US Gov looking for input about IE ONLY pre-patient web site...

I am not sure if this affects anyone but, I thought I would post it. I think
it is BS to restrict access to a Gov agency. Definitely worth a law suit if
they do this as it is restricting my access to a governmental agency.

http://lwn.net/Articles/147197/

Im

Jim Watt wrote:

> Many electronic banking packages are restricted to IE because
> of its security features.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Now that just is not true, it comes down being lazy and cheap. In
fact at least one US government security agency has advised people
to use 'alternative browsers', meaning Firefox, Opera, etc.

My wife & I have a number of US & UK bank accounts between us that
are very happy to accept accept Firefox. Not forgetting Amazon,
eBay, paypal and every site that I've bought from.

With IE's position being gradually eaten away we will see all sites
having be able to deal with Firefox, etc.

Quite simply a sensible website designer will design his/her site to
be compliant with web standards - that is not use any IE specific
coding (no ActiveX) and not use Frontpage to create it. That way the
designer can be sure that the site will render correctly in all
graphical browsers.


Charlie.


PS: this is my last response to you Jim lad as it seems to me that
you just like to argue blindly. Hope the sun is shining on you in
Gibraltar :)



--
Broadcasting to the environs
www.radiowymsey.org

"Management" <charlienospam@peartreegreen.org> wrote in message
news:42ff3b37$0$18648$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Jim Watt wrote:
>
> > Many electronic banking packages are restricted to IE because
> > of its security features.
> > --
> > Jim Watt
> > http://www.gibnet.com
>
> Now that just is not true, it comes down being lazy and cheap. In
> fact at least one US government security agency has advised people
> to use 'alternative browsers', meaning Firefox, Opera, etc.

I'd love a cite on that one (preferably not from an evangalist). My company
codes cross-platform, so it's something that would be useful to me
personally in discussions (all large customers - aside from a Nutscrape 4.7
French car maker - are 100% IE outside of the IT department)

The main problem, incidentally, really *is* laziness - they don't
specifically code for Firefox when they check the browser major version.
Given its roots, one might view this as sheer arrogance from Firefox.

> My wife & I have a number of US & UK bank accounts between us that
> are very happy to accept accept Firefox. Not forgetting Amazon,
> eBay, paypal and every site that I've bought from.

The vst majority are. The killer (as described above) is where you have to
have particular features - usually a minimum of 128-bit SSL. IIRC, that
"only" came out in 1999. I still stumble across 800x600 Windows 3 desktops,
let alone the hoards of Win95 users still lurking out there. As Jim says, if
you check the small-print, you'll probably find that your bank only support
IE. Use something different, by all means, but don't expect *support*.

You'll find the same thing (at least in the UK) when it comes to ISPs and
DSL/Cable routers. Loads have 'em, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an ISP
that *officially* offers support for them. Hell, since my ISP went IBM (via
Bangalore), I've had to explain how SMTP works from the bottom up, just to
get them to fix a bad switch/option on one box in a farm of otherwise
correctly-configured servers...

> Quite simply a sensible website designer will design his/her site to
> be compliant with web standards - that is not use any IE specific
> coding (no ActiveX) and not use Frontpage to create it. That way the
> designer can be sure that the site will render correctly in all
> graphical browsers.

Frontpage (retch).

The only site that I access with ActiveX is Windows Update, and things that
require plug-ins such as Flash or PDF (same damn technology under the
covers, no matter how you dress it up). The only time that the sites differ
is when using a Mozilla pixel (which is a different size to every other
pixel) and browser-specific limitations. In other words, look-and-feel,
rather than content.

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

P.S. Message to OP: copyright isn't a patent, which is the nearest typo I
can get to "patient". Duncha just lurve spellchuckers? ;o)

"Micheal Robert Zium" <mrozium@XSPAMX-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4nuuf19ju4jo1g83u9p5cgghgedb8atjer@4ax.com...
> Jim Watt wrote:
>
> >Many electronic banking packages are restricted to IE because
> >of its security features.
>
> Thanks for the comedy. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.
> I'd be very interested to read anything that would shed some light on
> that statement. Anything to back it up.

RBS/Natwest currently mandate IE. FirstDirect (Midland, now HSBC) used to,
when I was with them. A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
with Firefox, but I'm not sure of their official policy. I think that
Commerzbank recently kludged to allow it.

A quick search reveals that Commerce Bank & Trust in the US (never heard of
'em) do officially support Firefox. As do Berliner Bank and Sparkasse
Pforzheim in Germany, and HVB Bank in the Czech Republic (although only on
Windows). Feel free to go beyond the first 100 Google hits...

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> .... A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
> with Firefox....

I use ibanking at Barclays, and have used Firefox with absolutely no
problems at all, right from version 0.7 of Firefox and straight 'out of
the box', both on Windoze and Linux versions, so I don't know where that
one comes from.

Steve

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> .... A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
> with Firefox....

I use ibanking at Barclays, and have used Firefox with absolutely no
problems
at all, right from version 0.7 of Firefox and straight 'out of the box',
both
on Windoze and Linux versions, so I don't know where that one comes from.

Steve

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> .... A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
> with Firefox....

I use ibanking at Barclays, and have used Firefox with absolutely no
problems
at all, right from version 0.7 of Firefox and straight 'out of the box',
both
on Windoze and Linux versions, so I don't know where that one comes from.

Steve

"Steve Welsh" <sjw@stevew.net> wrote in message
news:42FF9582.1040307@stevew.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> > .... A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
> > with Firefox....
>
> I use ibanking at Barclays, and have used Firefox with absolutely no
> problems at all, right from version 0.7 of Firefox and straight 'out of
> the box', both on Windoze and Linux versions, so I don't know where that
> one comes from.

Well, the version he used, against the site version at Barclays at the time,
apparently didn't work. IIRC, it was a widely-publicised major version check
(Firefox used to report version zero/one, haven't check myself, recently,
whether it now reports the correct Mozilla version)

BTW, you might want to deselect the "post thrice" option ;o)

H1K

Micheal Robert Zium wrote:

> Jim Watt wrote:
>
>>Many electronic banking packages are restricted to IE because
>>of its security features.
>
> Thanks for the comedy. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.
> I'd be very interested to read anything that would shed some light on
> that statement. Anything to back it up.

The guy is an idiot. He makes me laugh (at him) a lot...at least he is good
for something.

Imhotep

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> "Steve Welsh" <sjw@stevew.net> wrote in message
> news:42FF9582.1040307@stevew.net...
>
>>Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>>
>>>.... A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
>>>with Firefox....
>>
>>I use ibanking at Barclays, and have used Firefox with absolutely no
>>problems at all, right from version 0.7 of Firefox and straight 'out of
>>the box', both on Windoze and Linux versions, so I don't know where that
>>one comes from.
>
>
> Well, the version he used, against the site version at Barclays at the time,
> apparently didn't work. IIRC, it was a widely-publicised major version check
> (Firefox used to report version zero/one, haven't check myself, recently,
> whether it now reports the correct Mozilla version)
>
> BTW, you might want to deselect the "post thrice" option ;o)
>
> H1K
>
>
Yes, apologies all :-O

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

> to,

Honestly, I do not use IE (or Windows) do to the high security concerns with
both. I do a lot of online banking (both personal and business). I have
never had a problem.

Although I am sure that, Microsoft is the driving force behind this. They
can not compete so they are trying to force incompatibilities. Damn I
really despise that company. MS moto "If you can't compete, cheat".

Management wrote:

> Jim Watt wrote:
>
>> Many electronic banking packages are restricted to IE because
>> of its security features.
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
>
> Now that just is not true, it comes down being lazy and cheap. In
> fact at least one US government security agency has advised people
> to use 'alternative browsers', meaning Firefox, Opera, etc.
>
> My wife & I have a number of US & UK bank accounts between us that
> are very happy to accept accept Firefox. Not forgetting Amazon,
> eBay, paypal and every site that I've bought from.
>
> With IE's position being gradually eaten away we will see all sites
> having be able to deal with Firefox, etc.
>
> Quite simply a sensible website designer will design his/her site to
> be compliant with web standards - that is not use any IE specific
> coding (no ActiveX) and not use Frontpage to create it. That way the
> designer can be sure that the site will render correctly in all
> graphical browsers.
>
>
> Charlie.
>
>
> PS: this is my last response to you Jim lad as it seems to me that
> you just like to argue blindly. Hope the sun is shining on you in
> Gibraltar :)
>
>
>

That is very true. I worked for the DOE for a while and we "highly
recommended" NOT using IE...

Im

Imhotep wrote:

> I am not sure if this affects anyone but, I thought I would post it. I
> think it is BS to restrict access to a Gov agency. Definitely worth a law
> suit if they do this as it is restricting my access to a governmental
> agency.
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/147197/
>
> Im

There have been some good comments. However, the point is that the US gov
(any gov) should not block access to it's resources by using proprietary
technology. If you have an opinion on this please send your comments to the
link in the article. Ignoring the comic relief from Jim Watt, This is a
very serious issue for everyone....

Im

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I'd love a cite on that one (preferably not from an evangalist). My company
> codes cross-platform, so it's something that would be useful to me
> personally in discussions (all large customers - aside from a Nutscrape 4.7
> French car maker - are 100% IE outside of the IT department)


H1K,

Here it is, from USCERT
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878


<QUOTE>
Use a different web browser

There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies
related to the IE domain/zone security model, trust in and access to
the local file system (Local Machine Zone), the Dynamic HTML (DHTML)
document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features),
the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user
interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented as
operating system components that are used by IE and many other
programs to provide web browser functionality. These components are
integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE
frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating
system.

It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using
a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML
documents (e.g., web sites, HTML email messages). Such a decision
may, however, reduce the functionality of sites that require
IE-specific features such as proprietary DHTML, VBScript, and
ActiveX. Note that using a different web browser will not remove IE
from a Windows system, and other programs may invoke IE, the
WebBrowser ActiveX control (WebOC), or the HTML rendering engine
(MSHTML).

<UNQUOTE>

<SNIP>
Latest vulnerabilities here:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/alerts/SA05-221A.html
These are covered by the latest batch of patches from MS.

> The only site that I access with ActiveX is Windows Update, and things that
> require plug-ins such as Flash or PDF (same damn technology under the
> covers, no matter how you dress it up).

Me too :)

<SNIP>


Charlie.

--
Broadcasting to the environs
www.radiowymsey.org

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

>
> RBS/Natwest currently mandate IE. FirstDirect (Midland, now HSBC) used to,
> when I was with them. A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
> with Firefox, but I'm not sure of their official policy. I think that
> Commerzbank recently kludged to allow it.
>
<SNIP>

H1K,

I bank with Barclays, no problem with Firefox v1.0.6, ditto
Barclaycard - maybe your friend is not allowing cookies from
Barclays. I can also vouch for Citibank & Wells Fargo in the US.


Charlie.


--
Broadcasting to the environs
www.radiowymsey.org

Jim Watt wrote:
> So you keep saying, but you have a fixation..
>
> again the statistics tell a different story
>

Hmmm, not convinced about who has the fixation, Jim ;)

Also, I notice that you don't care to mention trends, i.e. that before
Firefox arrived on the scene M$ Internet Exploder was running somewhere
about 94%.

Don't _your_ (they aren't the only ones) statistics tell you something
from that?

Anyway, it's all bollox, cos everybody in the world knows that 93.692%
of statistics are made up :-D

Steve

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

"Management" <charlienospam@peartreegreen.org> wrote in message
news:42ffa3fb$0$18638$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > I'd love a cite on that one (preferably not from an evangalist). My
company
> > codes cross-platform, so it's something that would be useful to me
> > personally in discussions (all large customers - aside from a Nutscrape
4.7
> > French car maker - are 100% IE outside of the IT department)

> Here it is, from USCERT
> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

<snip content>

OK. I'll rephrase.. can someone please supply a cite for something that
wasn't fixed more than a year ago? ;o)

H1K

"Micheal Robert Zium" <mrozium@XSPAMX-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dh8vf1phd10c8sjnoh52s8d5gkengukgv1@4ax.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

<snip>

> I never questioned that the idiots at some banks may require their
> customers to use IE, I was referring to the laughable claim of IE's
> superior security features.

As I (think) I said, it all comes down to SSL. Older browsers just don't
have 128-bit, but it was always available as an upgrade option to IE. The
FirstDirect eBanking trial in 1996 that I participated in also proved that -
unlike what they told the public - the MS JVM *could* be upgraded in-place.

Sure, there are probably ways to code around most, if not all, of these
problems. But your average bank doesn't want to spend the time and money
unless it sees a financial result.

The usual way is to code so that everything /should/ work, but only
*officially* support a particular set of browsers and/or platforms. It's a
liability and testing thing.

H1K

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:52:37 +0200, in alt.computer.security , Jim
Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> in
<eckvf1h5th0rth2tps49c2p31126dt2an1@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:13:41 +0100, Steve Welsh <sjw@stevew.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>> So you keep saying, but you have a fixation..
>>>
>>> again the statistics tell a different story
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm, not convinced about who has the fixation, Jim ;)
>Clearly you mistake me for someone who cares what you think.
>
>>Also, I notice that you don't care to mention trends, i.e. that before
>>Firefox arrived on the scene M$ Internet Exploder was running somewhere
>>about 94%.
>
>OK lets look at last years figures:
>
> Browser % of Total Visitors
>---------------------------------------------------
>1 Internet Explorer 6.x 69.48%
>2 Internet Explorer 5.x 15.15%

IE total of about 85%.

>3 Netscape 6.x 3.84%
>4 Netscape 4.x 2.50%
>5 Netscape 3.x 1.14%
>6 Netscape 2.x 1.12%
>7 Netscape 7.x 0.76%
>8 Netscape 5.x 0.76%
>9 google 0.63%
>10 Opera 0.52%
>11 Internet Explorer 4 0.37%

Your previous number, which are the current figures (just to confuse
things)
Browser % of Total Visitors
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 Internet Explorer 6.x 75.46%
2 Netscape 6.x 8.49%
3 Internet Explorer 5. 4.78%
4 Netscape 4.x 3.01%
5 Others 2.00%

That gives an IE total of 80%. By your numbers IE has gone from 85% to
80%. That seems rather significant to me.

>>Don't _your_ (they aren't the only ones) statistics tell you something
>>from that?
>
>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>netscape have migrated to Firefox.

That and that IE has lost market share.

>>Anyway, it's all bollox, cos everybody in the world knows that 93.692%
>>of statistics are made up :-D

93.691% actually.

>Ah but mine represent the other 6.308%
--
Matt Silberstein

Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

Cliff on Cheers

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

<snip>

> RBS/Natwest currently mandate IE. FirstDirect (Midland, now HSBC) used to,
> when I was with them. A friend with Barclays was unable to access e-banking
> with Firefox, but I'm not sure of their official policy. I think that
> Commerzbank recently kludged to allow it.

Commerce Bank (in the US) has supported Firefox for over a year and a half
now, since I've had an account with them. Don't know when they were
"kludged to allow it", though, if that's who you were referring to..

Natwest supports ".. a wide range of browsers."

"We have tested the pages of the site with the following browsers:

* Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 4.0, 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 for PCs and
4.5, 5.0 for Macintosh computers
* Netscape Navigator Version 4.7x and 6.1 for PCs and Macintosh computers

They also state the following:

"We are committed to making our site more accessible and support the Web
Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Our product directory has been designed to
meet the WAI recommendations."

http://www.natwest.com/accessibility...=ACCESSIBILITY

I think it's a step in the right direction for more banks to realize that
people aren't only using IE, and code their pages appropriately. Not only
banks, but other businesses as well.

... just my .02 ..

-k

"Kevin Reiter" <tux@penguinnetwerx.net> wrote in message
news:JZaMe.854$EZ5.313@fe08.lga...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > RBS/Natwest currently mandate IE. FirstDirect (Midland, now HSBC) used
to,
> > when I was with them. A friend with Barclays was unable to access
e-banking
> > with Firefox, but I'm not sure of their official policy. I think that
> > Commerzbank recently kludged to allow it.
>
> Commerce Bank (in the US) has supported Firefox for over a year and a half
> now, since I've had an account with them. Don't know when they were
> "kludged to allow it", though, if that's who you were referring to..

No, Commerzbank, as in "Commerzbank". I dunno, these Germans and their funny
spelling... anyone would think that they didn't speak Amercian, of sumpfin
;o)

(If you check back, youd see that *I* was the first to mention Commerce Bank
& Trust in the US)

> Natwest supports ".. a wide range of browsers."
>
> "We have tested the pages of the site with the following browsers:
>
> * Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 4.0, 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 for PCs and
> 4.5, 5.0 for Macintosh computers
> * Netscape Navigator Version 4.7x and 6.1 for PCs and Macintosh computers

Yup. That's the Natwest web site. But /not/ the Natwest eBanking web site...
that's a link on the same page, and no longer seems to state a specific
policy. Instead, they give you a link to see if it'll work.

Firefox took a minor geological age to load the page, but came back with
"OK". Which has to be a good thing... (even if the menu on the left doesn't
display properly. It's that pixel size thing again)

'Course, doesn't mean that you'd get telephone support on Firefox - that'll
be with the T&Cs.

> They also state the following:
>
> "We are committed to making our site more accessible and support the Web
> Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Our product directory has been designed to
> meet the WAI recommendations."

Ditto and, after all, a legal requirement over here.

H1K

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>
>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>
> True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
> and is the dominant browser.
>
> lets look again next year.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

...and Hyundai out sell Ferrari in total unit sales every year. It does not
make a Ferrari a better car... and again, this post is about MS/US
Entertain industry forcing their way upon the US gov to intentionally push
linux and open source out. I will sue should this happen.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:48 GMT, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
<Imhotep@nospam.com> in <sApMe.34747$dJ5.9646@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

>Jim Watt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>>
>>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>>
>> True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
>> and is the dominant browser.
>>
>> lets look again next year.
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
>
>..and Hyundai out sell Ferrari in total unit sales every year. It does not
>make a Ferrari a better car

True, but not as powerful as one might think. GM used to say the same
thing about Honda and Toyota, now those two companies make the most
reliable cars in the world, at good prices, and have taken over almost
every segment of the market.

>... and again, this post is about MS/US
>Entertain industry forcing their way upon the US gov to intentionally push
>linux and open source out. I will sue should this happen.


--
Matt Silberstein


And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!

Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light

Jim Steinman

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:48 GMT, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
> <Imhotep@nospam.com> in <sApMe.34747$dJ5.9646@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>>>
>>>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>>>
>>> True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
>>> and is the dominant browser.
>>>
>>> lets look again next year.
>>> --
>>> Jim Watt
>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>
>>..and Hyundai out sell Ferrari in total unit sales every year. It does not
>>make a Ferrari a better car
>
> True, but not as powerful as one might think. GM used to say the same
> thing about Honda and Toyota, now those two companies make the most
> reliable cars in the world, at good prices, and have taken over almost
> every segment of the market.

The point being is that quantity does NOT indictate quality...

Honestly, I am just tried of that whole argument of "marketshare" when it
comes to Windose. I am criticizing Microsnaught for it's bad (and illegal)
business pratices. I am criticizing them for starting this bullshit IP laws
(which if they had there way, they would patent the decimal system and make
you pay them whenever you count something). I criticize them for forgetting
about there clients. I criticize them for forgeting about what a free
market is all about: Make the best product for the cheapest price...

Again, what does that have to do with marketshare? All the markshare
argument proves to me is that there are a lot of idiots out there...

Imhotep

>>... and again, this post is about MS/US
>>Entertain industry forcing their way upon the US gov to intentionally push
>>linux and open source out. I will sue should this happen.
>
>

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:23:53 GMT, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
<Imhotep@nospam.com> in <JPsMe.19464$Yx1.3602@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:48 GMT, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
>> <Imhotep@nospam.com> in <sApMe.34747$dJ5.9646@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>>>>
>>>> True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
>>>> and is the dominant browser.
>>>>
>>>> lets look again next year.
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Watt
>>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>>
>>>..and Hyundai out sell Ferrari in total unit sales every year. It does not
>>>make a Ferrari a better car
>>
>> True, but not as powerful as one might think. GM used to say the same
>> thing about Honda and Toyota, now those two companies make the most
>> reliable cars in the world, at good prices, and have taken over almost
>> every segment of the market.
>
>The point being is that quantity does NOT indictate quality...
>
>Honestly, I am just tried of that whole argument of "marketshare" when it
>comes to Windose. I am criticizing Microsnaught for it's bad (and illegal)
>business pratices. I am criticizing them for starting this bullshit IP laws
>(which if they had there way, they would patent the decimal system and make
>you pay them whenever you count something). I criticize them for forgetting
>about there clients. I criticize them for forgeting about what a free
>market is all about: Make the best product for the cheapest price...
>
>Again, what does that have to do with marketshare? All the markshare
>argument proves to me is that there are a lot of idiots out there...

My point is not that quantity equal quality, but that quantity can
lead to domination. I recommend fear rather than dismissal.


--
Matt Silberstein


And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!

Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light

Jim Steinman

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:42:48 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>..and Hyundai out sell Ferrari in total unit sales every year. It does not
>>make a Ferrari a better car...
>
> Uh? Irrelevent inaccurate diversion.

Not at all. But, constantly, using your browser stats is....

>
>>and again, this post is about MS/US
>>Entertain industry forcing their way upon the US gov to intentionally push
>>linux and open source out. I will sue should this happen.
>
> I thought it was about your prejudice against Microsoft.

Whatever. You are so blinded that you can not even see your nose. Trying to
educate you is just a waste of time.

> However the point of looking at browser statistics is to ensure
> that people using a facility get the best service and whilst a
> negligible number use Opera its not worth researching its quirks.

Let me tell you something. I do quite a lot of web designing. There is no
excuse for not supporting all current browsers....Even worse, no gov on
this planet should ever restrict access to gov information because certain
lobbyist groups have money to bribe legislators to create bullshit laws. I
do not care if they were pushing a linux only web site. The point is that
access should never be restricted. Never.

>
> Similarly I would not consider producing software for the Mac as
> there are no potential clients.

Not true. Mac software has doubled pretty much every year. It is also a far
superior operating system than Windose is. Again Jim, you are being blinded
into believing the MS is the only way to go.


Microsoft is a Cancer.

Im
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:29:59 +0200, in alt.computer.security , Jim
Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> in
<87p5g1h4r74qkco9f3vu9fspafl5473ngl@4ax.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Similarly I would not consider producing software for the Mac as
>there are no potential clients.

Now that is kind of silly. There are millions of potential clients. It
all depends on how many different products are already competing for
that niche. It could easily be that there is more potential for a
product for the Mac than for the PC.

Or is your point that they are too secure to need additional security
products?


--
Matt Silberstein


And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!

Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light

Jim Steinman

Smiling Wickedly, Jim Watt answered:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>
>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>
>
> True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
> and is the dominant browser.
>
> lets look again next year.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
Unfortunately your stats are flawed, as it is now OFFICIAL that Firefox
has close to 20% NOT what you listed. Still NOT what IE has , but IE is
done for.

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:29:59 +0200, in alt.computer.security , Jim
> Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> in
> <87p5g1h4r74qkco9f3vu9fspafl5473ngl@4ax.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Similarly I would not consider producing software for the Mac as
>>there are no potential clients.
>
> Now that is kind of silly. There are millions of potential clients. It
> all depends on how many different products are already competing for
> that niche. It could easily be that there is more potential for a
> product for the Mac than for the PC.
>
> Or is your point that they are too secure to need additional security
> products?
>
>

....nice comeback...

Casper wrote:

> Smiling Wickedly, Jim Watt answered:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>>
>>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>>
>>
>> True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
>> and is the dominant browser.
>>
>> lets look again next year.
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
> Unfortunately your stats are flawed, as it is now OFFICIAL that Firefox
> has close to 20% NOT what you listed. Still NOT what IE has , but IE is
> done for.

...that is what I have heard as well...