Microsoft has deemed the hole to be a “critical” security threat, as it gives webmasters the ability to quietly install software on your PC. Last May, Microsoft released an update that made it possible to uninstall the .NET framework. They also released a patch earlier this week that supposedly fixes the problem. The vulnerability can also be exploited on users running any version of Internet Explorer. Needless to say, Firefox and IE users should employ one of those solutions ASAP. [Computer World Image via rootshell.be]

No, it’s not Explorer. Microsoft wanted first to order browsers from left to right, in order of market share. That meant Explorer was going to go first, then Firefox, then Safari, Opera and Google’s Chrome. The EU objected, so Microsoft complied and offered the only possible option: Alphabetical order.

That puts Apple Safari in the number one position, followed by Google Chrome, Microsoft Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Opera. Looks good enough to me, but Jenny Boriss—a Firefox user experience designer—disagrees:

This ordering is about the worst option possible. Microsoft wrote in their proposal that ‘nothing in the design and implementation of the Ballot Screen and the presentation of competing web browsers will express a bias for a Microsoft web browser or any other web browser’, but this is exactly what the current design does. Windows users presented with the current design will tend to make only two choices: IE because they are familiar with it, or Safari because it is the first item.

“The disproportionate advantage to Safari is what really makes this design poor,” she said, citing several studies that claim first position in a ballot gives an advantage, in part because Western voters scan from upper left to lower right when they read.

She goes on and on and on about this, but her basic message is: If Firefox is not first, this design is BAD. She timidly proposes a random order every time the selection screen opens, but she argues that this is bad because it “unfortunately does not provide users with any information about what browsers are preferred”.

Then she shows her true colours, proposing the order according to market share—what Microsoft proposed—but excluding Explorer from that ordering and leaving it to the last position. Wouldn’t that be unfairly helping Firefox and putting Safari, Chrome and Opera in a bad position? And why discriminate Microsoft Explorer too?

Finally, she also proposes probability ordering by market share excluding Internet Explorer, which again gives Firefox the advantage over the rest 50 per cent of the time.

In other words, Microsoft and the EU should help Firefox to become the new monopolistic browser, no matter what. Jenny, please: Stop. Saying. Words. [Boriss' Blog via Computer World]

The Chrome Frame allows IE to use HTML5 and other open source technologies, including high performance JavaScript enhancements, that Internet Explorer’s Trident Engine is unable to render. One of the largest barriers to the mass utilisation of HTML5 was IE’s lack of support for the standard. When people install the plug-in, and developers add a X-UA compatible tag, websites can have HTML5 elements without sacrificing losing a large segment of the potential user base. Without the X-UA tag, pages render normally using the Trident engine instead of the WebKit Chrome renderer.

One of the major advantages for Google in issuing the plug-in is ensuring IE compatibility for Google Wave. Users with the plug-in will also have the benefits of offline storage and utilisation of the canvas tag. It’s no secret that Google believes that the traditional desktop base is going the way of the dinosaur—making HTML5 and enhanced JavaScript a ubiquitous standard is the first step to emulating desktop environment via the web.

OK, great. Now let’s see how many of the IT departments that refuse to upgrade from IE6 allow their users to install some crazy Google plug-in. [Ars Technica and Google Chrome Blog]

As with any marketing statement, I’d encourage people to be somewhat sceptical about large number claims. It’s an interesting number and I have not seen the math [but] how many internet connected users are there? 1.1 billion, 1.5 billion, something in that area.

She described the number as “interesting math,” even while that one billion figure includes every download and update since Firefox launched since 2004. Repeated downloads too. And people having multiple computers.

Knowing that, it doesn’t seem that crazy to me. What do you think about Amy’s claims? And about Firefox’s figure? [The Guardian]

We got a few minutes with the Zune HD all the way back at its announcement, and everything felt and looked like something to get excited about, but that was just a tease; now we know that the Zune’s relative stagnancy over the last few years hasn’t been for nothing. The hardware feels “expensive, solid, and sexy” and the 3.3-inch OLED screen looks “outstanding,” while the software—particularly the music playback screen and music recommendation features—sounds miles ahead of the Zune’s already decent interface. It’s great to hear that our hopes were warranted, but there’s a bombshell buried in here, a few paragraphs down.

Speaking of Wi-Fi, the Zune’s new Web browser smokes. Not since first using the iPhone have I been this impressed with a mobile web browser. There’s no branding on the browser, but I was told it was cooked up by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer team (makes sense). Page load was snappy, and pinching and reorienting pages work just like the iPhone and iPod Touch.

As anyone who has used Windows Mobile in the last—well, ever, including the much-improved-but-still-only-tolerable-Mobile IE 6, this is a comeback for the ages. And without WebKit! I just hope Bell wasn’t swept away in the moment; if these observations hold, the Zune HD could be a certifiable Very Big Deal. [CNET]

It was decided that Microsoft’s “Hey! We’ll just leave all browsers out completely!” would result in headaches for some consumers who would struggle to download any browser without being able to use Internet Explorer to do so. The new approach is to sell Windows PCs with Internet Explorer as the default browser, but to present users with a “ballot screen” which allows them to select and “easily install competing browsers from the Web.” That’s not all though:

In addition, (computer makers) would be able to install competing Web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice.

There’s a catch of sorts in that there aren’t any specifics on how competing browsers will be selected for the “ballot”, so the jury’s still out on just how accommodating Microsoft is really being. [CNET]

Internet Explorer isn’t mandated in every governmental department, and Firefox has been vetted and cleared as just as secure as IE (duh), so it’s a legitimate question: Why not use the faster, safer, more customisable and more reliable browser? Clinton has no idea why Firefox is barred, which is totally fine with us—we really are happy she’s spending her time on other things.

But Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy chimes in that it’s “an expense question,” at which point he is promptly and rightfully shouted down that Firefox is free, for god’s sake. He goes into a lot of nonsense about “patches” and how even things that are free aren’t really free, which sounds to us like a lame attempt to explain away his first answer—he probably didn’t know Firefox was free when he cited expense in the first place. If Firefox has already been implemented in other sectors of government, it stands to reason that it could be adopted by the State Department fairly easily and quickly.

The rest of both his and Secretary Clinton’s answer is mostly impenetrable, metaphor-laden government-speak about cutting costs that, sorry guys, isn’t going to make us forget that you just claimed a free and vastly superior program, one that’s already in wide use in other sectors of government, is too expensive to implement.

Pat Kennedy, you’re officially on my bad side. [State Department via Switched]

The online treasure hunt to win $10,000 using IE8 isn’t necessarily a bad marketing idea. Hell, I’d probably download IE8 and have a go if I thought I had a chance of winning (if I were a PC user, that is, seeing as how MS doesn’t have an IE version for Macs). But instead of actually prmoting the benefits of IE8, they’ve instead decided to insult Firefox users in an effort to get them to make the switch:

“We’ve buried $10,000 somewhere on the Internet and if you’re the first one to find it, you get to keep it.

But you’ll never find it using old Firefox. (So get rid of it, or get lost).

Get lost, Microsoft? I think those words seem like a rather appropriate response to your competition.

[Microsoft – Thanks Aaron!]