New Browser for Second Life Junkies!

Where the hell are you all getting this information from???? Not you personally Yumi, but these posts are geting ridiculous. Someone posts some comment which exagerates on my comment and here we go assuming that the browser is going to be "official".

WTF??? Give it a break already. And as far the browser buttons are concerned, that's my business. Do you go around telling merchants how much they can charge for clothing items? Who sets the fees for SL EXchange and SL Boutique? Not you or me....the owner's do....If you do not like it...

Sigh..this whining is so childish.

My advice is to just stop responding to it - it is pointless.

OK, I'll try to dodge questions, avoid the issue, and tell less truths in the future...ROFL

Nice one

I should mention out that the fact that you have done nothing but flame and troll this entire thread may be considered suspicious.

Are you jealous or do you just need a hug?

I think you may have a point there. I think I have all of the suggestions that I need for the moment... anyone else can PM me through this message board if you come up with anything else. LOL

Well, there you go, there's your mistake!

Seriously, tho, as a total non-techie-clothes-horse-hair-whore-in-training, brava to you, for your hard work and creativity realized.

*hands MadamG a box of Handi-wipes to help with current and future troll slime residue*

I haven't done either - at least, haven't intended to. I haven't posted purely to attract replies, and I hope that none of what I've said has been considered a personal attack on you, because it wasn't supposed to be. It is a fact that people, especially techy people, do not like their web browser to have "secrets" in it, especially given that on most systems the web browser has unlimited permission to break the local firewall.

As for the earlier part, I was rather alarmed at seeing another InfoNet in the making, and your statement above that fairly clearly implied that you were intending to charge for buttons on the browser bar pretty much confirms that. But it isn't supposed to be an attack on you, any more than saying that the position of Windows is an example of bad network effect is an attack on Bill Gates.

Point taken Yumi.

As for the buttons, I had not even considered that until someone mentioned it. I really have not pondered it much except for the fact that it seems unfair to just put them up in any order or in the order that I personally prefer. Judging from some of the feedback here, it seems like I would get a lot of "Who do you think you are deciding who's buttons should go where??" So , would it be wrong to allow bidding on it? Or to charge? But then I would hear, "Who do you think you are charging for buttons??" Can't win for loosing - damned if I do and damned if I don't - yada yada yada. How would you personally handle button placement, just curious.

Infonet...have not heard of it until this thread. What is it and where is it? I guess I can Google it.

LOL

I think it looks great, and might be perfect for me. I don't need a cutting-edge browser, just something that is fast and easy, and I love that you have tailored one for SL users. Can't wait to give it a try!

Just a point, if you have halfway recent NVidia drivers, you can already do such things as transparency and window-on-top (and maybe with ATI drivers as well) -- with any application, which means that you can use Firefox with transparency.

Just open up the GeForce settings by going into Display properties -> Settings -> Advanced -> Geforce... (Your video card)

Then, on the left, click on the Desktop Management tab, and enable the nView Desktop Manager. Now you can right click on windows and make them always on top, transparent, and many other things. Play around with the settings.

No idea how hard this is, but are you able to set it up so users can drag and drop the icons into the order they want?

Sounds like a cool project, I'd like to see it when it's released!

I've disabled IE completely from my system, though, could I still use that browser?

If this one is sucessful, would you consider a Firefox-based one in the future?

I'm working on a Firefox extension.

So far it has several of links from above, and also lets you track your L$ balance and friends online from the toolbar. (Wants to let you do transaction history as well, so that all the merchant types can see their $ racking up in real time. Well, 10-minute-update-real-time. That happens for some people, right?) It doesn't use your SL username/password; instead, you just log into secondlife.com, and then all outgoing requests from Firefox (including from the extension) have your login cookie attached. So you can get those things without having to give out your password to anything dodgy. (It's possible that the IE component could work the same way.)

Could you appear any more jealous and/or threatened? I mean all you did from start to finish of this thread is belittle and thrash MadamG's idea. Then all of a sudden, you are working on your own browser extension???? Get your own frikkin thread and advertise it there! I wouldn't touch your nasty product with a sterilized Hysteroscope or even an unopened rape kit. The way you went about presenting your comments was rude, innappropriate, and just plain wrong. Were you already working on your own browser when this thread was started or did you just start..no wait don't answer that. I don't really care. As far as I can see this thread is for posting ideas for MadamG's very well executed idea.

I have used it as well and I cannot express how awesome I think it is. Very nice job. (I am sending my suggestions to you in PM as requested in the earlier post or via IM in world.)

Rock on MadamG!

Yumi....get your own thread.

I had this thought too, but I didn't realize how damning all those posts look taken together.

Seconded!



I've PM'd my request to please, please, please grab this brilliant product and have a play!

Good grief, it is easy to offend people here!

First of all, I did not "belittle and trash" MadamG's idea. I actually think a custom web interface for SL players is a very good idea. The only two issues I had - and these were not in any way intended to be offensive to her, or her idea - were that a) she was being evasive about the workings of her browser, which is liable to provoke security concerns about some users for whom the web browser is a trusted piece of software - note I did not say that her browser actually was insecure, only that the evasiveness could provoke security concerns - and b) she appeared to have contacted LL in advance of its release, for as-yet-unknown reasons, which could well have been (but it appears, wasn't) an attempt to grab early "official" status to pre-emptively drive any competition off the market. This would be a reasonable move by her (of course she will try to do the best for herself) but a bad thing for LL to have accepted (if they had done) because in a capitalist system competition is a good thing. Again, I don't know, but I suppose it might also just have been to make sure it was OK to use the name "Second Life" on something that wasn't in-world.

The "if everyone with an idea contacted LL they'd be buried in spam and would have to close down that channel" was supposed to be a criticism of the current system (or lack of a system) for dealing with that type of partnership, not of MadamG. Let's face it, by definition there is not a single business in SL that could not benefit from partnering with LL. In fact in a sense any business operating in SL is effectively partnered with LL anyway, so any contact is an attempt to negotiate better terms which again by definition would be beneficial to any business in SL (because, um, they're better terms).

I know that others on the thread have attacked the security of IE components, or attacked her development knowledge on the basis of terminology. Neither of those were me.

As for the Firefox extension, I saw people on this thread asking about the Firefox engine and I also saw the idea for a Friends Online display, thought that would be neat, thought "hey, maybe I could do that", so I had a go, and managed to do it. I also, to be honest, did it in the hope of avoiding the reputation of whining while not producing anything. My post above was just a response to a question; it wasn't intended to be an "advert". If you don't want to use it, that's fine: I wasn't planning on making any money from it, I was just interested to see if it could be done and wanted to learn to make Firefox extensions.

Can you all just be quiet on the arguing? Take this to another thread or to private IMs. Let MadamG get to finishing this thing so we can actually see it, instead of spending all spare time in the forums.

MM

Woah step back! I don't take well to close talkers. Let me ask you, does your skin turn green like the Incredible Hulk or is it more like the Green Goblin?

You are not doing a very good job of "avoiding the reputation of whining" as you put it. Why don't you use your energy to work on your F i r e f o x e x t e n s i o n...or if you want to be more productive, scan the forums for some more ideas you can copy instead of coming up with your own.

I'm a computer security professional. I've implemented my own firewall, written my own firewall components, written proxies and anti-malware (spam, virus, trojan) software. I've designed programming languages and implemented interpreters for them... including ones used by safety-critical systems (as in, if this software fails... people die) and restricted interpreters for use by untrusted clients.

Internet Explorer and the Microsoft HTML control are inherently insecure, and the design of the Microsoft HTML control is such that it is literally impossible to use with any reasonable degree of security. I strongly recommend that you switch to a different HTML rendering engine.

Indeed, it's amazing how many applications use it, and I am all to aware of how many there are. Around 1997 I was able to convince our management to ban the use of Internet Explorer, Outlook, and any other application that used the Microsoft HTML rendering engine without a direct business case for that specific application. At the time, this meant using Netscape 3 and later Netscape 4, and it was a lot more work for me finding ways for people to get heir work done without IE than it would have been to just close my eyes and hope.

But...

While this ban was in place, we had ZERO major virus infections at our site. We were the only site in the company for which this was true, despite strong antivirus software and policies being in place throughout the organization.

I'm sure there are many people like yourself who have managed to maintain the discipline to use IE without problems. We have always had people here who were exceptions to the ban, for various good reasons, and they have not been problems. But in general, and for most people, avoiding any non-local use of the Microsoft HTML rendering engine is only sensible.

Also, quoting from the site you referenced: "Wouldn't it be great if the Mozilla control used the same API as the Internet Explorer control?" -- no, it wouldn't. That API is itself a large part of the reason why IE is insecure. It is not possible to make IE secure without changing that API in fundamental ways.

I don't think this kind of flaming belongs on the forums.

ROFL

Wow ...impressive resume. But I think that you should be telling Microsoft all this instead of telling us. People use IE all day every day without having the issues that you describe. What browser 'DOESN'T' have security issues???? Do YOU make one?? If you did I doubt you would give a rats azz about what ppl in here are doing. You'd be busy collecting millions from Bill Gates now wouldn't ya?

So what if you don't like IE? If you have a solution or someting, maybe you should PM the woman instead like requested instead of posting remarks to discredit the work she has done.

(SPLAT!!!! Wipe... wipe... wipe...)


Sorry I stepped in a bit of ALT AVI Juice and I had to wipe it off my new shoes....damn! it stains!

Microsoft, in case you haven't noticed, has a number of very bad policies for networked applications. Such as rushing products out the door without thorough testing. That's why you need to download patches for IE so often. Support for things like ActiveX doesn't help either.

Firefox is undoubtably more secure than IE. People use IE every day, and they get dialers and spyware and adware and other malware. Most of them are just too clueless to know it -- if they knew about malware, they wouldn't use IE.