Bill Davidsen wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/23/09 18:32, Phillip Jones wrote:
Developers never, ever, ever, ever listen to end users. The think they no more how a program should look like than the users that have to use it.

Good God, have you a bone to pick or something? I am a developer and I
certainly do listen to what end users want - they are my customers after all!

Don't you think you might be over-generalizing here a bit?

Perhaps you're just having a bad moment?

No it seem with Mozilla when user are happy with function, it always seems that that irritates the heck out of the developers. It seems if users like it too much, its a target to be removed.

For example I've always thought Tabs was not what most users wanted, because it was a gee-whiz-bang feature that was in IE. we had to have it.

Isn't it good that we can decide thing like middle button opening in same window, new window, or tab. Same deal for mail tabs.

The way I work I have no desire, nor no need to have 8 or ten tabs open at one time. I look at one thing at a time. Although I've using personal computers since the early. I just never id desire have pages filled up with cached pages of multiple websites.

WE don't need to any shape of fashion need to be an IE clone. If we look and, act so much like IE what's the point in trying out something different if it all works and looks the same. I don't want to be even reminded of IE , much less look like like it. This modal thing is another example. OR, how about killing javascript, in Thunderbird. There was a Feature in Communicator that was great, you could check for dead links and then ask it to delete them. It never saw the light of day in Mozilla. I could think of other things.

The point about security is valid, but it's still MY computer, set the default where you like and allow the choice if that's what the user wants. Call the option 'allow.securityattacks.from.javascript' if you think you need the issue a warning for legal reasons, but choice is good.

And no, I wouldn't turn it on unless I could do so in a message filter and trust certain people.

But developers keep think up things, possibly ask (not always), get negative responses then put it in anyway.

One thing you have resisted the temptation of doing is using Active-X. I salute you for that. Now That I have bragged on that, there probably will be an announcement next month that Active-X will be built-in. Active-X is the reason now for bout 98% of all the malware floating on the internet. The other 2 percent is Phishing attempts. If Active-X was killed dead, at least for a while Windows machines wouldn't need virus and Malware detection programs.

Your estimate is unrelated to any estimate I have ever seen from people who who have measured threat characteristics, perhaps you can cite a source? Perhaps you pulled the number out of your... personal experience?

cNet, ZDnet, Computerworld at least two three years ago. last report on these networks IE is supposed to come with Active-X disabled by default.

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.    "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" 
support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to