XP, and just about any other program that is mildly outdated"

Truthfully, most of my arguments are worthless in that one post from my view as well, as long as the scope is assumed to be "IE6 only".

Your arguments remain worthless anyway, but I will indulge.

Cost. At this point, you should have at least considered that the arguments were for a more broad area than just browsers.
Settings/tweaks. Getting new ones for an alternate browser is much easier than for a new OS.
Backwards Compatibility. The web was designed for this. HTML is supposed to degrade gracefully where possible. Inter-OS backwards compatibility, not so much(although in the earlier days of windows...)

Ooh, I "should have considered," huh? How about no, you shouldn't be trying to move the goalposts when you are shown to be full of it?

You were talking browsers. I don't care if you use XP; you aren't an overt danger to everyone else because you're using it. You are an infection vector for other people when you are using a known shitpile of security holes and then trying to encourage other people to, too.

The cost argument remains irrelevant, and you are backpedaling because you know you're wrong. Give up.

The sheer number of changes that has accumulated between XP and 7 is bordering on the diffrence between windows and mac, and that has well over a decade of arguments, since each side is easier to perople who are already there, and neither side will admit it.

Nonsense. I sat down in front of a Vista machine and was productive in about fifteen minutes, and Windows 7 isn't a significant change from Vista. Your own inability to address minor changes is nobody else's problem.

Will you continue to advocate a world where everyone is on one OS, one Browser, one media player, one email viewer? All in the name of progress and "security"?

Certainly not (though there should be a reference implementation of all web standards, and anyone even moderately divergent from this is wrong).

Diversity is the bane of viruses, as few people care to create a universal virus that can exploit flaws in all systems. If everyone was on windows 7, then the first universal flaw would be the end of everything. OS diversity is critical, but even diffrent OS versions helps. Although they may fix 10 bugs, there is a chance that 1 new one appears due to their efforts. Anyone exploiting that one new bug will only see results where the target has upgraded. If there was only one antivirus ever used, than virus makers would only have to design against it's strong points. Because there are multiple antivirus programs, one flaw is no longer a universal gateway in.

What is this babble? You do realize that virtually every exploit that has been found in modern versions of Internet Explorer exists and is worse in older versions? (Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't bother with this crap.) The software monoculture argument only exists when there are multiple comparable options. And multiple comparable options do exist: IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari. IE6 is not a comparable option because it is backassward caveman software.

You are attempting to manufacture reasons why "well, I'm not entirely wrong!!111". It's transparent and it's sad. Nobody, including Microsoft, thinks that you are even remotely correct. Stop even trying.

I don't mind you bashing my arguments, but as soon as you continue on to insult *me*, it becomes intolerably rude. Please refrain from incuring further uncivil debate by keeping the fight between arguments, and avoiding personal attacks.

Then don't be intellectually dishonest.

Also, when you complain about me deciding to use IE6, know this: I keep a fully upgraded copy of firefox, BECAUSE IT CAN COEXIST. If I must, I use it. If I knew that IE7 or 8 could coexist with IE6, I would have no problem with upgrading, but since I know that 7 or 8 will hijack file extension bindings and alter the registry for it's own process, I know that IE6 will be either damaged or disabled entirely in the process, so will not upgrade.

...

...

THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF UPGRADING AWAY FROM IE6.

Jesus. The point is to kill it with fire so it can't continue to serve as a vector for shitware of all kinds. The point is to get away from it, not to keep it around "oh, just in case." Because of the way Windows uses Trident internally, there is no way to improve security without removing it entirely. There's absolutely no reason to keep it around!

Can you argue against that? That IE8 won't displace 6, with no way to restore it if I prefer IE6? No, you can't.

Ooh, man, you're so fuckin' tough, huh? "Oh no you can't!" Did you do the head-shake and Z-snap while you were at it?

Don't be dense. IE6 should be removed, there's no decent reason to want a rollback. (Hint: yes, this means your scrambling excuses aren't decent reasons.)

Have you ever heard of how microsoft altered windows95 so that when you ran simcity, windows would refrain from freeing memory immediately, so that a *bug* in simcity that was harmless on previous versions of windows would not cause problems when the users upgraded.

That wasn't good behavior in the first place. Fix errors, do not hide them. It is the software vendor's job to comply with the behavior of the operating system. If something breaks, fix the software. Do not patch the operating system to make the software not suck when it is the software's job to not suck.

This is the difference between bog-standard end users who think they're l33t, and somebody who understands software design: you just want to whine and say it's different and thus it's bad, and I am saying it's better, thus it's good.

Also, that up to VB6, you could impost code from any past project, evne between the virst version of visual basic _ever_, and the last released version ov VB6. Then .net came, and all that preciously maintained backwards compatibility was lost.

...because Visual Basic 6 and earlier were bug-filled, slow, problematic wrecks of software. Visual Basic .NET is a fully compliant CLR language that can actually interoperate with software written in this century. Backwards compatibility is in no way an inherent good, and can be a net negative. Windows is well into net-negative territory and has been for quite some time; the jump to AMD64 would have been an excellent time to refactor APIs to get the fuck away from the mess that is Win32, but they refused because it would have broken compatibility. The payoff would have been far superior software quality and development experiences, but they would not take it.

Good christ. Do you really think you win some kind of point by invoking VB6? Nobody who ever did significant work with VB6 thought it was good. It was a bizlogic language contorted into general purpose programming.

At what point are you going to realize that you are just horribly, horribly outmatched here, and it would be a good idea to stop?

Read this, and then tell me how much *effort* was put into ensuring that users who didn't like IE7 or 8 could return to whatever version they had before. Come on, tell me. If you can point out an easy way to revert, in 3 easy steps not much harder than a click of a button, then I may actually upgrade.

Joel Sposky doesn't interest me, and what he has to say has no bearing on a security update--which is what IE6->IE8 is. There is no good reason to back out of the IE6->IE8 upgrade. None. Your preferences don't fucking take precedence over becoming an active danger to other people, and it's better software besides.

If you can't, then just face it, that I am too dead set on my prefrences for your arguments to succeed, no matter how good they may seem to you.

Oh, get off your high fucking horse. You don't matter enough for me to bother with, you're too convinced of your own nonexistence competence to listen. I'm slotted off that you have the temerity to try to infect others with your bad advice. Your advice will hurt people if it is taken. It is wrong. Stop giving it.

I am doubtlessly not alone in stubbornly sticking to IE6.

Yeah you are. IE6 usage is dropping off a sheer cliff. It essentially exists only in the corporate world, and migrations away from XP are killing that quickly. Unfortunately, we have another four years of dealing with that piece of shit. Maybe by then we can actually have something halfway decent.

For me, it is prefrence despite liking the later ones(not as much as IE6, though, or I would have upgraded long ago), but others might be afraid of losing what little they know of their browser.

Users don't give a shit what browser they have. It opens a homepage and they click links. The only people who are making a big deal about OH MY GOD I MIGHT HAVE TO UPGRADE BUT GOD DAMMIT I AM FAR TOO MUCH OF A LEET HAXXOR TO DO IT are people like you: without the domain-specific knowledge to understand what's going on, but far, far too convinced of their own capabilities to listen to people (read: me) who actually do have a commanding grasp of the topic.

My only concern is that somebody might read your tripe and think you're somehow knowledgeable enough to be treated as an authoritative source, and potentially damage their computers by following your shitty advice.

Think of this as a test. If you can convince *me* that downgrading is at least nearly as easy as upgrading, and that no settings will be lost in either transition, then you have an argument that convince *them*, the people with less of an understanding, who remain behind because they don't know any better.

I don't care what you do. Get your computer pwnt. At this point, you deserve it.

[Blacken]

Considering youtube and many other web 2.0 sites are considering blocking IE6 access, and microsoft itself has lately urged IE6 users to upgrade to IE8 because of security flaws and how it's technologically "holding back" the internet - it ought to carry some weight when the company itself is telling you not to use their old product anymore

But clearly he knows better than they do. After all, they didn't spend years trying to fix it or take a beating for the security failings of the design of the older software or at all know what they're talking about.

Oh. Oh wait. They are the most authoritative source on the goddamn topic, and they're saying he's out of his tree to willingly keep using it.

Gee. Maybe there's something to what I'm saying after all.

[Tarran]

*sigh*, Blacken, this thread is going to be locked now, I know it.

qwertyuiopas, comparing IE6 and IE8 is basically the same as comparing DF 0.28.181.39a to DF 0.28.181.40d, it's basically the same, it takes very little work to go to the other, programs that work with one might not work with the other, but they will likely be either updated or replaced. It's not that hard to go from one to the other.

[G-Flex]

I'd say the difference is similar to that in terms of user interface, but on the other hand, .39a didn't have massive security holes that become a liability to the entire Internet.

[qwertyuiopas]

Ooh, I "should have considered," huh? How about no, you shouldn't be trying to move the goalposts when you are shown to be full of it?

*Moving* them?

No, I am taking you and shoving you towards them so that you can actually *see* them, after you blundered right past, ignoring them because your argument was only valid with your misinterpretation!

Reread the list. How much of it is nearly nonsense when applied to browsers alone? How much of that makes sense when you add OSs?

The way you speak of IE6, it's a wonder that the entire world is not a huge cesspit of malicious code, irremovably ingraned into every system that ever ran windows XP, since IE6 was relatively safe for years before IE7, and it most certainly has *not* gotten worse.

If anything, I take a greater risk opening a PDF than using IE6 for a week.

Should microsoft drop all win32 support? Most certainly not! If they did, *any* game that was written using win32(hint: nearly all of them) will cease to function, and windows 8 will be as devoid of games as non-graphical versions of linux for a few years. This would cause the entirely predictable result of nobody upgrading, and microsoft would lose everything that they have worked for. At least with vista, most things still ran and they quickly released fixes for the biggest issues, but if they dropped win32...

qwertyuiopas, comparing IE6 and IE8 is basically the same as comparing DF 0.28.181.39a to DF 0.28.181.40d, it's basically the same, it takes very little work to go to the other, programs that work with one might not work with the other, but they will likely be either updated or replaced. It's not that hard to go from one to the other.

Not quite. It would be like comparing two versions where the more recent one has altered the save format somewhat but still retains the ability to load older saves. ONce you save in the new version, there is no going back, without losing all of your progress.

In case you missed it, I mentioned that I *do* have an alternate browser, so to continue on the DF comparison, it would be more like keeping a copy from the 2D version alongside DF2010, only with *less* of a gap. Sure, 2D had more errors, but nothing was game-crippling if you bothered to backup your saves once in a while.

The problem here is that Blacken continues to make attacks against me, and I continue to argue(though more often arguing against his arguments then him himself). Also, evidently, both of us keep ignoring each others' better points.

IE6 IE7 IE8
Of the three, IE6 has the lowest percentage unpatched, and all three have equal "most critical unpatched" ratings. (Also, if you can't understand that as being sarcastic/twisting the facts, then you shouldn't be arguing here, at all)

[Tarran]

...
IE6 IE7 IE8
Of the three, IE6 has the lowest percentage unpatched, and all three have equal "most critical unpatched" ratings. (Also, if you can't understand that as being sarcastic/twisting the facts, then you shouldn't be arguing here, at all)

IE6 195 Vulnerabilities Unpatched 17% (33)
IE7 118 Vulnerabilities Unpatched  25% (30)
IE8 42 Vulnerabilities Unpatched 40% (17)
*ahem*.

And,

Diversity is the bane of viruses, as few people care to create a universal virus that can exploit flaws in all systems. If everyone was on windows 7, then the first universal flaw would be the end of everything. OS diversity is critical, but even diffrent OS versions helps. Although they may fix 10 bugs, there is a chance that 1 new one appears due to their efforts. Anyone exploiting that one new bug will only see results where the target has upgraded. If there was only one antivirus ever used, than virus makers would only have to design against it's strong points. Because there are multiple antivirus programs, one flaw is no longer a universal gateway in.

What is this babble? You do realize that virtually every exploit that has been found in modern versions of Internet Explorer exists and is worse in older versions? (Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't bother with this crap.) The software monoculture argument only exists when there are multiple comparable options. And multiple comparable options do exist: IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari. IE6 is not a comparable option because it is backassward caveman software.

He is right here, mostly, sometimes newer versions will have exploits that the old one doesn't, but that barely counts for anything since IE6's support will eventually end, and some exploits will never be fixed!



The bottom line is; you will have to upgrade someday, one by one sites will shut down support for IE6, so don't be surprised to find that some sites won't work.

Stop acting like you know everything, you are twisting words, like; 'Should microsoft drop all win32 support?' that applies to a system not a program. Hell, they dropped win 3, win 95, and win 98 support, no-one uses them today anyway!

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6
'This version of Internet Explorer is widely derided for its security issues and lack of support for modern web standards, making frequent appearances in "worst tech products of all time" lists, with some publications labeling it as the "least secure software on the planet." Campaigns have been established to encourage users to upgrade to newer versions of Internet Explorer or switch to different browsers, and some websites have dropped support for IE6 entirely, most notable of which is Google's drop of support.'
http://www.pcworld.com/article/125772-3/the_25_worst_tech_products_of_all_time.html

[G-Flex]

The way you speak of IE6, it's a wonder that the entire world is not a huge cesspit of malicious code, irremovably ingraned into every system that ever ran windows XP, since IE6 was relatively safe for years before IE7, and it most certainly has *not* gotten worse.

This isn't how software security works. New holes get found over time, and with an old product like IE6, they're very unlikely to be fixed. Also, acting like prior versions of IE6 were actually safe is a little silly. Christ, does anyone remember when ActiveX exploits were popular?

If anything, I take a greater risk opening a PDF than using IE6 for a week.

Then don't use Adobe Reader. It's bad when it comes to that.

Should microsoft drop all win32 support? Most certainly not! If they did, *any* game that was written using win32(hint: nearly all of them) will cease to function, and windows 8 will be as devoid of games as non-graphical versions of linux for a few years. This would cause the entirely predictable result of nobody upgrading, and microsoft would lose everything that they have worked for. At least with vista, most things still ran and they quickly released fixes for the biggest issues, but if they dropped win32...

I don't think he's saying they should. He's saying that, if they didn't care about backwards-compatible like you're talking about, they could make the OS a lot better. This has a lot of truth to it. It's a hell of a lot easier to rewrite old code every once in a while than to constantly pile new features and fixes onto a codebase reaching back to a time so far gone that I've literally held intelligent conversations with people born since then.

This doesn't mean that they should drop win32 support, just that it would have serious long-term avantages.

Not quite. It would be like comparing two versions where the more recent one has altered the save format somewhat but still retains the ability to load older saves. ONce you save in the new version, there is no going back, without losing all of your progress.

This is amusing, because IE6 does not even render/process things similarly to IE7/8. It's more like the new version of DF coming out, yet some people, somewhere, absolutely refuse to use it for extremely hazy and backwards reasons, so Toady's forced to code in specific exceptions for everything for those people.

In case you missed it, I mentioned that I *do* have an alternate browser, so to continue on the DF comparison, it would be more like keeping a copy from the 2D version alongside DF2010, only with *less* of a gap. Sure, 2D had more errors, but nothing was game-crippling if you bothered to backup your saves once in a while.

You use your browser to do more than have fun, and people don't have to write new content to suit you using an old version of DF. The problem with using IE6 these days is that security vulnerabilities are a liability to both you AND other people, and people/companies using IE6 means people still have to code webpages with exceptions in mind specifically for it, which is ridiculous.

The problem here is that Blacken continues to make attacks against me, and I continue to argue(though more often arguing against his arguments then him himself). Also, evidently, both of us keep ignoring each others' better points.

I honestly haven't seen many good points here from you.

[Aklyon]

You guys should just rename this thread "Argument: Technical Computer Software" or something, its definitely what this got turned into.

[qwertyuiopas]

I honestly haven't seen many good points here from you.

The most important one I have is that I choose not to upgrade.

However, *some* people can't accept that it is a good enough reason for me and just move on.

Their "Concerns" over security *are* valid, but they also forget to consider that almost everyone has some form of antivirus, and that the biggest source of viruses is not, in fact, the DF forums. Seriously. You act like I use IE6 to download hacked ROMs by the gigabyte, and run any .exe or click any advertisement that I come across a URL to. However, 1) I don't do *any* of those(and other activities to numerous to mention that generally are more likely to expose a computer to viruses), and 2) if I wanted to view an untrusted or IE6-"incompatible" site, I would use a different browser. And by diffrent browser, I mean one that can coexist with IE6 flawlessly. And at this point, that is either a non-microsoft browser that somebody else made, or one that I made, if I ever made one.

If you are so inclined to get offended over the prefence of others, then I should just burn you with magma like the elves you are.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I'm not offended, your choice is your choice. Others may speak differently. Blacken's frustrated because IE6 continues to be a blight on microsoft and the internet standards committees. It's an open vulnerability allowing easy exploits continued existence.

All I'm saying is that your logic is similar to those who disregard the science and safety of such things like vaccinations out of fear that they are "unsafe".

The fact of the matter is that it's simply more safe to upgrade from IE6 or use almost any other browser that isn't IE6 - there's no legitimate reason to stick with it other than nostalgia, stubbornness, and personal preference.  IE6 will be going the way of netscape soon anyhow, it's only a matter of time.

[Tarran]

Their "Concerns" over security *are* valid,

Then why were you arguing?!

and that the biggest source of viruses is not, in fact, the DF forums.

WE NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS!

Seriously. You act like I use IE6 to download hacked ROMs by the gigabyte, and run any .exe or click any advertisement that I come across a URL to. However, 1) I don't do *any* of those(and other activities to numerous to mention that generally are more likely to expose a computer to viruses),

Exploits are holes from just going to a site, and advertisement sites aren't the only sites that can exploit your browser.

and 2) if I wanted to view an untrusted or IE6-"incompatible" site, I would use a different browser. And by diffrent browser, I mean one that can coexist with IE6 flawlessly. And at this point, that is either a non-microsoft browser that somebody else made, or one that I made, if I ever made one.

Fine, don't use IE6 and use firefox when HTTP 5 is introduced and/or sites work poorly, IE6 will just be another one of those programs you wonder why it's there but never use it.

If you are so inclined to get offended over the prefence of others, then I should just burn you with magma like the elves you are.

I'm not offended, but you are, you don't like us arguing, which I can understand, it's just that you have seen fit to argue back again and again poorly.

I admit, we should not be asking you to stop using IE6, but your arguments are full of holes.



I don't usually argue this hard, to tell you the truth, so I don't act like this all the time, just when I'm trying to prove a point.

(AND YES I'M TRYING TO BE NICE.)

[ThreeToe]

I'm getting some reports about this topic, so if you guys could lower the temperature a bit, that would make my day.

[G-Flex]

The most important one I have is that I choose not to upgrade.

That's not a point, it's just a statement of fact, though.

However, *some* people can't accept that it is a good enough reason for me and just move on.

"Because I feel like it" is never a good reason, especially when what you're doing harms yourself and/or others.

Their "Concerns" over security *are* valid, but they also forget to consider that almost everyone has some form of antivirus, and that the biggest source of viruses is not, in fact, the DF forums.

Antivirus/antimalware programs don't catch everything. They in fact miss a surprising amount of stuff, especially as they emerge.

Seriously. You act like I use IE6 to download hacked ROMs by the gigabyte, and run any .exe or click any advertisement that I come across a URL to.

As has been mentioned, this isn't necessary. You don't need to go to a seemingly-illegitimate site in order to run into some stupid javascript exploit or whatever.

2) if I wanted to view an untrusted or IE6-"incompatible" site, I would use a different browser.

It's impossible to always tell when a site can't be trusted, or is incompatible with your browser, especially when your browser doesn't conform to modern standards (and this fact gets more and more true).

If you are so inclined to get offended over the prefence of others, then I should just burn you with magma like the elves you are.

I'm not offended by your preferences. I'm offended by the fact that your preferences and actions are based on superficial preference that hinges in no way on what might actually be harmful to you or others. You might think that this only affects you, but it doesn't. People sticking to IE6 despite all reasons not to is bad for the web/the IT industry and presents a security nightmare. It's like if Toyota did that brake-pedal recall, but countless people and companies still used the affected vehicles for the next five years without bothering to get them replaced/fixed. Well, except in this case, it makes the cars crash into other people too.

[Blacken]

My default Metasploit install has half a dozen remote code vulnerabilities that work on an XP SP2 install with IE6. They can be injected into websites without a lot of work, regardless of how "respectable" the site may be.

That alone's enough to make it worth tubing the frigging thing.