Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#191

Post by plaguepilled »

robocat wrote: post #171
plaguepilled wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sympathise with your frustration, but the blame is absolutely with your bank. I mean, finances are like THE thing to be security minded about - the fact they're still using IE is just unacceptable from any lens.

Sometimes the blame is regulations: too many hoops for banks to update their software easily and without adding stupid regulatory liabilities. Regulations added to protect the user, but perversely hinder the user.

Wait, what?

No, regulations do not incentivise bad security practices at all. In fact, they are one of the only tools to enforce good security practices.

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#192

Post by shadowgovt »

makeitdouble wrote: post #190
shadowgovt wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the reasons a lot of people see the Microsoft anti-trust suit as a mistake (in that it wasn't based on any sound legal theory, and history has shown that every MS competitor just did what MS did and didn't get smacked for it; essentially, the government stepped on the neck of one private company in an asymmetrical way because the administration at the time didn't like their face.)

Microsoft's antitrust suit was mostly about illegal business practices, wide bullying of vendors and OEMs to block conpetition. How was it not based on sound legal theory ? [Edit: I'm actually thinking of the EU lawsuit that was probably broader and better managed than the US one. Memories are now vague, it took me a while to even remember US and EU had different suits, but sure th US one was a lot worse in many aspe…

> Is your argument that a crime shouldn't be punished in the past if people fail to punish it later in the future ?

Not precisely, but I do believe punishing one corporation and then not punishing their competition starts to smell a lot like using the force of the law to create an unfair market disadvantage.

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#193

Post by WWLink »

quickthrowman wrote: post #98
techwiz137 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that certain old software like Volvo's VIDA needs IE. And while Edge's IE Tab works it's much much slower in loading.

That sounds like a problem for Geely, not Microsoft.

It sounds like a Microsoft problem for me. A "it's my computer, don't fuck around with the stuff on it" kinda problem.

Damn software makers getting uppity about ownership after they've distributed their shit.

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#194

Post by midoridensha »

908B64B197 wrote: post #168
asdff wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft only cares about legacy support if it means the vast majority of customers. I will give you an example: go to a top tier research institution for biology, and sort your cells with the fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS). You might have to now burn that data onto a cd rom, because the software running the six figure instrument was written in 2002 for windows XP, and for reasons only known to microsoft,…

> and for reasons only known to microsoft, this software is no longer able to run on modern windows. The reason is most likely... because the driver relies on APIs that were insecure and removed in the XP-Vista transition! > The vendor for the instrument has no incentive to update that software either; they'd rather you dish out another half million dollars for a new sorter. > There are hundreds of instruments like t…

>Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux?

Yes. As long as it includes all its dependencies, it should work because the kernel never deprecates system calls.

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#195

Post by 908B64B197 »

midoridensha wrote: post #194
908B64B197 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and for reasons only known to microsoft, this software is no longer able to run on modern windows. The reason is most likely... because the driver relies on APIs that were insecure and removed in the XP-Vista transition! > The vendor for the instrument has no incentive to update that software either; they'd rather you dish out another half million dollars for a new sorter. > There are hundreds of instruments like t…

>Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux? Yes. As long as it includes all its dependencies, it should work because the kernel never deprecates system calls.

What about the ABI?

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#196

Post by midoridensha »

dilippkumar wrote: post #63
nimbius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and replace them with compatibility shims christ can you imagine the raw hubris in 1995 to roll this out and inexplicably make it not only uninstallable by the user, but a core and critical functionality of your entire OS such that any attempt to sidestep or evade it would be met with ruination? Its so bombastic the US Justice department hauls your pepsi sipping CEO in for a round of slouching, hand-waving antitrust…

> …you now need a team of H1B's to start writing shims… This was uncalled for. You could’ve just said engineers. For those of us in an unending battle with a broken immigration system every day of our lives for over a decade, this really rubs the wrong way.

The US's immigration system is not "broken". It's working exactly as designed. If you don't like the way that country is treating you, then why are you so eager to go there and endure that abuse?

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#197

Post by makeitdouble »

shadowgovt wrote: post #192
makeitdouble wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft's antitrust suit was mostly about illegal business practices, wide bullying of vendors and OEMs to block conpetition. How was it not based on sound legal theory ? [Edit: I'm actually thinking of the EU lawsuit that was probably broader and better managed than the US one. Memories are now vague, it took me a while to even remember US and EU had different suits, but sure th US one was a lot worse in many aspe…

> Is your argument that a crime shouldn't be punished in the past if people fail to punish it later in the future ? Not precisely, but I do believe punishing one corporation and then not punishing their competition starts to smell a lot like using the force of the law to create an unfair market disadvantage.

I agree with your point, having let Apple and Google run so long without any intervention is unfair. The hammer should have fallen a long time ago, and yet the EU seems to be the only entity with a chance at breaking the status quo.

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#198

Post by mulmen »

Gigachad wrote: post #131
mulmen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd much rather Grandma have to learn to do something slightly differently This attitude is responsible for more harm than any other single idea in software development. Do not break your users. You think you have a choice here but what really happens is Grandma stays on old software forever because the beatings have taught her to never update anything. And the really sad part is that she's right.

Grandma just buys the iPad because it just works and stays up to date without risk of malware while Windows is left a rotting mess of garbage because they are too afraid to change anything.

Most iOS updates are invisible. The ones that aren’t cause some consternation. My parents were both thrilled when I showed them how to put the address bar back at the top of Safari.

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#199

Post by midoridensha »

908B64B197 wrote: post #195
midoridensha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux? Yes. As long as it includes all its dependencies, it should work because the kernel never deprecates system calls.

What about the ABI?

What about it?

Re: Microsoft is forcibly removing internet explorer from PCs

#200

Post by robocat »

plaguepilled wrote: post #191
robocat wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the blame is regulations: too many hoops for banks to update their software easily and without adding stupid regulatory liabilities. Regulations added to protect the user, but perversely hinder the user.

Wait, what? No, regulations do not incentivise bad security practices at all. In fact, they are one of the only tools to enforce good security practices.

Sorry, I was unclear.

I am all for good regulations - they are vital for a well functioning society.

However, there are plenty of bad regulations that have perverse outcomes. There are also plenty of regulations due to regulatory capture where the regulations help an incumbent and hinder new entrants. Watch Intuit protect their income at the expense of tax payers. In New Zealand, there are plenty of horrifically inefficient health & safety regulations, because who can argue against saving a life at any cost?

I am against bad regulations that cost society too much without giving enough benefit.

Post reply on HN