Posts by FF22

WordPress.com ditches PHP for Calypso's JavaScript admin UI

Re: You realize...

They're only talking about the admin UI render backend, not the actual blog backend. The blogs themselves are also most likely still served using PHP, otherwise all their WP plugins, themes and such would stop working.

You realize...

.. that the only thing they reworked was the admin UI, and that the new version is still using server-side calls to an unknown backend (which is most likely still written in PHP), don't you?

A font farewell to Fontdeck as website service closes

The real reason..

...was probably more that the "buy once, serve forever" model didn't work out them for either. You just can't provide a perpetual free hosting for a one-time fee that's also low enough so people will buy your stuff you will serve in the first place.

Yahoo! Mail! is! still! a! thing!, tries! blocking! Adblock! users!

Re: It's not about spam, it's about /security/

You realize ads can only used to distribute the same malware, the same way, and may only pose the same threat as the web pages themselves, don't you? Nah, you obviously don't.

It's just another false excuse used for ideologizing ad blocking, which is practically content and service theft.

"I don't understand the downvotes. This is the best all-round solution. The website gets paid."

Wrong. Ads that are not seen are worthless. The way which they are hindered from appearing on the screen is merely a technicality and pointless. Actually, you could even argue that ad masking is even worse than ad blocking, because the resulting effect (ie. users not seeing ads) is achieved at a far higher cost for everybody.

Google's .bro file format changed to .br after gender bother

Re: This is just the beginning

You must have been living under a rock in the last 30 years if you realize this issue only now.

Google and pals launch Accelerated Mobile Pages project

Pointless

Nowadays every page is sent gzip-compressed down to the client, which means that all HTML plain-text keywords get replaced with very short binary tokens.

Actually, using gzip compression is even better than a regular binary format, because it produces shorter codes and also compresses not only the markup keywords, but also the textual and data content embedded between them. Client-side parsing also barely consumes any time.

So what you're recommending would be nothing more than a pointless exercise in futility.

Google Adblock shock a load of cock – users mock post hoc

Re: Simple solution for google

"Other than the ad people, the PR people, the company the ad is for, and the site presenting the ad, who is being hurt?"

When someone is killed, who's hurt other than the one stabbed and his/her relatives? When some things are stolen, who is hurt other than the owner of said good and anyone relying on that being available to them? Your question is stupid.

"Maybe things need to change like less intrusive ads? "

Ad blockers are the very reason why this isn't happening. As more and more people use ad blockers, publishers need to show more and more intrusive ads to earn the same amount of money.

"Oh... and let's not forget malvertising, shall we? Blocking ads also stops that dead in it's tracks."

That's like saying that we should ban cars, because this way we can stop traffic accidents in its tracks. Or ban knives, because this way we can stop stabbing in its tracks.

Google: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am – stuck in the middle of EU

Re: Google's lawyers suck ass

Butthurt clueless American drinking Google's PR Kool-Aid.

Google's lawyers suck ass

In order to violate the antitrust laws Google doesn't have to be "dominant in the shopping market". It's enough for them to be dominant in some other market (like search or online advertisement), and abuse that dominance for their gain in for ex. the shopping market. Or in any other market.

So much about their legal defense.

Major web template flaw lets miscreants break out of sandboxes

Clueless security firm discovers the '90s

This type of vulnerability is as old as template engines themselves. Nothing new here. Just a clueless security company discovering what every developer knew for two decades now.

Edge out rivals? No! Firefox boss BLASTS Microsoft's Windows 10 browser brouhaha

Re: In other words...

You're talking about something else. That's what all browsers do when you start them, and they're not the default browser.

However, what Mozilla complains about is that when you install Windows 10/Edge, and chose express install instead of custom, it makes itself the default browser without explicitly asking you about this.

That's the same way Firefox installer behaves, which also makes Firefox the default (without asking) if you just keep clicking the Next button when installing. I've just checked it, and that's how it works.

In other words...

Edge behaves the same way Firefox does. Both set themselves as the default browser if you run an express installation. But if you opt for custom installation, you've the choice to leave the default browser at what it was.

What a hypocrite loser Mozilla has become....

Facebook's React Native is exciting devs. Or is it, really?

Comparing React to Angular is...

... you know... They are not aiming for the same niche. And they both are aiming for just a niche are of software development. That's why they won't impact neither the JavaScript world, nor the web world overall.

Hackers sell 79,267 Cloudminr accounts for ONE Bitcoin

Bitcoin - the currency of losers

I yet have to see a single instance where some Bitcoin-based operation doesn't turn out to be pure marketing puff and/or some kind of scam.

We forget NOTHING, the Beeb thunders at Europe

Re: Lawsuits inbound

"Google's delisting process is a voluntary one "

It's not. They're obliged to do that by law. Look up "European Data Protection Directive".

"and the BBC is under no obligation to follow Google's lead."

Indeed. They're not to follow Google. But they're to follow the law.

"the BBC would be in a position to delete the offending post"

If it's really just a post that's the reason for the removal request. But it could be also something in the article itself. You just can't know that by only knowing the urls.

"and leave the rest of the page intact, something which is not (yet) in Google's power and control."

But obviously that's not what the BBC is doing, and that's not the goal they're working towards. They're just trying to circumvent the system somehow.

"The only valid arbiter of whether material must be deleted is a (legally-) competent authority (like the ICO or a court)."

The same could be said about practically anything that involved legality. Like "the only valid arbiter of whether an article should be published in the first place is (like the ICO or a court)". So, yes, and no. Yes, you're right, but that's just only as much an argument, as much it's also a counterargument.

"It seems like the BBC has simply decided it will continue to make information available until a court or the ICO says otherwise. What's wrong with that?"

Mostly the fact that it's not a solution to any problem. It just creates more problems.

Re: FF22: Lawsuits inbound

Only if you'd know what you're talking about. Obviously, you don't.

Re: Lawsuits inbound

"The "right to forgotten" never applied to original articles, merely their representation in search results."

Wrong. The "right to be forgotten" is a basic principle of the European Data Protection Directive. It was just that search engines thought they'd not be directly subject to it, because they mirrored other outlets' contents. But the EC made clear, that they indeed are subject to it, even in regard to mirror content.

Lawsuits inbound

Obviously the BBC thinks that it's exempt from EU law. It's not. They will learn it the hard way.

If they're asked to remove personally identifiable information, they have to do it. If they don't, then 1. they're committing a crime, and 2. will be sued in a civil case.

New Firefox, Chrome SRI script whip to foil man-in-the-middle diddle

Re: The fact that...

Seems like the whole point of the internet and the web (ie. that they're not local, but distributed) went wooosh over your head.

Oh, and btw practically all C++ and Java programs DO link to and call into code that they do not verify on each run in the same way web pages do with JavaScript. See dynamically linked libraries and Java packages!

This is not against MITM attacks

Contrary what the article implies, this technology has obviously not been developed to thwart primarily MITM attacks, because it can't defend against those in general.

That said there are some MITM attacks it can prevent, but those are only a very specific and small subset, where the man in the middle can manipulate only the external resources, but not the referring page. But the typical proxy, corporate or ISP level MITM attacks will still work, because the attacker can also manipulate the HTML file with the hash values in it to match those of the manipulated script files'.

On the other side this is completely anti-web, because it effectively kills the dynamic nature of the web, which is the very essence of it. With the hash check in place change to the develivery and representation of the external resources (to adapt to for ex. bandwidth or device constraints) will not be possible anymore, let alone talk about applying bug fixes, correcting typos or other kinds of well-intentioned modifications.

Actually, it's kinda pointless, because if someone is so much worried about the modification of external resources, then they should just host the resources themselves, which would prevent any and all kind of MITM (and any other type of attacks, for that matter) that this technique can be effective against, but which wouldn't require new browsers or extensions to actually do that.

Mozilla signing vetted add-ons as thoughts turn to security

Firefox in the footsteps of Chrome

So Mozilla will go down the same path Google did with Chrome. This is just the first step. Next, they require all add-ons signed by them, so users will not be able to install add-ons outside of Mozilla's add-ons shop. Then they will change the rules and make it an app store. Then they will remove add-ons that hurt their business model by claiming they violated the store rules (which they indeed will, even though the store rules will be obviously set up arbitrarily by Mozilla). Last step: profit!

Google spins up 'FREE, unlimited' cloud photo storage 4 years before ad giant nixes it

Great title!

I dare you! I double dare you! Photokiller....

Web tracking puts lead in your saddlebags, finds Mozilla study

Pathetic

So Mozilla finally implemented tracking protection, half a decade after IE did. And why now? Because their deal with Google has been not renewed, so they're not interested in enabling third parties to track their users anymore.

Actually, they are now counterinterested in enabling that. Instead, they want only themselves be able to track user behavior, so their own advertisements (called "Sponsored Tiles") stay relevant, while others' do not. That's the sole and only reason why they've implemented tracking protection.

So much about Firefox and a "better, open web", and keeping their "users first".

Thank god Firefox's market share is already down to barely above 10%, and most likely will sink to a few percent in the years coming.

Mozilla to whack HTTP sites with feature-ban stick

Re: why, why, why... what is the point?

Too bad you could only give reasons why a website that you're handing over sensitive data should possibly use HTTPS. Too bad you didn't give any compelling reason why ALL websites should be forced to use HTTPS.

Re: why, why, why... what is the point?

"Why the hell does any of that need to be secure?"

The answer is: it doesn't. But Firefox is losing market share fast, and Mozilla is desperate to find something to distinguish Firefox by some means (and with that I mean by _any_ means) from the competition and tries to lake a lead in something (and with that I mean in _anything_) that seems or can be spinned to look somehow positive. This is obviously their ill-fated attempt at that.

Action. Counteraction.

Firefox relegates web sites that do not use HTTPS. Users relegate Firefox to the also-ran category.

Also, please don't try to draw an equal sign between "insecure websites" and "HTTP only". As site isn't necessarily insecure by any means, if it uses HTTP only, and surely isn't secure just because it uses HTTPS. Security is far a more complex issue than it could be reduced to HTTP vs HTTPS.

App makers, you're STILL doing security wrong

Security!=privacy

First of all, contrary what the title says, this is not about security, but privacy. These two things are not only not interchangeable, but are - in some way - at the opposite ends of the same spectrum: security always almost comes at the cost of privacy, and you can only increase one if you lower your requirements on the other. It's because of the simple fact that security depends on being able to identify the persons who are asking for access. So, you can only increase security at the cost of loosening privacy requirements, and vice versa (if privacy is a top factor, you can't really have good security).

And there lies actually a culprit. Obviously the clueless "expert" doesn't get it, but all that information are collected by the PayPal app so it's easier for them to spot fraudulent transaction request from unauthorized devices and unauthorized users. Because stealing a user's password might be rather easy (even using basic phishing techniques), but figuring out all the other data collected by the app, like device IDs, network IDs, etc. and duplicating them, are not so much (easy). When they do not match, PayPal can flag the transaction and run possibly extra checks on it - all in order to protect the legitimate user's money.

Also, the security "expert" worrying about PayPal knowing your device IDs is rather funny. Because you know, PayPal already knows who you are and what you're doing. Why? Because you registered your credit card and holder name with them, they also have your email address, and possibly your business name and real name. They also know what you bought and where you bough it (with your PayPal account). So by knowing also you SSID they can't "invade" your privacy any more, than they could already.

So, all these privacy issues brought up by this "expert" are not actually privacy issues. They're rather issues of knowledge and of credibility, and they pinpoint a basic problem with today's tech journalism. Namely, that why on Earth does a technology news site pick up a story or "analysis" from somebody so clueless about privacy and security implications, and does re-publish it, without all the proper commentary and corrections?

Here's why the Pentagon is publishing its cyber-warfare rulebook – if China hasn't already hacked in and read it

Barking dogs...

... never bite.

Ad-blocking is LEGAL: German court says Ja to browser filters

Re: It's my computer

" My computer will do whatever it likes with the response you give it."

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Maybe you should educate yourself about how laws (especially, but not limited to copyright law) and contracts work.

Re: It's my computer

The problem is, it's not your content that you're accessing, and not your server, that provides the resources you're using. That's where the story begins. Not at "it's my computer".

Except, it did not

"Ad-blocking is LEGAL: German court says Ja to browser filters"

Wrong. The German court

1. did not rule about "ad blocking" per se, but about a specific software (ABP) and it's business model

2. did not rule about ABP and it's business model in general, but strictly in relation to plaintiff (the case was partly thrown out because plaintiffs couldn't prove that they were actually harmed)

3. the German law system is not based on precedents, so the ruling is not binding to any other case, currently in progress or possibly brought up in the future, neither in relation to ad blocking in general, nor in relation with the actual ABP software

So, no, contrary what's been stated in the title and in the article, the ruling does neither mean that ad blocking has been confirmed as legal, not even in Germany. And there are several processes still running against Eyeo, which could still find itself outlawed and bankrupted in any of them.

Google drives a tenth of news traffic? That's bull-doodie, to use the technical term

The real problem

The real problem with this is not that Google "delivers" traffic to news outlets, but that the traffic the news outlets are getting from Google is traffic that has been diverted from them in the first place, by and to Google's (and other) aggregation services. So, it's not additional value and traffic that Google generates, but it still has complete control over who gets it and who doesn't.

Finally, Mozilla looks at moving away from 'insecure' HTTP. Maybe

Dumbest idea ever

Forcing everything to use HTTPS is like setting up security checkpoints at public roads. They cost a lot, and not only do they not serve any purpose, but they're actually counterproductive, and only slow things down.

Plain HTTP has its place, and there are a lot of web sites and application, where using HTTPS serves no purpose, but only slows things down and increase the costs, with no real benefits.

Also, just because a site is using HTTPS, it does not mean that it's secure, by any standards. It can still leak information and even expose user behavior in a myriad of ways, both on purpose and by accident or by negligence.

Microsoft uses Windows Update to force Windows 10 ads onto older PCs

Re: Confused author

"Specifically the part where it says that most users never look at the Windows Update screen, much less check stuff out. Some even have everything installing automatically."

That's still not "forcing" them. Maybe you should look up what that word actually means: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force#English

Confused author

So if you're not required to install this update and can remove it at any time without losing any benefits, how can you say that the update or Microsoft "forces" anything? Do you even English, bro?

Dear departed Internet Explorer, how I will miss you ... NOT

Correcting the facts

The article is so wrong on so many factual points, that I don't even know where to being with correcting it. Let me just point out a few of the worst factual errors:

"a particularly annoying turd known as “winsock” whose sole purpose, as far as I can remember, was to prevent anyone from getting onto the web under any circumstances."

Winsock was a copycat of the *nix sockets interface, which was supposed to enable easy porting of already existing *nix networking applications and utilities to Windows. So, the exact opposite of what you remember.

"Early releases of IE were not terribly good but version 3.0 was a winner AND it was free."

IE3 was vastly superior to all other browsers. It was the first major browser to support CSS and it also had ActiveX. Which at that time was the only way to achieve any kind of functionality in a browser that went beyond displaying some text and a few images.

"Thus it became inevitable that free IE would win over the paid-for competition"

Being free had nothing to do with it. Being technically superior was what made IE win over its competition - whether free or not. Being free earns you nothing if you lack in quality. That's the exact reason why Linux never won over paid-for Windows on the desktop (actually, it couldn't even make a dent in its market share), despite being free from the first day on.

"For those of you who weren’t around in 1997, this was the year that Microsoft went mental. IE 4.0 was batshit crazy. It took over all your software, wormed into the file browser, it infested your very PC desktop, and it was Proprietary City"

That was not Internet Explorer but the HTML rendering engine what was also used in IE. And by doing that Windows was far ahead of its time. Now, almost two decades later everyone is doing the same thing: moving over to web technologies, even in server and desktop apps. Why? Because said HTML technologies make a very good general purpose application platform, and they allow to merge the desktop with the web and the internet seamlessly. That's also the reason why MS used its HTML engine for purposes other than the basis of its web browser.

"Even Mac users were forced to use the bloody thing, in return for Microsoft’s financial investment that ultimately saved Apple."

Except that they were not. Just like Windows users weren't either. They were all free to install and use any other browser - just like they can do it now. Except, back then, there weren't any other decent browsers, and IE was years ahead all of the competition.

"Yet it remained the dominant web browser in the year 2000 and beyond simply because Joe Public hasn’t a clue what a web browser is."

Well, considering that even you didn't know what Winsock was or that there are no web standards, just recommendations, you can't blame them for that, can't you? Which btw doesn't mean that IE wouldn't have also stayed the dominant browser even then when everybody knew everything. Right?

"The broadband generation is much more clued up about these things now, with most people choosing popular web browsers that are, to a greater or less extent, standards-based: Chrome, Firefox, Safari."

Except, that even today, there are no web standards and thus are no standard-based browsers. The "standards" you are referring to are called "recommendations". That said, IE is and was always far more "standards-compliant" (recommendation-compliant) than Chrome, Firefox and Safari, just because it mostly only implemented specifications that have actually reached said "standard" (in reality: "recommendation") status, while the other browsers have also implemented features which were still heavily under development or straight up "proprietary". See vendor prefixes!

Also most problems IE and the other browsers displaying and interpreting things differently in web pages could be traced back to the web page not being "standards" (recommendation) compliant in the first place. For ex. missing a proper DOCTYPE header.

"It seems the only people still stuck with IE are corporates who are too scared to change in case it turns out that the whole basis of Western civilisation depends on a legacy (and, of course, proprietary) IE plug-in."

Indeed, corporations make up the major part of IE-users. And that is exactly because of what I already explained above. Because IE implements only specifications which have been standardized, and because it does not remove, add or change features on a 6-weekly basis, like Chrome or Firefox does. Which can be fatal for a business that might rely on such a just-killed or just-stopped-working feature in it workflow.

“I have developed a mantra during consultancy and training at these large organisations: “Launch your web browser. No, not that one. Internet Explorer is not a web browser.””

And that's the exact reason why people who call themselves "consultants" have such a bad reputation.

"To my mind, it’s a heavyweight, lard-arsed, fat bastard of a program "

And yet, if you launch Task Manager (if you know what that is), it will tell you that both Chrome and Firefox take up more resources than IE.

"The company seems to think the name suggests simplicity, speed and hardiness. This is funny because “spartan” actually describes something austere, empty and lacking in comfort."

No. It stands exactly what you mentioned first: for being bare-boned, for the lack of whistles and bells. But most importantly for the lack of all the backwards-compatibility layers, codes and work-arounds, that hindered IE in getting more streamlined in the past decade, and which have been removed in Spartan.

"Although Microsoft says it has no intention yet of killing off IE altogether, it’s a ship that has been taking in water for far too long to be salvageable, and it seems probable that Microsoft’s Rose will allow IE’s Jack to silently sink into the murky depths while no-one is looking"

And yet, Spartan will be still Internet Explorer in that sense, that it is built on the very same codebase, that was the base of IE for decades. It will be just named differently and have a different front-end UI.

It's all just marketing and show - and you fell for it. The good news is: so will millions of others, who will finally evaluate Microsoft's browser on its true merits, and not keep bashing it, because it was hip 20 years ago, and because they stopped learning news things at that time.

Obsolete – and IP-baring – Anon tool linked to feminist blog DDoS

Self-victimization

Is your blog running low on visitors? Are you unable to build up some decent search engine ranking? Does nobody care about what you're writing? Are you a self-appointed martyr? Is your blog about self-victimization?

Worry no longer! Here's how you gain the attention, sympathy and money of the fools:

1. Pick a date that fits or is somehow connected to your agenda!

2. Launch a lame DDoS-like attack against your blog/service!

3. Claim you've been DDoS-ed and hacked! Try to get press coverage with links to your blog!

4. Profit!

Adobe launches cashless bug bounty

You want your vulnerabilities traded in underground forums?

Because that's how you make sure your vulnerabilities are not disclosed to you, but traded in underground forums.

East Timor was officially removed from the internet yesterday

The future of startups

Expect hundreds of new startups founded with names ending in "tl", with the "e" missing. Like bris.tl, bat.tl, bot.tl, cas.tl and such....

Hacker kicks one bit XP to 10 Windows scroll goal

Re: Backwards compatibility

This nothing to do with bad design. This bug could have been in just any other, non-GUI related code, and would have had the same effect. As you can see with Linux, which has dozens of new kernel level vulnerabilities every year, even though it doesn't even include a GUI subsystem in the first place.

You're also wrong about the thing with the source code, recompilation and backwards compatibility. Those have nothing to do with each other either. If this is indeed a design flaw, that can't be fixed just by recompilation. A design flaw is only fixable - by definition - by redesigning the affect system and components, which also require semantic change of the programs depending on that particular behavior. And if it's not a design flaw, that could be fixed with recompilation, then it could be done also at the binary level, with no recompilation needed.

Swap your keyless key for keyless key-less key. You'll need: a Tesla S and Apple Watch

I'll just wait

Nah, thanks. I'll just wait till they invent a keyless key-less key--less entry system. Or key. Less.

Holy cow! Fasthosts outage blamed on DDoS hack attack AND Windows 2003 vuln

Lazy admins

"Fasthosts' five-hour collapse today has been blamed on a Distributed Denial of Service attack and a security flaw spotted on its Windows 2003 shared web server kit"

So, in other words: they didn't patch their servers for who knows how long, and now that they got hacked, they are trying to put the blame on the OS, instead of assuming responsibility for their fault.

If I'd be a customer of theirs, I'd leave ASAP. Who knows how much sensitive hosted data has been already stolen from them (which they didn't notice) also previously, because they didn't patch their servers on schedule.

Firefox decade: Microsoft's IE humbled by a dogged upstart. Native next?

Wishful thinking, as always

"Today Internet Explorer is a shadow of its former self, with half its 2004 market share."

Reality: IE's market share was 91% in 2004, now it's 58%. That's practically 2/3s.

"It also opened up the market for others: without Firefox there’d have been no Chrome."

Because of what? Firefox had nothing to do with Chrome. If you'd have said that without Apple/WebKit there would have been no Chrome... well... you'd would be still wrong. But not as wrong as with this one.

"With hindsight, we can now see Firefox as the star of the beginning of the end for Microsoft’s desktop troika: Office’s lock on documents had been cracked by open-source and web-based alternatives like LibreOffice and Google Docs since 2004."

So a browser that appeared _after_ the Office-hegemony of Microsoft was supposedly already broken was that started breaking the Microsoft monopolies. Makes sense. Not so much.

"The PC has been surpassed by the tablet and smart phone, by iOS and Android."

Wrong. According to Gartner there are still 2x as more PCs out there as iOS and Android devices combined. Also, the tablet market is practically collapsing these days.

"In some ways, that’s a comment on the situation in 2004: Mozilla exploded like a Blitzkrieg on a sleeping giant "

Yeah, it so exploded, that its market share never ever reached (even at its peak) the 1/4 of IE's. And it took them 6 years to reach that. In contrast: IE only needed 4 years to achieve 90% market share. Chrome needed 6 year to reach more than Firefox ever did.

"But 10 years on, with zero per cent growth versus growth for Chrome and stabilisation for Internet Explorer"

Wrong again. Firefox is not only not growing, it's definitely losing its users for two years now. It had peaked in 2012 with 20%, and now it's at 18%.

"Arguably, the desktop is less of a concern given that the PC market has stalled. Growth is in devices, where Mozilla reckons Firefox has its future with Firefox OS."

Neither Firefox OS's, nor the Firefox browser's can be measured in the mobile area. They're practically below measurement threshold.

Origins of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE fished out of SCOTTISH LAKE

Lies

It's a lie. Everybody knows that this - just like anything else - was invented by Apple first, and that everybody else is just copying them now, after Apple made it cool.

Return of the Jedi – Apache reclaims web server crown

"the firm has found Apache is once again the planet's most-used web server"

Wrong. It did not find that it's the most used web server, but that it's the perimeter web server for most domains. This says nothing about usage, neither in terms of end-user usage, nor in terms of server-side usage (because a single server can serve an arbitrary number of domains, and because there can be an arbitrary number of server serving a single domain).

'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux

Re: Windows had multiple desktops when Linux didn't even exist yet

It was a free utility, and Microsoft themselves also provided such a utility for free. Guess you just like to beat a straw man.

Windows had multiple desktops when Linux didn't even exist yet

I remember having multiple desktops already under Windows 3.1 - years before even Linux 0.1 came into existence.

All you had to do is was to install a small 3rd party program. Of course similar programs were and are available for all versions of Windows ever since.

So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make there, besides Windows-bashing, of course?

Kids hooked up with free Office subs at Microsoft-addicted schools

Hipocrisy

I somehow miss similar article about Linux and other FLOSS software. Because, you know, those are also all free. Even more free than is the Office or Windows the kids get, because they can even make copies of FLOSS software and distribute those to their friends, parents, or even to complete stranger.

That, however, is obviously not a problem. Ie. that FLOSS software makes them "addicted" to FLOSS software, because of being free. On the other side, when Microsoft software is offered free, then it's even worser than offering them drugs.

Hipocrity much?

The legacy IE survivor's guide: Firefox, Chrome... more IE?

Fair points

Good article. Nice to read something like this these days, without the "obligatory", but completely dilettante IE-bashing.