I was responding to separate people using the quote feature.
tags.Oh and, double post.
Many people do not care if something is open source or not, rather wether it is free.
Technically you are still isecure since even the latest version of Firefox does not patch all the vulnerabilities.Windows Updates? Funny how Microsoft has had one of the best update systems for years now and gets no credit.More like debunk Myths. Notice here you just state another Myth. Firefox is NOT standards compliant.
How does this change the fact that IE has lower system requirements than Firefox? It doesn't.
XP will run on its minimum requirements. IE is designed for more than one OS.
There is another article entitled "Firefox Myths" that has been spammed on hundreds of websites. The article contains some deliberate misquotes from me and several others who pointed out flaws in the page, and it also contains other lies and libel. The author has even posed as me in discussion forums in support of his page. He has an extensive history of lying about his identity and relation to the article, and his persistent spam techniques and trolling have gotten him permanently banned from many websites including digg, Neowin, and TechSpot. His article should be regarded with a high degree of skepticism.
On the same site there is another Firefox myths article (looks like this one may be the original)http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.phpVery interesting indeed ...For those of you who need spoon feeding ... The "other article" (the spammed one that contains some deliberate misquotes from the original article and several others who pointed out flaws in the page, and it also contains other lies and libel) is the one Aloone found and is the topic of this thread. The real myths article is at webdevout as I have just posted.
However, many people do.
1) Duh, it's a Microsoft product! Using IE is a tacit approval of the Microsoft company and the Microsoft way of doing business. Of course nobody knows I am not using IE but me, but dammit, it's important to stick to your principles at all times, even when nobody else is watching.
2) Standards bludgeoning. Of course not every browser can be 100% W3C standards compliant, because the W3C changes their minds about things every day. But no other web browser is making up their own bits and pieces of HTML for their own specific use. IE has all these little bits of code that it made up which go against standards. And some of their handling of XHTML is mind-boggling. I can provide more specific examples if you don't know what I am talking about.
3) Web annoyances. In reality, these aren't IE's fault - it's the stupid damn web designers preying on the fact that IE is so popular. Mostly these are pr0n sites who try to force downloads or redirect or take control of the browser. Probably Linux and OSX have shielded me from as many of these as not using IE.
4) I just don't fucking like it. And nobody can tell me differently. This is one of those points that means nothing and everything all at once. The greatest program in the world is useless to me if I can't stand to use it. So there's why I like Firefox. And there's why I am using SeaMonkey right now. Opera might be good, but something about it just rubbed me the wrong way. And IE makes me wanna slit my wrists everytime I see that Favorites menu up there where the bookmarks are supposed to be. Well, perhaps growing up on Netscape Navigator has something to do with it.
No, Debian has had the best update system you fucking retard. So does OS X, and I'm sure FreeBSD has a good one too.
Stop talking in a fucking circle.
Not anymore. Microsoft pulled the plug on IE for the Mac a while ago.
Say that to a developer's face.
EDIT: I see it isn't worth my time to respond to this idiot.
Technically you are still isecure since even the latest version of Firefox does not patch all the vulnerabilities.
It is not biased. Many people do not care if something is open source or not, rather wether it is free. The reality is Opera does not have embedded ads anymore. They probably generate there money now how Firefox does through the search bar.
Reality - Firefox has incomplete support of many W3C standards including HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, CSS 2.1, CSS 3 and DOM.
No web browser is 100% standards compliant. The web technology standards are very extensive and it often takes many years to implement all of the features of a standard, plus additional time to fix the bugs. In addition, the standards are always evolving and becoming more and more robust. Firefox
Interesting - so what vulnerabilities am I being exposed to now if I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4?
IMO, your article is VERY biased. This one is a million times more fair I think - it not only debunks the myths but exposes the truth, and I think that's important if you're gonna go around saying it's not biased.
An example of where I think you're biased:The WebDevout Firefox Myths page is much more informative:I think it's very unfair to leave out that info, since FF is VERY standards compliant. It is CERTAINLY much better than IE in this regard and if it isn't better than Opera then there is definetly not much in it.
If FF isn't the best web-browser when it comes to standards compliance it is VERY close.
SA20442SA20244 SA12979 SA12580SA12403Funny how the one you think is so fair provides ZERO sources and doesn't cover any of the real Myths. It is a nice "feel good" Myths page for all Firefox users who can't handle the truth.Um that is not a Myth. Everyone knows Firefox supports W3C standards better than IE. What you are talking about is an excuse. The Myth is that Firefox is a standards compliant web browser that fully supports standards. This is one of the most wide spread myths.Maybe, maybe not but it clearly doesn't pass Acid2. You are missing the point of the Myths page. It is not an Firefox Promotional page. I don't make excuses and I don't include them on the page. The page isn't about selling Firefox.You want to see Bias? Look at his Firefox Myths page than look at his Web browser security summary page. He cut the top "Historical cumulative values (Product life)" off the chart on the Myths page. I know I saw his myths page the first time it went up. He cut the top off because it made Firefox look bad in the vulnerability count. He has since played with the colors, changing almost all of Firefox's to an orange. There is no consistency in the numbers except IE is bad with Red and Firefox is not so bad. He is such a sad, sad fanboy.Here is another good one. See how Firefox has 129 vulnerabilities with a relative danger of 381? Why then does Opera with only 56 vulnerabilities have a relative danger of 359? Shouldn't Opera's danger be more like 150? At least I don't play with figures like that. I simply count and report exact numbers.
OK, well clearly your page is only about debunking myths as opposed to educating users with the full story. That's sad. Don't go around claiming it isn't biased - it's biased. Not including the full story that shows FF in a GOOD light (because FF is a GOOD web-browser) IS BIAS if you ask me.
This is why everybody hates you - and I hope you understand that. It's not because they're fanboys who can't handle the truth. They can handle the truth - the truth about Firefox is very pretty, the problem is you don't expose any of that.
But sure - you have your "it's a page about MYTHS" excuse, which is fine, but to many people you're still just a sad annoying little troll.
Also, your word doesn't weigh much with me and probably every other human in the world too. Find some evidence that the WebDevout ppl are biased and we might give it some attention.
Author
Topic: Firefox myths (Read 3401 times)
Share or donate
