Mozilla in SL!!!

Maklin, this is not a personal attack, but anyone who believes that there is greater security to be found by using the IE API verses the Mozilla engine is utterly and wholly mistaken. I am absolutely perplexed that you would even suggest it. The simple fact that you have to run so many programs just to protect yourself from IE's own failings should be indication enough that it's the wrong browser to be using.

And no, the IE API exists only in Windows. It's a completely closed archetecture. Mozilla was the right choice on many, many levels.

Note the term "Linsux" in his post. You're going to be getting into a religious debate here, I think...

1) Can it be turned off so that I use my regular broswer as currently happens for help?

Not currently. There are only a small selection of pages exposed to the embedded browser right now and we control them. As things open up, the option of using the default system browser could be added.

2) Will we be able to disable HTML on a prim?

Yes. There are lots of issues to solve before this piece goes ahead and security is one of them. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it would not be acceptable to fly past a prim with malicious HTML "on it" and have something bad happen. That's a different scenario from choosing to visit a site yourself in an embdded browser floater.

3) How is this broswer implementation going to be patched? By LL as part of client patches? By us having to DL and install the full Mozilla package?

We will update the Mozilla files that the client is built against on a regular basis or when the situation warrants it - a published exploit for example.

4) How will it integrate with exising security programs?

It will work in the same way that Firefox does.

5) Can the broswer component be uninstalled (I.E., is it a separate component of the client that can be removed) without uninstalling SL?

Not really. We do ship with some external Mozilla file but most of the embedded browser code is part of the client.

6) Why, with SL only in beta for Linsux and IE available to all windows and I believe Mac, did they not use the standard IE API?

I've used the interface you're referring to in the IE API and it's something I considered initially. However, the same interface isn't available for the Mac and I think it's unlikely that IE will ever be available for Linux.

I never said it was safer. I merely said I do not know what holes it has. I prefer the devil I know to the devil I do not. And also, I do not willingly use Open Source software and do not support that movement.

LINUS IS ROLLING IN HIS CUBICLE!

Thank you for responding! I greatly appreciate it.

I do hope you reconsider #1 and allow it to be disabled. I do not like OS software, I do not trust the licensing for OS software, and really do not wish to use OS software. I prefer my broswer of choice. I basically will be unable/unwilling to use the help system without the choice. PLEASE let us disable this and have it open IE if we prefer it.

#4 I do not understand...I have not done more than initial testing with firefox, and no one I know uses firefox to ask. I do know that many AV's integrate into the IE interface, as do some antispyware programs. Does it work the same way in firefox?

*giggling like mad at Enabran's post*

Not a thing, Lewis.

Not a single thing.

We're at the mercy of these rapacious hackers. We all know how you can use a webpage to steal login data.

In fact, they may be doing it right now. From this very web forum.

SAVE YOURSELVES, CLOSE YOUR BROWSERS

THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO FOR MEEEEEEEEEEEE...

[ERROR: SPURIOUS INTERRUPT]

hi can u tell me how 2 make money in this game thx

Hint: Open source means it's very easy to find out.


In any case, the Gecko engine (which is what Mozilla uses) is known to be more robust than any version of Internet Explorer, and available for more platforms. There's absolutely no reason not to use it.

ZOMG! FireFox! Burn those heathens who support the OpenSource movement! They surely must be the devil, planting backdoors in everything they make. THOSE HORRIBLE PEOPLE! They only dedicate their time to maintaining the software that hacks your computer while simultaineously releasing software that's being used by 90% of the servers out there. Also take into account that the cult community there all works together to maintain it FOR FREE, not a single heavenly corporation who has absolutely no aspirations for money.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Microsoft doesn't even trust their own software. They run IIS (Internet Information Services, their horrible webserver) as a frontend to FreeBSD servers. This includes hotmail. All those times you thought you were secure surfing your ubercool hotmail account which ran on secure Windows technology YOU WERE WRONG! Now you've got all those *nix virii!

On a more serious note, I have little doubt that LL will be disabling the most insecure parts of Firefox, namely activex, java, flash, and the ability to install it. I can say without a doubt that IE is insecure. Security patching does not help when a new exploit is found weekly. I won't say Firefox doesn't have it's problems, but it's far better, and if LL disables those components as I suspect they will then all it'll have behind it is HTML, Javascript, and images. Even so, any spyware out there requires you to download it. That "Security Warning" you got when you installed that Sex Dialer? That was your spyware. Bonzai Buddy? He may be cute and cuddly, but he's logging all that primwang you've been getting.

Nothing is going to stop people from replicating the SL web page login. It happens in the real world all the time with fake PayPal logins and such. This would happen in IE, Opera, FireFox, vanilla Mozilla, Safari, lynx, Konqueror, and so on and so forth. The best I could recommend for that is some sort of icon which verified that you were indeed connected to secondlife.com and not some false page.

PS: Linux is far better than anything Winblows puts out. It may be too advanced for new users of it, but once learned is a far more powerful tool.

Sorry, I used internal company slang like I would with my co-workers in both speech and email.

Honestly, I would consider linux and OS IF it didn't come with all the zealotry and baggage (viral GPL, FSF, Stallman, etc.). I rather liked working with BSD, it doesn't seem to have the zealotry and fanaticism that Linux / most of the GPL OS movement does...and has a tolerable license. If you are into the GPL/OSt sort of fundamentalism, cool. I just prefer to stay away from it and its products.

This is the kind of zealotry I was referring to in the reply to Luciftias Neurocam.

And I knew about the hotmail back end...had a friend that worked for them. Never had a hotmail account, run my own exchange server for mail off the home network. Never had a virus on any of my servers or PC's, its not hard to avoid and certainly does not require genuflection to the OS movement.

People like Velox can use it if they want and feel oh-so-superior, I merely wish for LL to give me the alternative to using it and I will go ahead doing what I have been doing all along and not having all the problems that all windows users supposedly have. To each his own, I merely wish to opt out of inadvertently supporting 'the movment' and rabid folks like Velox.

Please specify which license you mean, Maklin; there's many. And none of them really impact the end-user in any way whatsoever; they're generally limitations on reusing/reselling.

As said above by another, I suspect this is a matter of irrational feeling that no amount of discussion will improve, but I really don't get the distrust. The software you can look at the guts at and compile yourself if you wish to is somehow less safe than a black box?

I won't deny I'm zealous, but I use Linux because it allows a freedom Windows doesn't give me. It lets me have more control over my system and how it works. I can optimize it to my needs, customize the kernel to my hardware, and so on and so forth. I don't use it to be "superior" and I submit that Windows currently does have an advantage in a few categories (games, simplicity, and a few other things).

As for licencing, exactly what is limiting about GNU/GPL? Open source code that's free. You're an end user, it doesn't impact you. If you build something out of the code then yes it limited you somewhat (such as requiring you to release your own code, or if not then on request).

I agree with Aliasi, it's much more comforting to be able to surf the code of what I install, then have the satisfaction of compiling it. If I don't like how something works I can edit it. If I find a bug, I can attempt to fix it and if successful submit a patch to the project in question. In essence, I feel it's a much more open, better system than a binary whose that I can rarely if never look at.

The viral nature of the GPL(s) and its RABID adherents (the kind that call linux GNULinux). If I recall correctly, even Linus said he would not use the newest version of GPL that the FSF is cooking up. Kinda says something for the licensing structure. And you are right...until the OS movement grows up, tosses out the Stalmanesque folks, the rabid Velox's, I will have no real respect for it. All I did was use an in-company joke name (linsux) and ask LL for the right to opt out of having it forced on me and folks like Velox blow up like its the end of the goddamn world! I do not care what he uses, or what you use, to each his own....so quit trying to force OS on me. I am happy with XP and my 2003 servers/exchange/IE.

It amazes me that folks have SOOO much trouble with windows. Never had a virus, never had spyware...don't do much in the way of maintenance other than patching religiously, locking down clients to what they need to do the job and making sure drivers are up to date...but supposedly its so unsafe? I am just not seeing it. Basic proper practices of administrators can alleviate the need for *nix in most environments (High end webserving, sure, I'd go with a BSD or a for-pay *nix for scalability and stability if were talking amazon.com, for a small site, IIS is good enough (with FP extensions off, of course)).

I have had bad experiences with GPL. had a programmer at a small company where I worked use GPL code then mention it in passing because he felt being public wasn't a problem and didn't ask anyone, he used it at home, so we should too! Finding a new programmer, redoing that module, auditing any module he touched....such FUN! Not to mention management witch hunts for others who might do such things. I flat out do not trust GPL coders after this...they WILL put ideology over what is right, seen it first hand.

I don't really care to spend my days looking over someone else's code. Give me something commercial that meets my needs, let me install it, let me take resonable security precautions and get back to work / play. I get NO comfort or satisfaction from doing free code reviews or free patches. Let them fix their own code and waste their own time. I am not here to make M$ or Linus's software better...its a tool, nothing more.

/53/ee/110747/1.html

eureka!

A whole new level of laziness awaits me.

Me, I don't care one way or another...its fanaticism to prefer source over binaries...do you audit every other black box in your life?

I mean, I don't need to see Ford's plans for my mustang, I know how it works in theory and how to do basic maintenance...rest is for experts.
I don't need to know the biochemistry (nor would I understand it if given it) of the medicines I take for my heart.
I don't need to see Boeing's 747 plans to know its going to fly if properly maintained and not subject to extreme weather conditions or pilot error.
I don't need to know the inner workings of the local grocery store's warehousing to know they get products in.
I have a general idea how an MRI works, but really don't see the point of having the plans for the machine to review.

All the above are black boxes....life is full of black boxes we just 'trust to work'.

I do not see why software is so DIFFERENT than the millions and millions of other things in life used daily that are black boxes, as you call it. Seems...obsessive or paranoid to me to focus on one thing (sofware) and act as if it is different than other black boxes we see daily. I don't fear binaries, I don't fear commercial software...just another thing I use as a tool that I really do not need to know what is under the hood (unless it is my job to know).

Dear Enabran-

Which is more pernicious:
1) The swarming viruses and adware which wait at the borders of Second Life, salivating in anticipation that the Mozilla engine will give them unfettered access to both our computers and our immortal souls?
2) The OS zealots who have turned this thread into a grinding bore?

Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
-pol

Eh, I'm a network administrator and programmer, so it's understandable that I'd like to see under the hood of my programs. I believe the reason LL wouldn't let other browsers be used is the amount of extra work it'd take for each one. Right now they have a unified browser which can be used on Linux, Windows, and Mac without much more than a recompile and some different libraries. I don't see them changing that and breaking platform independence as well as functionality that acts the same on all platforms. If they do, then more power to them. If not, then at least I know which browser is under the hood of SL. I'd be worried if we were stuck to IE.

Malkin: In that instance I definitely see how that'd cause extra work, and those are downsides; however it's my belief that the good outweighs the bad in most instances.

I also apologize for my trollish post above, but as I said, sometimes I'm a bit zealous.

Okay, here's the big question... When can I check my Outlook Express in Second Life?

No problem, we all have bad days and post like that at some point. No offense taken.

And LL screws up enough as it is, I don't want to risk making it worse by wanting them to include IE....I just wish for them to keep the current method where clicking on help brings up your default browser ALONGSIDE the new Mozilla ingame functionality. A simple checkbox (use Mozilla ingame broser) with unchecked making it work as it does now. I'm willing to put up with having to tab out of game to use the broswer while others stay ingame. I just want the choice is all.

I'm a network administrator, microsoft systems (and at one point toyed with BSD) but only barely a programmer (I can read code and follow it, but could not make a living at it...and really, wouldn't want to...its frustrating to me most of the time). And I was being serious, I have NEVER encountered the problems and such that folks attribute to MS in the field...it just mystifies me when people talk about daily reboots (I only reboot servers if a patch requires it), constant spyware and viruses...I wonder if a lot of MS admins are actually just the guy at their company with the most computer skills, rather than someone who has made a career out of computers. End lusers are just that, and normally responsible for their own screwups...making the most experienced one an admin 'cause it has a GUI and is easy' just elevates the screwups to the next level.

The "viral nature" simply means if you use a piece of someone else's GPLed software, you have to release it under the same conditions, if you do release it.

This does not affect someone merely using the software in any way. Furthermore, Mozilla is not under the GPL!

I'm not an OS zealot. I use Windows XP Media Center edition; I think a lot of Linux diehards need to have the stick removed from their behinds.

I am a rationality zealot.

But do the rest of us have to watch said stick removal?