SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same dept.
While both Betteridge's Law and common sense say, "No," Zack Whittaker at ZDNet takes a closer look:
An analysis of the last five-months' worth of monthly software updates shows that Edge had 25 vulnerabilities shared with versions of Internet Explorer, which had a total of 100 vulnerabilities.
Earlier this month on its scheduled Patch Tuesday update offering, Microsoft released MS15-124, a cumulative update for Internet Explorer, and MS15-125, a near-identical patch for Edge. Of the 15 flaws patched in Internet Explorer, 11 of those were also patched in Edge.
According to a Microsoft blog post earlier this year, the software giant's newest browser, an exclusive for Windows 10, is said to have been designed to "defend users from increasingly sophisticated and prevalent attacks."
In doing that, Edge scrapped older, insecure, or flawed plugins or frameworks, like ActiveX or Browser Helper Objects. That already helped to cut a number of possible drive-by attacks traditionally used by attackers. EdgeHTML, which powers Edge's rendering engine, is a fork of Trident, which still powers Internet Explorer.
[...] Older versions of Internet Explorer will be retired by mid-January, giving millions of users about a month to upgrade to Internet Explorer 11, or to Edge on Windows 10.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:19PM
As much as I have to admit to it, the webbrowser has effectively become the OS. Talk to your gran, your parents or your sister; when they open their computer, what do they use? facebook, google, maybe Office365 which they get from school...
We're back at mainframes, man...
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday December 17 2015, @05:16AM
Except mainframes made more sense in some regards. With terminals hooked up to mainframes, the clients were as thin as could be. Today, the clients are fat but are doing the work of thin clients. The reason they are fat is because of security, multi-threading, pretty graphics, playing videos or music, playing games, paying for things at the store, and allowing the user to pretend to do actual work.
With mainframes, content could be created. With today's tablets and phones? It's all about consuming by the user and delivering information about the user back to the servers.
It is a strange world we live in today.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @09:32AM
Not quite. Mainframes used fat terminals, that allowed defining input fields and sent back a "form" at a time. Kinda like a form with input fields in a browser, but without javascript, video and all that stuff. By moving the user-centric processing to the terminal, and only needing to wait for the mainframe once the user pressed "send", i.e. completed a form, they could get away with a lot more users per mainframe than e.g. Unix systems, which sent back and forth every single keypress.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:14AM
I'm not knowledgeable in mainframes nor mainframe programming. It was a little before my time.
I stand corrected.