Firefox myths

[Dark_Me]

Right attack the source because the truth hurts. What he claims to hear is pure BS. People all the time say IE is dangerous because it is integrated ect... Talk about more FUD.

It is. IE is the Windows shell. You know why that is bad right?
And attacking sources is an entirly valid method of argument.

[toadlife]

xq3dbcsctdsbeycenfddcxddfduudrdd3ecevwywrfsfvqwgxxedcthcbw7xwdbx

[toadlife]

It is. IE is the Windows shell. You know why that is bad right?

Not that I'm siding with the troll, but IE being integrated into WIndows is not the problem. The problem with IE is the fact that the IE libraries have tons of vulnerabilities. Koqueror is just as integrated into KDE as IE is into Explorer, and there have been KDE vulnerabilities that have affected many parts of the system. The reason it's done is because it reduces the need for developers to reinvent the wheel everytime the write an app for the platform. OSX also has tons of deep integration as far as multiple programs sharing core libraries, and a vulnerability in a core library is dangerous no matter what OS you are using.

Anyway. Stop feeding the troll guys!

[Mastertech]

The vast majority of so-called facts you present have been firmly pulled from your ass.

Try reading the sources. I know this is a complicated task to ask to do.

IE is most certainly out of the question when considering browsers ... in fact I don't think it even qualifies as a browser ... reasons: it's very insecure, tons of popups, security holes, no standards compliance, not stable, and many other reasons (you need tons of external programs just to keep it alive and barely useful).

Talk about a load of BS. I don't have any security issues on a fully patched version of IE. SP2 includes a pop-up blocker or you can simply install the Google or MSN Toolbar. Nice lie about the standards compliance.

"Internet Explorer has very good support (81-86%) for the most important web standard, HTML 4.01. In most educational systems an 81-86% would equal a "B" grade and without HTML the World Wide Web would not exist as we know it."

IE does support some W3C standards but it doesn't really matter since by far the most web pages work correctly only on IE. You actually don't need any special programs outside of standard security applications - Firewall, AntiVirus and AntiSpyware. The claims you made can only be made by someone who has either never used IE much or has no idea what he is talking about.

Opera is alright, but limited, and not open-source, and has very bad java and javascript support.

Opera is limited? Only in the same way Firefox is on page compatibility.

Mastertech, do you honestly Google your name and spread your opinions wherever you may find it?  I guess that must mean we're the fanboys for not doing the same.  Actually, on second thought, being as I am both an alternative software pundit AND a male, I'll take that as a compliment.  Thanks!

I respond to any false alegations about my page. I don't know what being a Firefox Fanboy has to do with that.

Having said that, you blatantly abuse , the DMCA (you might consider READING the link you provide, and even track down a copy of section 1201); (B), truth in advertising, by failing to provide complete quotes; (C), trade libel laws, by bringing allegations against several third parties that you have no means of proving; and (D), general common courtesy, by acting as if every counterpoint to your arguments is either sheer idiocy or blatant untruth.

I've read it fully. All quotes are complete that have to do with advertising. All allegations brought have been proven. Unlike the violations posted in this thread about me and on the webdevout link you provide. Every "counterpoint" have been disproven ad nauseum.

If I had a Comcast page, that is to say, if I were too cheap to pay $20 for a year of basic hosting, I'd be far less arrogant than you are now.  Beyond that, I have nothing to say to you, but I can certainly see where others might have problems with you.  If you haven't noticed, you're not posting to WinBBS, so tread lightly.

Wow I thought I was doing this for the money? Didn't someone cluelessly post that here? Heh.

It's kinda hard to believe any of that when you've been banned from fourteen different websites for the same problem.  What, do you want us to think that it's all just a big conspiracy against you by a bunch of Firefox users?  lol.  I bet many of them don't even use Firefox...I know I don't.

Oh no not more of this. Please read this AGAIN! Banned
There is no big "conspiracy" against me as much as a certain group of Fanboys will do anything to personally attack me and suppress the truth on the page. They fear people will stop using Firefox if they read Firefox Myths. But what I have noticed is how scared Firefox Fanboys get when they read my page. I've seen the link deleted and all sorts of crazy claims posted to try and prevent people from reading the page. This has just been a fascinating experience. Keep in mind you did not delete any links to my site and start posting he is a troll blah, blah, blah... ect.. The ones who do are Firefox users. Anyone else with an open mind that can actually think for themselves has no problem with my page.

Speaking for myself, that's not the case.  Allow me to explain (with paraphrasing to save reading time):

From your page, one may come to think that there is some browser that has full support.  In fact, the only time you say anything contrary to that is when you're bashing David H. for apparently changing his page to make IE look worse (I don't know, I wasn't there.)

Interesting I do not even imply that. What is stated is very clear. This has been very fascinating. You have to understand this all blew out of proportion when David H. first blog post claiming I was saying IE was better than Firefox. I asked him to remove that statement before I would consider his other points he never did. But again I see people read what they want to and not what is there. There is absolutely nothing I can do about that. No where is it stated that some browser out there fully supports standards. These sorts of assumptions are people jumping to conclusions. Mostly from an irrational initial reaction to something they perceive as criticism of what they believe is perfect (Firefox).

It is. IE is the Windows shell. You know why that is bad right?

Read the source AGAIN. IE is integrated but there are no special os functionality that only IE exposes that no other browser cannot. I am not debating whether integration is good or bad but the reality of the irrational security issue. Soooo much of this stuff has been going around forever that are blatant lies.

And attacking sources is an entirly valid method of argument.

It is all the Fanboys have left. They have no facts, no data nothing. What is funny is attacking me does not change the facts from any of my sources or the facts on my page.

"The earth is not flat"

[Mastertech]

Not that I'm siding with the troll, but IE being integrated into WIndows is not the problem. The problem with IE is the fact that the IE libraries have tons of vulnerabilities. Koqueror is just as integrated into KDE as IE is into Explorer, and there have been KDE vulnerabilities that have affected many parts of the system. The reason it's done is because it reduces the need for developers to reinvent the wheel everytime the write an app for the platform. OSX also has tons of deep integration as far as multiple programs sharing core libraries, and a vulnerability in a core library is dangerous no matter what OS you are using.

Anyway. Stop feeding the troll guys!

Funny how someone who shows up to defend his page is labeled a "Troll". But you are correct it is the vulnerabilities that are the real problem and have always been.

[WMD]

Ok, Mastertech, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute here.  Let's say that the truth is, simply, that Firefox fanboys (per your definition and experience) have been banning you and supressing your page because they can't handle the truth.

This leaves me with one question: if that's the case, then why do you keep going to sites that are known to be filled with Firefox users and fanboys?  After all, to quote you,

We all know 8 forums run by Fanboys = the millions of forums on the Internet.

There's lots of places you could go and not have to put up with what you have.  But apparently, you haven't done that, and gone primarily to places that you know (perhaps only subconciously, but still) have a large population of Firefox fanboys.  That would make you a textbook internet troll.

And don't tell me it's because David H. and his friends follow you around - that certainly isn't the case here, and if David H. suddenly did show up, I would be rather suspicious.

[Dark_Me]

Read the source AGAIN. IE is integrated but there are no special os functionality that only IE exposes that no other browser cannot. I am not debating whether integration is good or bad but the reality of the irrational security issue. Soooo much of this stuff has been going around forever that are blatant lies.

It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.

It is all the Fanboys have left. They have no facts, no data nothing. What is funny is attacking me does not change the facts from any of my sources or the facts on my page.

Attacking the maker of an arguement is not a valid method of arguement, no. However attacking the sources (though not the makers of those sources) used in an argument is.

[toadlife]

Funny how someone who shows up to defend his page is labeled a "Troll". But you are correct it is the vulnerabilities that are the real problem and have always been.

The definition of "troll" is often influenced by the setting.

[piratePenguin]

Oh lets get back on track and discuss my page. Wait I just disproved ever point so obvious it is easier to personally attack me. Forget finding actual facts on anything.

I didn't see you disprove this:
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114532&postcount=34

I've developed web-pages, I know the story, and I know that standards support on Firefox is very good - it's among the best in any web-browser.

Your webpage is a good resource if someone wants a list of misconceptions ever made about Firefox, that's it. And these are misconceptions made by obvious non-geeks, I wouldn't expect too much from them. If as many people used Opera it wouldn't be hard to find people saying the same crap ("Opera is 100% standards compliant").

For non-geeks who want to learn the absolute reality I'll be pointing them to David H's page. For people like that, you must bring things into perspective for them - otherwise they'll over react. Really, it's not a bit deal that FF isn't 100% standards compliant at this early stage. But it IS among the best browsers out there when it comes to standards compliance.

"Internet Explorer has very good support (81-86%) for the most important web standard, HTML 4.01. In most educational systems an 81-86% would equal a "B" grade and without HTML the World Wide Web would not exist as we know it."

IE does support some W3C standards but it doesn't really matter since by far the most web pages work correctly only on IE.

The W3C developed XHTML some time around 1999 - 7 years ago. Even in IE7, it is not supported. Send IE7 an XHTML document, as long as you're using the proper MIME type, IE won't even recognise it as a webpage!

The amount of CSS hacks out their to fix IE bugs is insane - I just don't bother with them. I develop my pages according to the specs and sometimes apply workarounds for the advanced stuff like DOM level 3 load & save which is only supported in Opera.

And what do you know? Even written to the specs - IE won't render them.

http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com I think there's one page there that works - the first page that just contains a single link. It's HTML 4.01, but in 2006 not many of my pages will be written in HTML 4.01.

IE is holding back the web-developers from moving forward to XHTML - not gonna happen with me. Do you think there'd be as many HTML 4.01 or as many broken XHTML (XHTML documents sent incorrectly as text/html) out there if IE supported these W3C recommendations?

Your webpage sucks. Why would a list of misconceptions and too-simple of "realities" to put things into perspective be of any use to anyone?

[toadlife]

It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.

That's not true. IE is not "the shell" and exploiting IE does not automatically give control of the entire computer. It depends on the privieldges of the user, which in Windows is unfortunately usually 'root'.

Regular old buffer overflow vulnerabilities are not any more danerous in IE than any other browser.

The big problem with IE has to do with the fact that ActiveX controls can do anything on the system. While activeX controls require administrator permissions to install, is doesn't much matter since everyone logs onto windows as administrators. As a result all of those auto-install activeX vulnerabililties have greatly increased the danger of using IE. If people normally logged onto windows as non-admin users, ActiveX based exploits would be rare, and IE's security record would be MUCH better.

[Mastertech]

Ok, Mastertech, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute here.  Let's say that the truth is, simply, that Firefox fanboys (per your definition and experience) have been banning you and supressing your page because they can't handle the truth.

This leaves me with one question: if that's the case, then why do you keep going to sites that are known to be filled with Firefox users and fanboys?  After all, to quote you,

I simply go where I read blatant mistruths about the page or to defend myself. I really don't care if I get banned. I will always attempt to defend myself. It just so happens the ones that have the blatany lies about me are posted by Fanboys. I've posted in dozens of other forums without incident on this topic. A couple of the sites that I was banned from I was unaware of the moderation's fanboy status until I looked in their post history of the one who banned me. You can always see them pimping Firefox usually with one of the Myths I debunk on the page. Thus my page is a major embarrassment to their credibility since they provide advice for less knowledgeable users. But that is only a few case. The whole issue is much more complicated then that.

There's lots of places you could go and not have to put up with what you have. But apparently, you haven't done that, and gone primarily to places that you know (perhaps only subconciously, but still) have a large population of Firefox fanboys.  That would make you a textbook internet troll.

But those places simply discuss the issue and do not lie about me or my page. I have no need to say anything there. Lets see so I start a post on another forum that WMD is gay and you come to defend yourself makes you an Internet Troll. Interesting theory. I only post to existing threads about my site if I see something untrue.

And don't tell me it's because David H. and his friends follow you around - that certainly isn't the case here, and if David H. suddenly did show up, I would be rather suspicious.

I'm surprised he has not shown up already. I am sure one of those who linked to his site would have told him by now. It is only a matter of time.

It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.

That is such nonsense. IE doesn't run Windows.

Attacking the maker of an arguement is not a valid method of arguement, no. However attacking the sources (though not the makers of those sources) used in an argument is.

Why not stick to facts you can substantiate?

The definition of "troll" is often influenced by the setting.

No the definition of "troll" is used in this case to try and discredit anything I say. This is one of many tactics used to divert attention away from the topic.

[piratePenguin]

Hehheh!!!!

I just Googled "opera is fully standards" and look what I got!

http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/2005/01/13/opera-for-free/

CEO of Opera Software, Jon von Tetzchner told media:

[toadlife]

No the definition of "troll" is used in this case to try and discredit anything I say. This is one of many tactics used to divert attention away from the topic.

You are not getting what I am saying. You knew that this site is anti-microsoft, and by that nature most likely pro firefox, yet you came here and started to argue with everyone. Unless you're a total dimwit, you knew what response you would get. By definition you are trolling. It doesn't matter if the things you are saying are correct or not, nor does it matter if the people here's gripes about your site are correct or not.

[Mastertech]

I didn't see you disprove this:
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114532&postcount=34

Ah, it is hard to keep up with all these...

What makes you think that?

Your insistence upon adding in an excuse for it.

I FUCKING KNOW

Then stop bringing up argument outside of what is stated. I really don't care. I have had all of those before and it has no bearing on the page.

Telling "dumb" (as in: uninterested in how the web works, computers etc) people INCOMPLETE TRUTHS will make "dumb" people think Firefox sucks. Tell them the COMPLETE truth ("no web-browser is fully standards compliant") to bring things into perspective - they don't know that no web-browser is fully standards compliant, so some would think FF sucks, when it does not.

There are no "incomplete truths". Each Myth is debunked as is. I don't make any claims that any web browser is fully standards compliant. Maybe you and all the Firefox promoters can do a better job of this instead of misleading people into thinking Firefox is some meca of W3C standards support. This is not my job and has nothing to do with the Myth. Why would people think Firefox sucks if you tell them it does not fully support standards? Oh thats right because that is what the fanboys say about IE. Hum looks like the truth hurts more when you spread lies.

No web-browser has complete support for all applicable W3C standards. Are you telling me that no web-browsers have standards-compliance as a strong point?

Since no browser has full standards compliance it is not possible to say. But in terms of how much standards compliance that is debateable and something only web developers care about. Honestly and you know that is true. End Users pander it but really don't care.

I've discussed acid2 with aloone_jonez here before. see also
You are absolutely fooling yourself if Acid2 results are your measure of how compliant a web-browser is. Where does ECMAscript fit in with it? SVG? XML, XSLT etc.? XHTML? DOM?

I never made this claim. Read carefully.

The CSS features tested in acid2 aren't that big on the grand scheme of things.

That is your opinion and there is no way to prove otherwise.

EDIT: oh and the passing acid2 is on the agenda for gecko 1.9 which will power Firefox 3.0. It was never on the agenda for firefox 1, 1.5 or 2. I've developed web-pages, I know the story, and I know that standards support on Firefox is very good - it's among the best in any web-browser.

I am well aware of this claim but we will have to wait until FF 3.0 to be sure. How "good" Firefox supports standards is NOT the Myth.

I know the story, and I know that standards support on Firefox is very good - it's among the best in any web-browser.

No one is disputing whether Firefox has decent support for W3C standards. The Myth is clearly about Firefox fully supporting standards. Something many people were led to believe. Especially by the emails I received. This continues the same old point. You are creating your own arguments that have nothing to do with what I stated.

Your webpage is a good resource if someone wants a list of misconceptions ever made about Firefox, that's it. And these are misconceptions made by obvious non-geeks, I wouldn't expect too much from them. If as many people used Opera it wouldn't be hard to find people saying the same crap ("Opera is 100% standards compliant").

That is the whole purpose of the page and why it is called Firefox Myths! Read Myth Origins, I already stated this.

For non-geeks who want to learn the absolute reality I'll be pointing them to David H's page. For people like that, you must bring things into perspective for them - otherwise they'll over react. Really, it's not a bit deal that FF isn't 100% standards compliant at this early stage. But it IS among the best browsers out there when it comes to standards compliance.

David's page doesn't even cover any of the real Myths out there. It is a page to pander to the Fanboys when they are confronted with the obvious truth on my page. The only reason people would overreact is if they were misled to begin with. I've noticed one of the most self-serving reasons that certain people (web developers) push Firefox is in their opinion to make their job easier. This is the most dishonest thing I can think of.

The W3C developed XHTML some time around 1999 - 7 years ago. Even in IE7, it is not supported. Send IE7 an XHTML document, as long as you're using the proper MIME type, IE won't even recognise it as a webpage!

Web developers always go off topic like this. Honestly people don't care about something they do not use. Completely irrelevant to the page.

The amount of CSS hacks out their to fix IE bugs is insane - I just don't bother with them. I develop my pages according to the specs and sometimes apply workarounds for the advanced stuff like DOM level 3 load & save which is only supported in Opera.

And what do you know? Even written to the specs - IE won't render them.

http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com I think there's one page there that works - the first page that just contains a single link. It's HTML 4.01, but in 2006 not many of my pages will be written in HTML 4.01.

IE is holding back the web-developers from moving forward to XHTML - not gonna happen with me. Do you think there'd be as many HTML 4.01 or as many broken XHTML (XHTML documents sent incorrectly as text/html) out there if IE supported these W3C recommendations?

Again off topic but end users don't care. Sorry to say this but I would code pages so all the major browsers could access the page. Otherwise you are shutting out 85% or our audience which is a bad idea.

Your webpage sucks. Why would a list of misconceptions and too-simple of "realities" to put things into perspective be of any use to anyone?

Yeah right except the hundreds of thousands of visitors who appreciate it. There is no "too-simple realities". There are facts and sources. Just no excuses.

[Mastertech]

Yes of course Opera is not fully standards compliant. That changes nothing in regards to Firefox not being fully standards compliant either. What is this sort of Defense? Oh it is ok I robbed the bank because someone else did? Interesting logic or really a diversion? How come Firefox promoters must always redirect things instead of dealing with the truth?

You are not getting what I am saying. You knew that this site is anti-microsoft, and by that nature most likely pro firefox, yet you came here and started to argue with everyone. Unless you're a total dimwit, you knew what response you would get. By definition you are trolling. It doesn't matter if the things you are saying are correct or not, nor does it matter if the people here's gripes about your site are correct or not.

I am well aware of this site. I still came here to clarify the points I initially made. If you reread what I originally posted you can see I was correcting misconceptions. If it makes you feel better I could lie and say I agree with everything everyone has posted? If only one point of mine gets clarified because of all this then it was worth it.