What is actually the purpose of offline mode. does it somehow manages the caching system of the browser. or it just skips the host resolution part, dont know for what.
what probably the designer had in mind, when he developed the offline mode feature.
It's something that most of us wouldn't use very often, but it was useful in the past when we used dial-up modems (and especially for those of us who had time limited plans). You could connect to the internet, go to a website, quickly browse through everything you thought could be useful, disconnect, go to offline mode and then browse through the site as though you were connected (for everything was cached).
I didn't realise browsers still had them (I can't remember the last time I went to the File menu in Firefox though).
I think it's something from the old days, where connections were mostly dial-up (read: slow, and not always connected), and browsers relied on caching material off-line, so if you're not connected, you'd see the cached version in an off-line mode.
I guess it still applies to countries that still don't have DSL everywhere.
You might use it to find out what happens to people who are using your web application if their internet connection is flaky or drops out. You can also use it if you're only interested in accessing local files, not websites.
It doesn't try to access the network, but instead fetches all content from the cache.
in developed countries (asia especially), internet are rare and expensive (there are quota or time based) so offline is very good feature to have for them.
Sometimes you are out and you need to check something on web .. you can use that offline cache.
I wonder if it will became more used in the west these days as people with net-books and other ultra portable devices travel round lots? While wi-fi hot spots and 3g data connections are popular they are still not universal.
I know when I designed my html/javascript open source chess clock, I deliberately designed it to work off-line very easily, so I could just download it onto my netbook and meet my chess friends in cafes without having to worry if the cafe had a good wifi signal or not.
Now, where's the "Blatant Plug" tag?
It helps you to may be browse through a site fast & with a large cache size set , U go to offline mode & read the pages with your Time based Internet connection switched off.
As has been stated by David Johnstone, I used to use the Offline Mode during dial-up days for reading articles/pages from cache when connection to the internet was disconnected.
As my experience, normally offline servers are using while online servers are down or accessibility problem with our web server via internet, meanwhile we are using our offline server to get the informations. Then once the web server is up then we can synchronic the datas from offline server to online server.
Related
I'm curious as to how an application is being launched from a web control panel. I am using Splashtop Business, a remote desktop management system. The system allows one to select a workstation to connect to, select "Connect", and the native app will be launched, and initiate the connection.
I want to know how this app is being launched, with the information being transmitted from the browser to the application.
I checked the official documentation, and couldn't find anything on a custom URI being used for the application I'm using.
I watched the network traffic, and found the only thing of plausible importance (in my eyes) was a cookie being set. (I can clean and post some cookies if that would be helpful.)
I watched the local storage of the browser, nothing changed between different launches.
Other things of import:
The site said pop-ups needed to be enabled for the application to launch
There is a small delay while the site says it is "Locating the Splashtop Business app"
This works in multiple browsers (Firefox, Chrome)
Any plausible solutions and especially ways to verify this would be appreciated. I don't want to accept that "its a blackbox solution" and just try and find another way to do the same thing. I'd rather know what is going on with my computer, as this is fairly significant in respect to security.
It used to be the case, as described in this answer from five years ago, that web sites could not reliably tell whether a client's browser was in Incognito Mode. However, in the past few months, I've started encountering sites which are able to throw up a banner that says, "hey, you're in Private Browsing mode, so we won't show you any content."
I have two questions, which are opposite sides of the same coin:
As a web developer in 2019, how would I construct a reliable check for a user's Private Browsing status?
As a privacy-conscious web user in 2019, who might like to keep the meta-information of his privacy-consciousness private as well, how could I reliably generate a first-time-visitor experience from a site that is desperate to track me?
In pre-Incognito days I would have accomplished #2 by using a "clean profile" to visit a site that I didn't want to follow me around. User profiles are apparently still in Firefox, though I suspect they probably don't protect against browser fingerprinting. But I'm not sure whether that is a good summary of my threat model --- my interest is mostly in opting out of the advertisement-driven data-mining ecosystem, without being treated differently for doing so.
I'll leave the main question to others who know how each browser's Private mode may differ from default. I do use Private modes extensively, but when I encounter a page that won't work, I simply use a clean non-private window, then clear all cookies and other stored state again afterwards.
You also mention fingerprinting, which is more insidious. Often it's based on collection by a client-side script, which is detectable but only somewhat defendable in practice. But server-detectable characteristics can also provide a good enough correlation for cross-site, even cross-device correlation.
Fingerprinting is very difficult to thwart. but I recommend using Tor for as much casual browsing as practical, using multiple browsers with your activity partitioned across them in a disciplined way, using a common browser with the best fingerprinting protections or at least using the most common browser config for your platform(s), keep your browsers updated and never install Java or Flash, change your IP address(es) often, change your window size often, and clear all cookies and other stored state often. Use a common platform (machine + display size + os) if possible. Making your browser more unique by loading it up with privacy extensions is quite likely to make you look more unique. There are also a few resources out there that list fingerprinting servers / domains, and you can block those in your machine, DNS, router, or wherever practical.
Keep in mind that Panopticlick and sites like it suffer from selection bias, and also combine all platforms, obscuring how unique your browser is compared to other browsers on the same platform (it's hard to change your platform, but at least you can try to make your browser look more like others used on your platform).
I want to view dynamic contents (flash games, online transaction...etc) offline.
For example, I finish level 1 of this cool flash RPG game.
I go offline and play the level again.
Or, I make a purchase.
And make the purchase again offline.
Of course this won't do anything. It will be strictly for demonstration purpose.
Or, I watch a video online. Go offline and watch it again.
Is this feasible? Whatever I do through browser, it has to download things.
When it downloads, it stores on disk. Then, when it is in offline mode, it routes all traffic out to local disk.
Sounds simple, but is this really possible?
Or am I missing something?
Let's say someone patched a browser to make offline mode much more powerful.
As a web developer, how can I secure my application from this
patched browser?
Let's say I charging my contents (video, game...etc)
per view/use. With this patched browser, people can pay once
and view/use it over and over again.
They might even make a tarball out of their browser cache
and share with other people online.
So, my questions are:
is this patched browser possible?
if it is possible, how can I defend my content against it?
I'm trying to find the original author of the quote: "Trying to make digital content not copyable is like trying to make water not wet."
In your question you describe several different scenarios as if they were similar. They are not. If you have a specific question, then please ask it so that people can focus on addressing the specific case that concerns you.
Let's talk about video (and audio). Essentially, without controlling the client, you can NOT stop the downloaded video from being cached and re-watched. "Patched" browsers exist. In fact, they're not patched. They don't even need to be. FireFox has any number of plug-ins such as "DownloadHelper" which make all of this possible. YouTube goes to some effort to change their system regularly to break DownloadHelper. But they know they can only slow things down.
The only way to control a video download being re-watched is insist on the user using your completely custom plugin or application. The problem is that (a) that costs you much more money, (b) it's more painful for the user.
The other cases you mention - RPG and online transaction... these are different. Often with an RPG or other game, the client portion includes only a part of the code. Some of the code resides on your server. Without a connection to the server, the game cannot be played. You don't have to write it that way, you could make it 100% client... in which case (e.g. for Flash) the SWF file can be downloaded and played again and again, without your control.
But usually those online flash games are part-server in order to do what you say, and make them playable only online and only via the game-writers site.
An online transaction ALWAYS involves a server component, usually encrypted and non-repeatable. They can be secured.
How can we distract our clients from using IE6. We know IE6 is not a good standard-compliant browsers; has many issues. How to satisfy clients so that they do not use IE6?
Thanks...
I'm currently in the process of building a new site for my company and I've been looking at http://code.google.com/p/ie6-upgrade-warning/.
Essentially it's a little javascript lib that checks to see if the user is running IE6 and if so it displays a nice little overlay on top of your site. The only problem I've got with it is that it completely blocks the user from using your site. I'd like to allow for them to use it anyways but I'd like them to know that their experience may not be as good as it could be. I'm sure it can be adapted though, you should never exclude people from using your site based on their user agent. That being said I think it's a good tradeoff that you try to get your users to upgrade and if they don't wan't to they can still use your site but they probably won't see all of the fancy pancy browser tricks that you can do with modern browsers.
(source: googlecode.com)
It sure looks nice anyway
Other resources include http://ie6update.com/ (not a fan though, you shouldn't trick users)
Update: Seems like someone made a bit more customizable version of this written in jQuery. See jreject.turnwheel.com
One of the reasons this problem exists is as follows.
Many IE6 user have no choice. They sit behind corporate firewalls with locked down machines and while on their home machines they will have the latest technology they are constrained by the workplace rules and policies.
So why do the corporates not upgrade from IE6 to 7 or 8? Well here is one reason. Workload.
As a sysop you need to upgrade 500 machines to the new browser.
In many cases these browsers run mission critical add-ins as ActiveX's etc so to do the upgrade you have to do all the testing and verification and then do a planned roll out upgrade, which will have problems, hiccups and glitches, a lot of work and late nights and unpaid overtime and a lot of flak from the users as you do this.
And what is the payback for this upgrade? Well the internal systems work on IE8 exactly as they worked on IE6, (well not always and you may need to rewrite that as well) but the users can now access the latest startup site that plugs into Facebook (but will be gone in 6 months) perfectly but it is not work related.
So unless there is a tangible business benefit many shops simply cannot se a reason, or justify the cost of a browser upgrade.
These locations will convert, when they go to Windows 7 perhaps or because the "application" they use internally is upgraded and needs the newer browser version. But at this point there is a justification for doing it.
N.B. I have recently worked in two jobs where IE6 compatibility was a must for this reason, large client bases, behind firewalls with lockdown, and i am not stating the above as a reason/excuse not to do it. The sooner the better.
Provided they have the proper permissions to do install software on their machines, use Chrome Frame. The speed boost, if nothing else, should be incentive alone.
"The customer is always right."
You can advise them otherwise, but if they want IE6 for whatever reason then it's up to them.
The best way is by educating them, make them aware of why you are blocking IE6. Do a comparison, case study, etc to convince them, try and put it in terms they may understand, try to convince them that using IE6 is a bad idea (whatever your reasons).
Its simple to implement a script to prevent IE Browsers from connecting to your site, however doing that may result in users being turned away. If this is a public site take into consideration the market share internet explorer has, unless your site is really incredible it is unlikely you will get a user to install a new browser.
To get around this in the past a simple splash page that informes them of the reasons not to use IE6, Example:
You are currently using internet explorer, while you may continue to browse this site using IE, please be aware that some functionality may not be available due to compliance standards within internet explorer, and due to this we do not support issues that arise when using Internet Explorer. We recommend using Google Chrome (Download here) or Mozilla Firefox (Download here).
If this is within a corprate environment you can always work with the IT department to ensure that alternate browsers are distributed. I recommend Google Chrome, simply beacuse of the ability to create "Application Windows" that eliminate problmem causing elements of the browser GUI (Back buttion etc...)
Having a site that elegantly degrades when the user's browser is IE6 is the best option. IE6 users should still be able to use your web site - if a particular feature requires a modern browser a user will be more likely to switch if they already find your site useful.
Another point: modern javascript libraries like jQuery makes it easier to code sites that are compatible with IE6. There's no need to turn away potential customers because of their web browser choice. If you're a web designer it's your job to make sure they have a good experience.
A lot of this comes down to the reasons you want them to stop using IE6. IE6/7 are a pain in the bum if you let them be. We're now taking a more aggressive approach to browser adoption when it comes to what you can/can't do.
For instance, when you visit our new sites in most browsers you'll get rounded corners, transparency, gradients etc. When you visit in IE6 you get a square, opaque, monotone website. Wherever you have PNGs you'll get a simple GIF (even if it looks pants).
Unfortunately IE6 is tied to many businesses for internal reasons (using apps etc) and you can't force them to upgrade but you can give them a subtle message.
make them understand that ie is not bad, its ie 6 thats bad .. if they wish to use ie they can surely use it but could use ie 7 ir even ie 8... make them see that how ie 7 and 8 provide some great features which are not there in ie 6..
also ie 8 is the only browser that follows strict css 2.1 methodology
plus there are many websites which previously were running in ie 6 (with no problem) are running under a warning message that some context may not be suported by ie 6 for eg. www.yahoo.com, so why to use it?
thanks
We had the same issue in one of our projects. I made a simple conditional check and displayed an additional div with links to download firefox, Chrome and IE-8.
Try facebook.com on IE-6. This was my inspiration for the additional div.
In line with Markus' post, it's simple enough to display a popup when the site loads with a warning. Ideally you won't show this every time they load a page of course, that will get old fast.
You have a good opportunity when working on a spec with your client, to tell them "it will cost $X more if we have to support older browsers including IE6 (don't just say IE6), and it will mean we can't easily add more advanced functionality... supporting older browsers will detract from the overall quality and increase time & cost.
A while ago there was a collective effort in Norway to get users away from IE6. Several of the largest sites in Norway participated, and the user got a kind warning on top of the site that recommended him to upgrade or switch browser for an improved browsing experience - if using IE6.
Check out what Wired said about it!
make a whitepaper
Two things:
Charge extra -- double or treble rates or more -- to support IE6. (even IE7 these days).
Point out that IE6 (and WinXP too) will be losing the last vestiges of support in the near future. If you think they're insecure now, just wait till that happens -- no more security fixes. If you're still developing for IE6 now, then you're clearly not going to be ready for the upgrade in time, so you will be hacked, and hacked badly. If your client is willing to accept that, then that's his problem, but you need to help him understand the gravity of the problem. He needs to be putting his upgrade plans in now, not getting more dev work done for the old systems.
I'd like to start a free budget/personal finance site and will need plenty of horsepower and storage. I'm definitely a nubee, so how does one get started in terms of hardware infrastructure? Do I need to get a dedicated IP from my ISP and obtain my own servers? Do I go with amazon or Sql Server Data Services/Azure or something like that? Is the latter services free or a discount offering available to non-profit/free services such as the budget/personal finance site I'm looking to start?
If you don't mind writing your web application in python, then I's suggest using Google App Engine. See: What Is Google App Engine?
What I like to do when I have new ideas for a site is to find an inexpensive hosting solution ($10 per month). This allows me to test the idea and see if the site is going to be successful. If it is a flop, I haven't wasted much money and if it is successful I can upgrade to better hosting (dedicated server).
There are many hosting options available and several of them have great tools such as an online SQL Server management studio. Your other option would be to host it yourself if you are prepared to deal with firewall issues, backups, storage, etc.
Whether it is feasible to DIY varies a lot by country...if you have a decent broadband connection with a fixed IP this can be the cheapest route to play around with first, especially if you need an awful lot of storage.
Note however that many fast broadband connections are only fast for downloads - when you're running a server, the speed your users will see is the upload speed, which is usually a lot less. Also, you'll need to do your own admin and backup etc.
Apart from this most hosting options have a price tag on top, varying from virtual hosts (sharing a real machine), to colocation (your machine in somebody's data center), to cloud services like amazon et al (which have a good scaling ability)- and you will need to shop around for the software stack and hardware features you really need.
There's really two ways to answer this question, what differentiates them is budget.
One is to properly design this solution, prototype it, benchmark the prototype, extrapolate anticipated user load, add overhead and scale accordingly. This takes time, costs but gives you a supportable solution that serves your customers well.
The other is to just give something, anything a go and fix the problems as they come along. This is quicker and cheaper but might be a headache for a while and might p*** off your customers.
Basically it comes down to budget.
Best of luck.