Prev: MFC CHtmlView::GetSource bugs on Connect
Next: FTPFindFirstFile unicode
From: Scot T Brennecke on 28 Sep 2009 19:55
Simon wrote:
> Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
>> The OP seems to still confuse the application iexplore.exe with the
>> HTML control, which I
>> thought had been made completely clear to him by several people.
>> joe
>>
>
> Are you mad or are you doing it on purpose? Where did I say I was
> confused? Stop going around insulting people for fun.
>
> The only 'confusion' was that I did not know that uninstalling IE
> involved IE not really been uninstalled.
>
> Really, you don't need to reply to every threads to get your rude word
> count of the day in.
>
> Why don't you write an article about making assumption and complaining
> about everybody not using your perfect coding style, (and tell us how
> many years you have been doing it for as well).
> When you done, tell us over and over and over about it to push you 1980
> style website.
>
> Get a life, try and help people rather.
>
> Simon

Simon,
That rant was not at all necessary. Dr. Newcomer has decades of experience, and on a daily basis, he helps about 10 people for
each one he pisses off. I'd prefer that he take a less condescending tone in most of his emails. He gets pretty upset about things
that have annoyed him for years. Those who learn from him often get irritated and insulted in the process, but the lesson still
gets taught most of the time.
All in all, Joe Newcomer is a great asset to this forum.
By the way, you still seem to have missed the point that uninstalling IE doesn't have anything to do with uninstalling MSHTML.
MSHTML will be there, but it's not a matter of "IE not really been uninstalled". MSHTML is not part of IE.

Scot
From: Simon on 29 Sep 2009 02:41
> Simon,
> That rant was not at all necessary. Dr. Newcomer has decades of
> experience, and on a daily basis, he helps about 10 people for each one
> he pisses off. I'd prefer that he take a less condescending tone in
> most of his emails. He gets pretty upset about things that have annoyed
> him for years. Those who learn from him often get irritated and
> insulted in the process, but the lesson still gets taught most of the time.

And there is nothing wrong with that, (but some might argue that this is
the wrong NG for a life lesson), the problem is when he randomly insults
people like he did here and in other threads.

Insulting people simply because they have not followed his life textbook
is not helpful, (and almost always impractical in real world businesses).
It doesn't teach hobbyist how to develop and it does not help developers
meeting various project requirements.

> By the way, you still seem to have missed the point that
> uninstalling IE doesn't have anything to do with uninstalling MSHTML.
> MSHTML will be there, but it's not a matter of "IE not really been
> uninstalled". MSHTML is not part of IE.

Really, am I looking at the same thread?
- I ask for a function API to output HTML.
-- Goran suggests using CHtmlView
--- I reply that I have nothing against using CHtmlView but I have
concerns about users not having IE installed.
---- Goran thinks that mshtml.dll is still around even if the ie.exe
might not be.
---- Joe tells me that I am confused.
----- I reply to his insult by showing that many sites offer ways of
completely removing IE, (to me, uninstalling means removing everything
including the HTML/DLL engine).
------ Alex points out that dependencies are probably not removed.
------- Joe insists that I am confused.
------- David suggests that this might not entirely be true, (but that
if the DLL is missing it is probably the fault of the user).

Where does it look like I am confused?

I ask for an API, someone suggests embedding IE, and I am then told that
I confuse IE with one, (or more), DLLs, (that apparently is not really
part of IE after all).

If the DLL has really nothing to do with IE then people must stop using
terms like 'embedding IE' in your app.

Either way, throwing insults around was not helpful in this case. Joe
could have called me 'confused' 200 times, that would not have helped.

Telling Alex and others that actually IE is not embedded at all but that
a DLL is needed, would have been a lot more useful.

Hell, maybe someone should tell MS that they are also 'confused',
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/42h6dke4%28VS.80%29.aspx)

"The WebBrowser ActiveX control (and therefore CHtmlView) is available
only to programs running under Windows NT versions 4.0 or later, in
which Internet Explorer 4.0 or later has been installed."

Joe should tell them that they are confused and that only the DLL is needed.

Simon.
From: Scot T Brennecke on 29 Sep 2009 03:00
Simon wrote:
>> Simon,
>> That rant was not at all necessary. Dr. Newcomer has decades of
>> experience, and on a daily basis, he helps about 10 people for each
>> one he pisses off. I'd prefer that he take a less condescending tone
>> in most of his emails. He gets pretty upset about things that have
>> annoyed him for years. Those who learn from him often get irritated
>> and insulted in the process, but the lesson still gets taught most of
>> the time.
>
> And there is nothing wrong with that, (but some might argue that this is
> the wrong NG for a life lesson), the problem is when he randomly insults
> people like he did here and in other threads.
>
> Insulting people simply because they have not followed his life textbook
> is not helpful, (and almost always impractical in real world businesses).
> It doesn't teach hobbyist how to develop and it does not help developers
> meeting various project requirements.
>
>> By the way, you still seem to have missed the point that
>> uninstalling IE doesn't have anything to do with uninstalling MSHTML.
>> MSHTML will be there, but it's not a matter of "IE not really been
>> uninstalled". MSHTML is not part of IE.
>
> Really, am I looking at the same thread?
> - I ask for a function API to output HTML.
> -- Goran suggests using CHtmlView
> --- I reply that I have nothing against using CHtmlView but I have
> concerns about users not having IE installed.
> ---- Goran thinks that mshtml.dll is still around even if the ie.exe
> might not be.
> ---- Joe tells me that I am confused.
> ----- I reply to his insult by showing that many sites offer ways of
> completely removing IE, (to me, uninstalling means removing everything
> including the HTML/DLL engine).
> ------ Alex points out that dependencies are probably not removed.
> ------- Joe insists that I am confused.
> ------- David suggests that this might not entirely be true, (but that
> if the DLL is missing it is probably the fault of the user).
>
> Where does it look like I am confused?
>
> I ask for an API, someone suggests embedding IE, and I am then told that
> I confuse IE with one, (or more), DLLs, (that apparently is not really
> part of IE after all).
>
> If the DLL has really nothing to do with IE then people must stop using
> terms like 'embedding IE' in your app.
>
> Either way, throwing insults around was not helpful in this case. Joe
> could have called me 'confused' 200 times, that would not have helped.
>
> Telling Alex and others that actually IE is not embedded at all but that
> a DLL is needed, would have been a lot more useful.
>
> Hell, maybe someone should tell MS that they are also 'confused',
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/42h6dke4%28VS.80%29.aspx)
>
> "The WebBrowser ActiveX control (and therefore CHtmlView) is available
> only to programs running under Windows NT versions 4.0 or later, in
> which Internet Explorer 4.0 or later has been installed."
>
> Joe should tell them that they are confused and that only the DLL is
> needed.
>
> Simon.

True enough. You may recall (or maybe not) that for many years, the Windows OS and the Internet Explorer product were tightly
enmeshed, and it wasn't really clear where the line was drawn. They always were together, and the OS depended on components that
were also depended upon by the IE browser. Since they were so tightly bound, the separation wasn't clear. Then, Microsoft was sued
for forcing the IE browser upon Windows users. It was considered an unfair advantage. So MS had to devise a way to separate them
and allow users to have Windows without IE. The other OS still have some dependencies on the ability to display HTML even if IE is
not installed. Thus, MSHTML can be there even if IE is not. If people have chosen to remove it, I'd say they brought the pain upon
themselves.
From: Scot T Brennecke on 29 Sep 2009 03:04
Simon wrote:
>> Simon,
>> That rant was not at all necessary. Dr. Newcomer has decades of
>> experience, and on a daily basis, he helps about 10 people for each
>> one he pisses off. I'd prefer that he take a less condescending tone
>> in most of his emails. He gets pretty upset about things that have
>> annoyed him for years. Those who learn from him often get irritated
>> and insulted in the process, but the lesson still gets taught most of
>> the time.
>
> And there is nothing wrong with that, (but some might argue that this is
> the wrong NG for a life lesson), the problem is when he randomly insults
> people like he did here and in other threads.
>
> Insulting people simply because they have not followed his life textbook
> is not helpful, (and almost always impractical in real world businesses).
> It doesn't teach hobbyist how to develop and it does not help developers
> meeting various project requirements.
>
>> By the way, you still seem to have missed the point that
>> uninstalling IE doesn't have anything to do with uninstalling MSHTML.
>> MSHTML will be there, but it's not a matter of "IE not really been
>> uninstalled". MSHTML is not part of IE.
>
> Really, am I looking at the same thread?
> - I ask for a function API to output HTML.
> -- Goran suggests using CHtmlView
> --- I reply that I have nothing against using CHtmlView but I have
> concerns about users not having IE installed.
> ---- Goran thinks that mshtml.dll is still around even if the ie.exe
> might not be.
> ---- Joe tells me that I am confused.
> ----- I reply to his insult by showing that many sites offer ways of
> completely removing IE, (to me, uninstalling means removing everything
> including the HTML/DLL engine).
> ------ Alex points out that dependencies are probably not removed.
> ------- Joe insists that I am confused.
> ------- David suggests that this might not entirely be true, (but that
> if the DLL is missing it is probably the fault of the user).
>
> Where does it look like I am confused?
>
> I ask for an API, someone suggests embedding IE, and I am then told that
> I confuse IE with one, (or more), DLLs, (that apparently is not really
> part of IE after all).
>
> If the DLL has really nothing to do with IE then people must stop using
> terms like 'embedding IE' in your app.
>
> Either way, throwing insults around was not helpful in this case. Joe
> could have called me 'confused' 200 times, that would not have helped.
>
> Telling Alex and others that actually IE is not embedded at all but that
> a DLL is needed, would have been a lot more useful.
>
> Hell, maybe someone should tell MS that they are also 'confused',
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/42h6dke4%28VS.80%29.aspx)
>
> "The WebBrowser ActiveX control (and therefore CHtmlView) is available
> only to programs running under Windows NT versions 4.0 or later, in
> which Internet Explorer 4.0 or later has been installed."
>
> Joe should tell them that they are confused and that only the DLL is
> needed.
>
> Simon.

In fairness to you, the mshtml.dll Product Name in its version resource DOES name Internet Explorer, even though that file is in the
System32 folder instead of with IE. So, it's clear there is confusion enough for everyone to go around. :)
From: Simon on 29 Sep 2009 03:45
>
> True enough. You may recall (or maybe not) that for many years, the
> Windows OS and the Internet Explorer product were tightly enmeshed, and
> it wasn't really clear where the line was drawn. They always were
> together, and the OS depended on components that were also depended upon
> by the IE browser. Since they were so tightly bound, the separation
> wasn't clear. Then, Microsoft was sued for forcing the IE browser upon
> Windows users. It was considered an unfair advantage. So MS had to
> devise a way to separate them and allow users to have Windows without
> IE. The other OS still have some dependencies on the ability to display
> HTML even if IE is not installed. Thus, MSHTML can be there even if IE
> is not. If people have chosen to remove it, I'd say they brought the
> pain upon themselves.

Yes, I do remember, up until ~2002 MS stated that IE and the OS were in
fact one application.
Terms of the settlement does not mention anything about a DLL been left
behind to ensure that third party applications will still work should
the user remove IE.

In fact it only looks like Windows7, (be maybe Vista as well), has
clearly separated the OS and IE. But _even then_ I could not find an
official statement from MS itself about it.

There is still no clear cut line in the sand, (on the MS/MSDN website)
to say what is in fact required, and what can be safely assumed to be
found on the OS and what version of the DLL does what.

The more I look at it, the more I see that everybody is confused and
making assumptions.

In fact I'd be interested to read something from MS themselves to
indicate that the requirement for CHtmlView, (for exampe), is a DLL and
not IE and that that DLL is not removed when IE is removed.

Simon
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: MFC CHtmlView::GetSource bugs on Connect
Next: FTPFindFirstFile unicode