Opera (now 100% Ad free) is the fastest Graphical Web Browser in Windows.In Windows? Yawn.
Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer 6" - Example
Reality - Internet Explorer 6.x is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x in 6 out of 7 measures of performance and is significantly faster from a cold start. - Source
Notes - The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part.
Myth - "Firefox Achieved 150 million downloads (2-2006)" - Examplelol, never heard about that before. Doesn't sound like that unplausible of a mistake. Compare that to when Opera put a logo up on their front page claiming they won that PCWorld award, when in actual fact they did not. lol.
Reality - "Oops. We recently introduced a bug into the counter and it's being fixed. We're not quite there yet. Sorry for the confusion. We accidentally counted the 20 million people who updated from Firefox 1.5 to Firefox 1.5.0.1 this week." - Source - Source 2
opera lies about being named pc world best browser
Opera Software seems to have decided that it's easier to lie than to win. Here's the chain of events as best as I can tell.
PC World announced their 100 Best Products of 2005.
Firefox not only won the coveted Product of the Year award, sweeping all 99 other products in the list, but it beat out two other browsers, Maxthon at number 12 and Opera way down at number 88.
Opera puts out a press release claiming "A Winning Streak: Opera once again wins PC World's World Class Award for best Web browser". Opera.com then places this same thing on their front page (see the third checkbox with the claim that they've won best browser in '05.)
Conclusion: Opera is simply lying. They were one of 100 products to be labeled as "World Class" but they did not win any "best Web browser" anything. They were last in the ranking of three web browsers. They got beat by both Maxthon and Firefox.
update: without apology or any public comment at all, Opera has changed their homepage to remove the claim. You can see the old home page here. They have not corrected their press release.
update 2: While they still haven't fixed the press release that states they won the PC World Best Browser of 2005, or done anything make a correction available for those who reprinted that press release, one of their employees, Haavard, has commented at his blog/journal saying "it appears that Opera might not have won the best browser of 2005 award from PC World after all". It looks like he's also locked the discussion in their community forums here and here.
update 3: OK, the press release is corrected and Opera's saying it was all just an innocent mistake.
Myth - "Firefox supports Tabbed Browsing and Internet Explorer does not" - ExampleUh, FF supports basically anything you can imagine (including pop-up blocking improvements etc.) if you install/make an extension for it. And it's pretty damn secure if you update it.
Reality - Internet Explorer 6 supports Tabbed Browsing when used with the MSN Toolbar extension in Windows XP. - Source
Warning - When viewing his websites in Internet Explorer you may receive deceptive warnings saying: "Warning: There is a problem with your web browser" which links to his "IE is Dangerous" propaganda page. This is an attempt to use scare tactics to try and get people to use an alternate web browser. Please do not fall for these. He is also well aware some of his web pages break in Internet Explorer but deliberately refuses to fix them out of clear bias: "Do I dislike Internet Explorer? Yes. Do I wish Internet Explorer would just go away? Yes." - David Hammond. It should be noted these guides here will always attempt to work with all web browsers and never resort to these dishonest tactics.How ironic.
Notes - Internet Explorer has very good support (81-86%) for the most important web standard, HTML 4.01Ugh, in a modern web-browser HTML 4.01 on it's own isn't all that great. Most websites use something called CSS to style pages.
Reality - Internet Explorer 6.x has much lower minimum System Requirements than Firefox 1.x.
Internet Explorer - Source (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/evaluation/sysreqs/default.mspx)
Minimum:
486 66 MHz CPU
16 MB - 32 MB of RAM *
8.7 MB - 12.7 MB of available hard disk space *
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 4.0 with SP 6a
Windows 2000
Windows XP
* Requirements vary based on the Operating System.
Myth - "Firefox is More Secure because it does not use ActiveX" - Example (http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq.html#mozvsie)
Reality - "ActiveX gets a bad rap as the cause of all of Internet Explorer's security woes. But it's just not so....
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/Icons/Firefox.jpg)Firefox Myths (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths) - Myth (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. While Firefox is a decent Web Browser, there are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding it. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these.
By the way FYI, this person doesn't hate Firefox.
I got rid of IE with XPlite even when I used windows for internet.
Bullshit! IE with SP2 isn't secure, I couldn't even get rid of the shit it had installed on my PC without a reformat.Actually it is. The only way you can get infected with something is if you manually install it. I provide free advice on how to secure you system here: Secure XP (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/SecureXP.html). The only time you ever have to reformat a PC due to Malware infection is if it is a Rootkit. Otherwise it is always possible to remove the infection if you know what you are doing.
Which also adds the MSN bar, that takes up more space, aka bloat.Extensions take up more space AKA bloat.
too bad IE's extensions are completely useless.Are they really?
By the way FYI, this person doesn't hate Firefox.Correct! I don't, I merely hate misinformation.
others I don't such as ActiveX controls being secure and similar bullshit.Actually ActiveX is secure by default. It will always prompt you to install the control. People who complain about "Auto-Installing Spyware" are running unpatched machines or have MSJVM installed.
Bullshit! IE with SP2 isn't secure, I couldn't even get rid of the shit it had installed on my PC without a reformat.Actually it is. The only way you can get infected with something is if you manually install it. I provide free advice on how to secure you system here: Secure XP (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/SecureXP.html). The only time you ever have to reformat a PC due to Malware infection is if it is a Rootkit. Otherwise it is always possible to remove the infection if you know what you are doing.
Which also adds the MSN bar, that takes up more space, aka bloat.Extensions take up more space AKA bloat.
too bad IE's extensions are completely useless.Are they really?
By the way FYI, this person doesn't hate Firefox.Correct! I don't, I merely hate misinformation.
others I don't such as ActiveX controls being secure and similar bullshit.Actually ActiveX is secure by default. It will always prompt you to install the control. People who complain about "Auto-Installing Spyware" are running unpatched machines or have MSJVM installed.
And on the security thing, DUH if you don't use the latest FF version you'll be insecure. The page should've noted Mozilla's not-bad record of getting security fixes out to people who are free to take them (and free to not take them). FF 1.5 will automatically download the updates (you can disable that ofcourse) and tell you when they're ready to be installed (because you'd needa restart it).Technically you are still isecure since even the latest version of Firefox does not patch all the vulnerabilities.
I know of no better solution to getting updates out to the willing millions.Windows Updates? Funny how Microsoft has had one of the best update systems for years now and gets no credit.
Kinda sounds like this page is trying to flee users from FF, the standards-compliant, free web-browser.More like debunk Myths. Notice here you just state another Myth. Firefox is NOT standards compliant.
What BULLSHIT !!! What they dont realise is that your OS's minimum requirements are what really count not your browsers min req !!! Does IE on Vi$ta have lower system reqs than Firefox on DSL ??? FUCK NO !!!How does this change the fact that IE has lower system requirements than Firefox? It doesn't.
Will XP even run on those requirements ? I seriously doubt itXP will run on its minimum requirements. IE is designed for more than one OS.
BULLSHIT !!!ActiveX is the biggest Myth out there. The far majority of problems on IE is due to unpatched machines.
The site seems obviously biased against FF and for Opera and IE ... but Opera is not open-source, and you cannot distribute it without permission if I am not mistaken ... and remember back when Opera had ads embedded in the browser itself ... didn't that suck ass ? I don't forgive and forget that easily.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.
As for all the "firefox is not secure" bullshit ... FF has never been exploited ever since I've been using it, while IE has been exploited (like "gang raped") nearly every time I've used it (long ago, but it's still a valid point)Wow than you really are doing something seriosly wrong, like using a pirated version of Windows that does not allow you to apply updates ect... Because a fully updated IE does not have these problems.
CONGRADULATIONS! You have now officially made your first tripple post!...but that is frowned upon here...
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.
Many people do not care if something is open source or not, rather wether it is free.
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.php (http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php)
Very 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.People that are in the far minority.
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.The average person doesn't care nor should they.
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.The key here is that no browser is 100% compliant, including Firefox. The reality is it means very little since the most web pages are compatible with IE. Yes IE's lack of full standards compliance is well documented and spread. It has nothing to do with Firefox lacking standards though.
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.This is a really bad argument. Web Designers design for their audience. There is nothing "stupid" about that.
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.Interesting, I never said Mac. I said other OSes = Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP ect...
Say that to a developer's face.ANYTIME! Whether something is Open Source or not has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
EDIT: I see it isn't worth my time to respond to this idiot.Why am I an "idiot"? Because I can backup everything I say and disprove every pathetic argument? Same nonsense different website.
Technically you are still isecure since even the latest version of Firefox does not patch all the vulnerabilities.Interesting - so what vulnerabilities am I being exposed to now if I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4?
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.IMO, your article is VERY biased. This one (http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php) 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.
Reality - Firefox has incomplete support of many W3C standards including HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, CSS 2.1, CSS 3 and DOM.The WebDevout Firefox Myths page is much more informative:
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 (http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php) 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.Funny 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.
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.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.
If FF isn't the best web-browser when it comes to standards compliance it is VERY close.
SA20442 (http://secunia.com/advisories/20442/)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.
SA20244 (http://secunia.com/advisories/20244/)
SA12979 (http://secunia.com/advisories/12979/)
SA12580 (http://secunia.com/advisories/12580/)
SA12403 (http://secunia.com/advisories/12403/)
Funny 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 (http://www.webdevout.net/security_summary.php) 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.HAHA! That is classic. It is not my fault all the Myths about Firefox are over exaggerated positives. If people come off with a negative view about Firefox after reading my page than it is only because they believed one of the Myths. When you build your house out of cards don't complain because the wind blows it down.
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.Actually everyone doesn't hate me. Especially those that can comprehend what the page is about.
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.That is not an excuse it is a fact. The page is called FIREFOX MYTHS! It is not a "Review of Firefox" it is not to sell or promote Firefox. The arguments get so ridiculous. It always goes off topic as it has here where people feel they must defend why they like Firefox. It cracks me up every time. I get emails from people telling me why they like Firefox? Who cares that has nothing to do with the page. I don't care why you like it. I simply care that people stop spreading these Myths.
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.My word? I source all the Facts. And I just provided you with evidence. You didn't read his Internet Explorer is dangerous page? HAHA! Now tell me that is NOT biased. Please.
The average person doesn't care nor should they.
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.
David Hammond made his page AFTER I refused to add excuses to mine.OH - FF needs an excuse for not being 100% standards compliant?
That is not an excuse it is a fact. The page is called FIREFOX MYTHS!Which is very convenient.
Your own stated definition of myth is "A fiction or half-truth,
especially one that forms part of an ideology." I feel compelled to
point out that most of the "myths" listed on the site are themselves
myths according to your definition.
System Requirements:
True, stated Firefox system requirements are higher on Windows. First,
have you ever tried running IE on a 486 66 with 32 MB RAM? Sometimes
meeting the "minimum" requirements is not sufficient for a positive
experience in using the software. I don't know for sure they're not in
this case, but I'm just pointing out the possibility.
Have you tested performance of IE on a system barely meeting its minimum
requirements, and compared that with the performance of FF on a system
barely meeting its minimum requirements? Until you do, the point about
system requirements is meaningless.
Performance:
All references for this section link to a page for a single study
conducted by an individual. This far from proves anything about
performance between browsers in general, under all situations for all
users. And that's exactly the point. In his specific case according to
his metrics on his machine IE was faster than FF on Windows.
In my own experience (back when I still used Windows regularly), a clean
install of Firefox with a minimal set of extensions was slightly faster
when navigating between pages than a fresh copy of IE (read: a clean
Windows install). Does this mean that FF is always faster than IE? No,
but it does show that IE is *not* always faster than FF.
I will concede your point that a "cold" startup of a sterile copy of IE
is usually faster than FF (for me, the difference was a few seconds,
which I suspect the majority of FF users are more than willing to
tolerate). However, keep in mind that in the real world, few users have
the luxury of our lab conditions. Many Windows machines on which IE is
the primary browser are infected with malware targeted toward IE, thus
significantly degrading its performance (including startup times and
responsiveness).
Security:
Clicking on the link to Secunia shows that the most severe *unpatched*
vulnerability is "Less Critical". The "Highly Critical" and "Extremely
Critical" vulnerabilities have all been patched.
The wording of this section also begs the question whether the number of
vulnerabilities is even a meaningful measure of security. First, the
number of known vulnerabilities does not translate directly to the
number of actual vulnerabilities. Second, traditionally Mozilla has
patched discovered vulnerabilities (particularly severe ones) quickly.
Thus, the sooner one is discovered, the sooner it is fixed. If Firefox
flaws are being discovered at a faster rate, they are consequently being
fixed at a faster rate. This seems to suggest that more discovered
vulnerabilities actually leads to better security. Also note that no
comparison to the number of vulnerabilities for IE can be made, since it
is a closed-source product. Any programmer can tell you it's easier to
find bugs in a program when the source code is available.
As for the claim about "most secure web browser", I've never heard
anyone make this claim so I checked your "source", which appears to be
from a forum post by a member of spreadfirefox.com. Whether a statement
by a individual about a product counts as a "myth" about that product if
proven to be false is questionable.
On the issue of OS integration you link to a Microsoft Employee's blog.
This is, needless to say, hardly an objective source of information on
the matter. Even so, the claim I hear on this topic is usually made in
the context of the following: "a flaw found in Internet Explorer will
affect more applications than a flaw found in Firefox." Strictly
speaking, this is true, since IE is a "critical component" of Windows by
Microsoft's own legal admission and is used by a wide variety of other
applications (including Windows Explorer, MSN Explorer, Steam, and many
others; you can find a full list through searching). This means that a
vulnerability in IE is much more far-reaching than a flaw in Firefox.
With regard to ActiveX, the page you link to is again an article by one
person. And many who commented on that very article disagreed with it.
The most important point about ActiveX vs. Extensions (FF's closest
equivalent), is that in order to install a malicious ActiveX control,
the user has only to click a bunch of "yes" buttons. From my
experience, many users do this without bothering to read the text in the
dialog box, let alone understand its implications. To install a
malicious Extension, a Firefox user must first add the source site to
the list of trusted sites, then click the extension file *again*, then
wait for a few seconds before the "OK" button becomes available, then
click OK. This makes "casual click" installing much much less likely.
So in a narrow sense the argument I just made does not show that ActiveX
is insecure. But its implementation on Windows IE (which is just as
important) is insecure and leads to unintended consequences.
Spyware is much more of a Windows issue than a browser issue, as you
hinted at in your "Solution to Spyware" issue. The point here is an
astronomically low percentage of users even know enough to realize they
need to secure their system before using IE. An even lower percentage
know how to do this, and even fewer users actually go through all the
steps (the most important of which is running under a restricted user
whenever possible).
That said, let's look at your example of Firefox infecting the user with
spyware. The vulnerability you link to relies on a flaw in the Java
runtime, not any particular browser. You may argue that Mozilla's
confidence in Sun JRE is misplaced and constitutes a vulnerability, but
you cannot argue this infection is the fault of Firefox.
Features
You state the myth that "Firefox is Bug Free." What is your source for
this? It's a single post from a member of the "PetLovers.com" forums.
This cannot reasonably be construed as a "Firefox myth".
Looking at the supposed "memory leak", keep in mind IE6 (without
extensions) does not even offer tabbed browsing (yet). Thus to make a
valid comparison of memory usage, we would have to open as many IE
windows as Firefox tabs pointing to the same pages. From my experience,
the difference in memory usage between the two processes when this
exercise is carried out is insignificant and varies. This does not seem
to indicate that Firefox "leaks memory". Most individuals who make this
argument are also using the incorrect term. What they really mean to
say is that Firefox memory usage is excessive. (True memory leaks are
completely different).
With extensions, the question is not about whether or not IE supports
extensions, but the actual extensions available for both browsers. In
this sense, there are many more useful Firefox extensions available than
IE extensions. If one only carries out the exercise of examining some
of the top rated and top downloaded FF extensions, and attempts to find
IE equivalents, one will see the evidence of this.
In the "Integrated Search" section, I find no mention of the supposed
claim in the linked blog post.
I do not agree with your interpretation of the sentence "Firefox has
been widely praised for its stability, trustworthiness and innovative
features including tabbed browsing, live bookmarks, built-in pop-up
blocking, and hundreds of available extensions." amounting to a claim
that Firefox was the first browser to offer pop-up blocking. But I can
see where your interpretation comes from, so I will not argue that.
However, I posit this is a very minor point.
The link cited in "Pop-up Blocking All" makes no claim that Firefox
blocks all pop-ups. The relevant section from the referenced page is
"Some web pages open endless pop-up advertisement windows. Firefox *can*
stop these annoying windows from opening." (emphasis mine).
The RSS icon issue is again a very minor and basically irrelevant one.
Nobody familiar with the situation claims that "Microsoft stole the
icon."
Again with the "Tabbed Browsing" issue you cite a book where the author
supposedly makes the mistaken claim. This is fine, but again whether or
not Firefox was the *first* to introduce feature X is not terribly
relevant.
Standards
The W3C standards section links to a page which 404ed for me. In any
case, to my knowledge neither Mozilla nor any Firefox developers have
ever stated that Firefox is "100% standards compliant."
The next two points on the site ("W3C Standards Development" and "W3C
Standards define a Webpage") refer to philosophical debate over web
standards and have nothing to do with Firefox myths. As such, I fail to
see their relevance to the site.
The points about the Acid 2 test are complete misinformation. The first
claim you have listed is "Firefox fully supports the most important W3C
Standards". The link (a rather tongue-in-cheek method of using the
Greasemonkey extension to ostensibly make Firefox pass the test) makes
no such claim, and in fact humorously points out the truth - that
Firefox doesn't pass the test.
The next point regarding the Acid 2 test is also completely absurd.
"Firefox passes the Acid2 Test". In the reality section you quite
correctly state "No official public release of Firefox passes the Acid2
Browser Test." The linked article makes it clear the screenshot is from
a version of Firefox in the "reflow branch", which is not released to
the public. In the context of "Firefox" being "publicly released
versions of Firefox", the given myth from the given source is utterly
intractable.
Your claim of "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site"
comes from, again, a forum post from applegeeks.com. And again, nobody
from Mozilla or the Firefox community makes this claim. Quite the
contrary, many go to great pains to point out the sites that *don't*
work with Firefox. In many cases these sites only work with IE by using
ActiveX controls or relying on IE "quirks" rendering modes to display
correctly, making them innavigable in other browsers.
General:
You state "Yet this page is clearly about Myths relating to Firefox
running on Windows." In that case, it would seem prudent to title the
page "Windows Firefox Myths" or something similar.
The introduction states that "All Myths relate to running the default
install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions. Please read carefully
and look at the sources." Given that many of your "sources" are posts
on web forums taken out of context, how can you make this claim? Have
you personally contacted each of the posts' authors to garner their true
meaning and verify they were using "the default install of Firefox in
Windows with no extensions"? Perhaps they were using a few of the slew
of Firefox-enhancing extensions, creating a condition in which their
statements were true?
You also seem most concerned about open and uncensored debate. In the
spirit of this, why not have an official, unmoderated (excepting spam,
vandalism, etc.) FirefoxMyths.com comments section or forum in addition
to the "Testimonials" section? If all your rebuttals have indeed been
"merely filled with opinions, rhetoric and conjecture", why not post
them and allow your readers to see that for themselves? Show that you
are confident in your position by allowing full transparency of
responses (positive and negative).
Finally, allow me to paraphrase what seems to be the crux of your
argument: "Some person made statement X (whose context cannot be
determined) about Firefox. X is false. Therefore, X is a Firefox
myth." I suggest you change your definition of myth given at the top of
the page to one that reconciles with the actual "myths" you have listed.
I started a thread about the IE is dangerous page before.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10327
Get over there and post your thoughts.
Nor should you, but you seem to be obsessed.I am obsessed with what? Some open source/Anti-Microsoft crusade? I could care less. It is really pathetic. Don't get me wrong I respect products like FreeBSD ect... I even recommend Open Office since it is free and works well for Home Users. None of which has anything to do with the Firefox Myths page.
Why?
You sir are a fool. But since I, unlike you do not like ad honem attacks I shall debunk your misconception. You are talking about the "Security vulnerabilities" table in about the middle of the web page yes? Well your figures are completly incorrect. I suggest you read the table again. Even if your figures are correct you did not meantion how many where critical vulnerabilities. Perhaps nearly all of Operas vulnerabilities where/are of a "critical" type.Is anyone here capable of communicating without insults? Seriously. Anyway READ what I said.
OH - FF needs an excuse for not being 100% standards compliant?Apparently you think so.
I wouldn't call them excuses. I'd call them extra facts that are very useful because they bring things back into perspective.The Myth is clear. "Firefox fully supports W3C Standards". There is no Myth that Firefox supports some standards. What you want is clearly an excuse that does not change the facts. Firefox is NOT fully standards compliant.
The only people who will give a crap that "FF isn't standards compliant" are the people uninterested in computers and how the web works etc. You tell them "FF doesn't support either of XHTML, CSS, or SVG fully" they'll begin to think FF sucks bollox, when in fact it does not. Standards compliance is one of FF's strong-points. These people are getting a very false impression from your page. If you explained "no web-browser is 100% standards compliant" etc, they would get more of a positive impression because of a better understanding of the reality (the reality that FF is one of the top web-brosers when it comes to standards compliance). Which is very convenient.I don't care who is interested in it so long as people stop making this false claim. So now telling people the truth about Firefox will make people think it sucks? That is the most absurb thing I have ever heard. If standards compliance is Firefox's strong point why does it have incomplete support? Why does it not pass Acid2? People are getting the reality NOT excuses. People can run the Acid2 test themselves. They can also look at the source for standards compliance and clearly see how much support Firefox does have for standards.
What makes you think that?
Apparently you think so.
I FUCKING KNOW.
The Myth is clear. "Firefox fully supports W3C Standards". There is no Myth that Firefox supports some standards. What you want is clearly an excuse that does not change the facts. Firefox is NOT fully standards compliant.
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.
I don't care who is interested in it so long as people stop making this false claim. So now telling people the truth about Firefox will make people think it sucks? That is the most absurb thing I have ever heard.
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?
If standards compliance is Firefox's strong point why does it have incomplete support?
Why does it not pass Acid2?I've discussed (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?p=113323&highlight=acid#post113323) acid2 with aloone_jonez here before. see also (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=113368&postcount=26)
People are getting the reality NOT excuses. People can run the Acid2 test themselves. They can also look at the source for standards compliance and clearly see how much support Firefox does have for standards.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.
The following was taken from an email to the site creator. The header has been removed, otherwise this is the letter in its eternity. It may also be found here. (http://www.jeffevans.us/firefox_myths_comment.txt)Oh man I responded to all of this before Ad Nauseum. Not sure why he did not include my responses in his post. Oh I know why because it would make him look ridiculous. But before I start lets try to come up with your own material. I know this is something very hard to do.
Your own stated definition of myth is "A fiction or half-truth,All of the Myths on the page are actual Myths and clearly debunked with facts and sources. Read Myth Origins if you do not understand.
especially one that forms part of an ideology." I feel compelled to
point out that most of the "myths" listed on the site are themselves
myths according to your definition.
System Requirements:I have since I build systems for a living and it works fine. Spoken by someone with no hardware experience. It flat out works. And the point is very meaningful since it shows that IE requires less hardware to run.
True, stated Firefox system requirements are higher on Windows. First,
have you ever tried running IE on a 486 66 with 32 MB RAM? Sometimes
meeting the "minimum" requirements is not sufficient for a positive
experience in using the software. I don't know for sure they're not in
this case, but I'm just pointing out the possibility.
Have you tested performance of IE on a system barely meeting its minimum
requirements, and compared that with the performance of FF on a system
barely meeting its minimum requirements? Until you do, the point about
system requirements is meaningless.
Performance:
All references for this section link to a page for a single study
conducted by an individual. This far from proves anything about
performance between browsers in general, under all situations for all
users. And that's exactly the point. In his specific case according to
his metrics on his machine IE was faster than FF on Windows.
In my own experience (back when I still used Windows regularly), a clean install of Firefox with a minimal set of extensions was slightly faster when navigating between pages than a fresh copy of IE (read: a clean Windows install). Does this mean that FF is always faster than IE? No, but it does show that IE is *not* always faster than FF.Then please provide documented, reproduceable evidence of this. I have yet to receive any.
I will concede your point that a "cold" startup of a sterile copy of IE is usually faster than FF (for me, the difference was a few seconds,This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows why.
which I suspect the majority of FF users are more than willing to
tolerate). However, keep in mind that in the real world, few users have
the luxury of our lab conditions. Many Windows machines on which IE is
the primary browser are infected with malware targeted toward IE, thus
significantly degrading its performance (including startup times and
responsiveness).
Security:The number of vulnerabilities has everything to do with a browser touted as "Secure". It is clearly not. I have also debunked the quickly patched Myth. Open Source vs Closed Source is irrelevant to this and used as an excuse. All that can be measured is the reality of the number of actual vulnerabilities. But this is NOT about a comparison to IE yet EVERY fanboy attempts to make one all while conviently leaving out Opera.
Clicking on the link to Secunia shows that the most severe *unpatched*
vulnerability is "Less Critical". The "Highly Critical" and "Extremely
Critical" vulnerabilities have all been patched.
The wording of this section also begs the question whether the number of
vulnerabilities is even a meaningful measure of security. First, the
number of known vulnerabilities does not translate directly to the
number of actual vulnerabilities. Second, traditionally Mozilla has
patched discovered vulnerabilities (particularly severe ones) quickly.
Thus, the sooner one is discovered, the sooner it is fixed. If Firefox
flaws are being discovered at a faster rate, they are consequently being
fixed at a faster rate. This seems to suggest that more discovered
vulnerabilities actually leads to better security. Also note that no
comparison to the number of vulnerabilities for IE can be made, since it
is a closed-source product. Any programmer can tell you it's easier to
find bugs in a program when the source code is available.
As for the claim about "most secure web browser", I've never heardIt is documented to being made and I have heard each one of these many times ad nauseum. It doesn't change the facts. Opera in the most secure graphical web browser in Windows.
anyone make this claim so I checked your "source", which appears to be
from a forum post by a member of spreadfirefox.com. Whether a statement
by a individual about a product counts as a "myth" about that product if
proven to be false is questionable.
On the issue of OS integration you link to a Microsoft Employee's blog. This is, needless to say, hardly an objective source of information on the matter. Even so, the claim I hear on this topic is usually made inRight 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.
the context of the following: "a flaw found in Internet Explorer will
affect more applications than a flaw found in Firefox." Strictly
speaking, this is true, since IE is a "critical component" of Windows by
Microsoft's own legal admission and is used by a wide variety of other
applications (including Windows Explorer, MSN Explorer, Steam, and many
others; you can find a full list through searching). This means that a
vulnerability in IE is much more far-reaching than a flaw in Firefox.
With regard to ActiveX, the page you link to is again an article by one person. And many who commented on that very article disagreed with it. The most important point about ActiveX vs. Extensions (FF's closest
equivalent), is that in order to install a malicious ActiveX control,
the user has only to click a bunch of "yes" buttons. From my
experience, many users do this without bothering to read the text in the
dialog box, let alone understand its implications. To install a
malicious Extension, a Firefox user must first add the source site to
the list of trusted sites, then click the extension file *again*, then
wait for a few seconds before the "OK" button becomes available, then
click OK. This makes "casual click" installing much much less likely.
So in a narrow sense the argument I just made does not show that ActiveX
is insecure. But its implementation on Windows IE (which is just as
important) is insecure and leads to unintended consequences.
Spyware is much more of a Windows issue than a browser issue, as you hinted at in your "Solution to Spyware" issue. The point here is anSimply applying all security updates, install an AntiVirus Program, an AntiSpyware Program and turning on the XP Firewall (something SP2 does for you) is all that is really needed. Running as a restricted user has nothing to do with it.
astronomically low percentage of users even know enough to realize they
need to secure their system before using IE. An even lower percentage
know how to do this, and even fewer users actually go through all the
steps (the most important of which is running under a restricted user
whenever possible).
That said, let's look at your example of Firefox infecting the user with spyware. The vulnerability you link to relies on a flaw in the Java runtime, not any particular browser. You may argue that Mozilla'sVulnerabilities like this that infect IE are usually blamed on ActiveX and then get spun into "Auto-install infections". This doesn't change the fact that it clearly can happen. Nor the second source I have since added that is automatic on Firefox.
confidence in Sun JRE is misplaced and constitutes a vulnerability, but
you cannot argue this infection is the fault of Firefox.
FeaturesIdiot, read the page the EXAMPLES are NOT the SOURCES.
You state the myth that "Firefox is Bug Free." What is your source for
this? It's a single post from a member of the "PetLovers.com" forums.
This cannot reasonably be construed as a "Firefox myth".
Looking at the supposed "memory leak", keep in mind IE6 (withoutIE with the same amount of Windows as FF Tabs uses less memory. But the excessive memory usage of FF is well documented. The developers claim this is a "feature".
extensions) does not even offer tabbed browsing (yet). Thus to make a
valid comparison of memory usage, we would have to open as many IE
windows as Firefox tabs pointing to the same pages. From my experience,
the difference in memory usage between the two processes when this
exercise is carried out is insignificant and varies. This does not seem
to indicate that Firefox "leaks memory". Most individuals who make this
argument are also using the incorrect term. What they really mean to
say is that Firefox memory usage is excessive. (True memory leaks are
completely different).
With extensions, the question is not about whether or not IE supports extensions, but the actual extensions available for both browsers. In this sense, there are many more useful Firefox extensions available than IE extensions. If one only carries out the exercise of examining some of the top rated and top downloaded FF extensions, and attempts to find IE equivalents, one will see the evidence of this.Yeah right. Read the Myth again, it is not what you want it to be. The fact is IE has supported extensions since IE 5.
In the "Integrated Search" section, I find no mention of the supposed claim in the linked blog post.This is clearly implied he only makes concessions for Tabbed Browsing.
The link cited in "Pop-up Blocking All" makes no claim that FirefoxThat link has changed, as many of the examples do since this page went up to try and make me look bad. I get tired of finding new links and screen copying them.
blocks all pop-ups. The relevant section from the referenced page is
"Some web pages open endless pop-up advertisement windows. Firefox *can*
stop these annoying windows from opening." (emphasis mine).
The RSS icon issue is again a very minor and basically irrelevant one. Nobody familiar with the situation claims that "Microsoft stole thePeople clearly made this claim. Obviously no one familiar with any of the actual facts makes ANY of these claims.
icon."
Again with the "Tabbed Browsing" issue you cite a book where the author supposedly makes the mistaken claim. This is fine, but again whether or not Firefox was the *first* to introduce feature X is not terribly relevant.This is extremely relevant since many believe it to be true.
StandardsThat has since been fixed. I had to post the screen capture because the site was taken down.
The W3C standards section links to a page which 404ed for me. In any
case, to my knowledge neither Mozilla nor any Firefox developers have
ever stated that Firefox is "100% standards compliant."
The next two points on the site ("W3C Standards Development" and "W3C Standards define a Webpage") refer to philosophical debate over webThese have everything to do with Firefox Myths since these are used in arguments against the page.
standards and have nothing to do with Firefox myths. As such, I fail to
see their relevance to the site.
The points about the Acid 2 test are complete misinformation. The first claim you have listed is "Firefox fully supports the most important W3C Standards". The link (a rather tongue-in-cheek method of using theIt is misleading and clearly not true.
Greasemonkey extension to ostensibly make Firefox pass the test) makes
no such claim, and in fact humorously points out the truth - that
Firefox doesn't pass the test.
The next point regarding the Acid 2 test is also completely absurd.I received MANY emails from fanboys making this claim the day that was posted. It is clearly debunked.
"Firefox passes the Acid2 Test". In the reality section you quite
correctly state "No official public release of Firefox passes the Acid2
Browser Test." The linked article makes it clear the screenshot is from
a version of Firefox in the "reflow branch", which is not released to
the public. In the context of "Firefox" being "publicly released
versions of Firefox", the given myth from the given source is utterly
intractable.
Your claim of "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site" comes from, again, a forum post from applegeeks.com. And again, nobody from Mozilla or the Firefox community makes this claim. Quite theThis guy is a complete IDIOT. No where is it claimed these Myths come from Mozilla ect.. None of which changes the facts of these Myths that are clearly debunked.
contrary, many go to great pains to point out the sites that *don't*
work with Firefox. In many cases these sites only work with IE by using
ActiveX controls or relying on IE "quirks" rendering modes to display
correctly, making them innavigable in other browsers.
General:Not going to happen it is clearly titled.
You state "Yet this page is clearly about Myths relating to Firefox
running on Windows." In that case, it would seem prudent to title the
page "Windows Firefox Myths" or something similar.
The introduction states that "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions. Please read carefully and look at the sources." Given that many of your "sources" are posts on web forums taken out of context, how can you make this claim? Have you personally contacted each of the posts' authors to garner their true meaning and verify they were using "the default install of Firefox inWhat a Complete IDIOT - Sources are LABELED SOURCES NOT EXAMPLES!!!!
Windows with no extensions"? Perhaps they were using a few of the slew
of Firefox-enhancing extensions, creating a condition in which their
statements were true?
You also seem most concerned about open and uncensored debate. In the spirit of this, why not have an official, unmoderated (excepting spam,That will never happen. The fanboys spam everything they can on the Internet now as it is.
vandalism, etc.) FirefoxMyths.com comments section or forum in addition
to the "Testimonials" section? If all your rebuttals have indeed been
"merely filled with opinions, rhetoric and conjecture", why not post
them and allow your readers to see that for themselves? Show that you
are confident in your position by allowing full transparency of
responses (positive and negative).
Finally, allow me to paraphrase what seems to be the crux of yourMore like multiple people made false claim X and that is why this page exists.
argument: "Some person made statement X (whose context cannot be
determined) about Firefox. X is false. Therefore, X is a Firefox
myth." I suggest you change your definition of myth given at the top of
the page to one that reconciles with the actual "myths" you have listed.
Is anyone here capable of communicating without insults? Seriously.
Why am I an "idiot"? Because I can backup everything I say and disprove every pathetic argument? Same nonsense different website.
http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38Right.... A fanboy who can't stand that I used his data to prove Firefox is not fully standards compliant starts some posts about me on his forum must mean that is true. Didn't you read my Fanboy section? Here are the true spammers:
That's why. I see really that you are a spammer trying to rack up hits for your misinformed site by trolling about firefox, that is if Refalm or another Admin can check out your IP matches one of the ones at the topic over at Webdevout.
Right.... A fanboy who can't stand that I used his data to prove Firefox is not fully standards compliant starts some posts about me on his forum must mean that is true. Didn't you read my Fanboy section? Here are the true spammers:
Here is a list of known people or aliases who will Spam any discussion of this page:
No Spam Nanobot AKA David Hammond, Nanobe
No Spam MrFlibble AKA Basil Brush, FreewheelinFrank
No Spam TSThomas
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.
that is if Refalm or another Admin can check out your IP matches one of the ones at the topic over at Webdevout.
If people come off with a negative view about Firefox after reading my page than it is only because they believed one of the Myths.
Myth: Firefox is 100% standards compliant.
Fact: Firefox has incomplete support for many web standards including HTMl, XHTML, CSS....
Myth: Firefox is 100% standards compliant.
Fact: No web browser is 100% compliant, as the standards are extensive and take years to implement. Some are better than others in certain places...here's how good a bunch of browsers fare...
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?
It is. IE is the Windows shell. You know why that is bad right?
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.
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 (A), 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 (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxFables.html#Banned)
Speaking for myself, that's not the case. Allow me to explain (with paraphrasing to save reading time):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).
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.)
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.
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!
We all know 8 forums run by Fanboys = the millions of forums on the Internet.
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 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.
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.
I didn't see you disprove this:
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'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.
"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."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!
IE does support some W3C standards but it doesn't really matter since by far the most web pages work correctly only on IE.
It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.
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.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.
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,
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.
CEO of Opera Software, Jon von Tetzchner told media:
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.
I didn't see you disprove this:Ah, it is hard to keep up with all these...
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114532&postcount=34
What makes you think that?Your insistence upon adding in an excuse for it.
I FUCKING KNOWThen 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 (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?p=113323&highlight=acid#post113323) acid2 with aloone_jonez here before. see also (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=113368&postcount=26)I never made this claim. Read carefully.
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?
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.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.
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?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.
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.
Firefox has very good W3C standards support.
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.WTF? IE has shit standards compliance. How come it doesn't support XHTML, which was to revolutionize the web - and seven years later IE doesn't support it. IE has shit support for W3C standards.
Bullshit. It is not exactly EASY to just support even 100% of HTML 4.01. But if one browser supports 90% of it and another browser supports 10% of it - couldn't it be possible that standards compliance would be a strong point of the former?
Since no browser has full standards compliance it is not possible to say.
I never claimed you made that claim. Read carefully.
I never made this claim. Read carefully.
Do you think they are pretty big then?
That is your opinion and there is no way to prove otherwise.
But it is a TRUTH that FF has very good support for W3C standards.
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.
Really?:
No one is disputing whether Firefox has decent support for W3C standards.
If standards compliance is Firefox's strong point why does it have incomplete support? Why does it not pass Acid2?It has incomplete support because gecko isn't complete - it'd being developed all the time, getting better all the time.
...example?
David's page doesn't even cover any of the real Myths out there.
The only reason people would overreact is if they were misled to begin with.6 billion people aren't all genius at everything.
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.Web-developers develop the web. The W3C develop standards to make their life easier. The web-developer in this day and age is not supposed to be implementing hacks for each web-browser - and they don't that much, except for IE.
SO WHAT, I'm replying to your stupid fucking comments here (about standards compliance and such), not everything I say has to be related to the page.
Web developers always go off topic like this. Honestly people don't care about something they do not use. Completely irrelevant to the page.
OH shit - I never noticed.
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.
LOL!
Yeah right except the hundreds of thousands of visitors who appreciate it.
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?No it's not. My point is that there's Opera users (the Opera CEO!) going around saying Opera is fully standards compliance.
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?:rolleyes:
That is such nonsense. IE doesn't run Windows.
Why not stick to facts you can substantiate?
Firefox has very good W3C standards support.In your opinion and I am sure many others. But this is irrelevant to the Myth. There are no Myths that Firefox does not have good/decent W3C standards support. This has nothing to do with the Myth. Anyone can check the source to see a general idea of it's standards support and even get a relative comparison to IE and Opera.
WTF? IE has shit standards compliance. How come it doesn't support XHTML, which was to revolutionize the web - and seven years later IE doesn't support it. IE has shit support for W3C standards.Does it? Apparently IE supports the most commonly used standards fairly well and the key ones that it does not IE7 fixes, mainly CSS issues and the hacks you talk about. Standards and CSS in IE (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx)
Bullshit. It is not exactly EASY to just support even 100% of HTML 4.01. But if one browser supports 90% of it and another browser supports 10% of it - couldn't it be possible that standards compliance would be a strong point of the former?Possibly if you were selling the Browser to Web Developers. Don't get me wrong I am well aware of Web Developers concerns. I however take the perspective of the average end user. They simply do not care and for good reason. What end users care about is web page compatibility, they really do not want to hear excuses why something breaks.
I never claimed you made that claim. Read carefully.No you just said I must be fooling myself ect... so I do not know who you were talking to.
Do you think they are pretty big then?I believe it is quite legitimate. Simply read the the about page:
But it is a TRUTH that FF has very good support for W3C standards.Again this is your opinion, I am not disputing it. I really don't care because in the terms of the page I am simply addressing the Myths outlined.
It has incomplete support because gecko isn't complete - it'd being developed all the time, getting better all the time.
...example?ActiveX, OS Integration ect... It also provides no source or reproduceable documented proof for flat out misleading statements like:
6 billion people aren't all genius at everything.Which is why I made the page.
Web-developers develop the web. The W3C develop standards to make their life easier. The web-developer in this day and age is not supposed to be implementing hacks for each web-browser - and they don't that much, except for IE.I don't focus on emotional reasons here. I stick to the facts. I completely understand why you care, I simply do not.
There are MANY reasons people don't want IE dominating the web. MS are fucking the web up, that's one. MS are already too powerful, that's another. IE only works on Windows natively, that's another. IE is non-free software, that's another.... IE is SHIT, that's another....
SO WHAT, I'm replying to your stupid fucking comments here (about standards compliance and such), not everything I say has to be related to the page.
No it's not. My point is that there's Opera users (the Opera CEO!) going around saying Opera is fully standards compliance.I really don't care. Opera is obviously not fully standards compliant. I make no claim on the page otherwise.
It's not only FF users who are misled using your logic :p (as opposed to just not being careful enuff, or just not being knowledgable enuff, or any other possible explanation...)Misled, that is exactly the opposite of what my page is about. With the information I provide they can now make a non-biased, non-fanboy influenced decision.
That is pretty much your concerns. Funny how if Firefox passed this test I believe you would have a very different view on this. See these are the things that concern me about people who pander Firefox. Firefox can do no wrong until something else does it better than whatever it is the other browser does better is not important. That to me is very suspect.Ah sure Firefox advocates are the spawn of the devil.
Correct! I don't, I merely hate misinformation.
Actually ActiveX is secure by default. It will always prompt you to install the control. People who complain about "Auto-Installing Spyware" are running unpatched machines or have MSJVM installed.
"Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer"
Market Share 2005
"Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser"
OS Integration Security
Acid 2 Browser Test
"Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site"
I provide free advice on how to secure you system here: Secure XP. The only time you ever have to reformat a PC due to Malware infection is if it is a Rootkit.
WooHoo! I am the biggest M$ Shill "The Boogieman" has ever met!
(People who leave negative reputation anonymously are pansies)
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!
Wait a second, that's not true. Internet Explorer has broken support for XHTML, but it does support it. And MIME type, I don't know what you're talking about - IE's incorrect support for XHTML is based on the DTD.The MIME type describes the type of the document. Generally, for every request for a document off a web-server, the web-server sends back a Content-type header which contains the MIME type. If the MIME type is text/html, the web-browser knows to render the document as HTML. If the MIME type is image/svg+xml, the web-browser knows to render the document as SVG. If it's something like application/ogg (an OGG file) the web-browser won't be able to handle it so it'll ask the user what to do - to open it with an application or to save it to disk.
Here's a webpage of mine - XHTML Strict, CSS:
http://www.triple-bypass.net/brickpics/family-wagon/montana.htm
I just looked at it in IE for the very first time. It renders the png wrong (another major complaint against IE), but otherwise, it performs correctly.
So I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain.
Unbinned by request.
This'll probably go back in soon, but I think it still has some life left.
So do I which is why I hate your artical, note I don't think much of Internet Explorer or Firefox, but I prefer the latter.That doesn't make sense. If you hate misinformation you would love Firefox Myths since is corrects vast amounts of it.
And what's a nube to do?Irrelevant. The point is clearly how ActiveX works. Phishing style attacks do not change the security aspects of ActiveX. People all over spread BS that with ActiveX running you just simply get spyware autoinstalling ect... Simply untrue. Autoinstalling spyware is due to exploits that you failed to patch. It has nothing to do with the security design of ActiveX. IE vulnerabilities are largely exploited using code written in ActiveX this in no way makes ActiveX the cause of the problem. It is just like blaming C++ because a virus author uses it to write his virus.
Probably just click on yes because they don't know what they're doing, oh and good old CERT knows about the problems with ActiveX too (read on).
Either way, no one here believes any of the Firefox myths, we all know that FireFox isn't 100% secure (no browser is) but you cannot deny the fact that Microsoft Internet Explorer is the worst as far as security is concerned. Opera is probably one of the most secure browsers around, infact my bet would be on a text-only browser like Lynx.Neither Firefox nor IE are secure as of this writing. Opera currently is with no unpatched vulnerabilities. Currently Firefox has slightly less total vulnerabilities than IE but this is changing rapidly has more and more Firefox vulnerabilities are discovered. All of which is irrelevant to the Firefox Myths page. Why are you bringing up irrelevant things? The Myth being debunked is that Firefox is Secure. It isn't. Making excuses for this does not change this fact.
You talk about standards, well as far as I'm concerned IE is one big problem because it's using a form of vendor lock in to retain its dominance rather than being superiour from a technilogical aspect.I really don't care this has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
That doesn't mean anything, any software vendor can give overly optimistic minimum system requirements, the very fact that you've mentioned this means you're trying to misinform people. Rather than look at this you should focus more on things like memory usage, here's an example of how minimim requirements are confusing XP lists a minimum requirement of 64MB of RAM while Ubuntu, lists 256MB, however the default configureations for both OSs result in similar memory usage, both use between 80MB and 110MB when booted up with no other porgrams running.Microsoft is VERY clear about it's minimum requirements. IE will run on them as I have tested it to work fine. Have you? Everyone making these claims never tested anything. I've been building PCs since the 80s. Windows XP's requirements are stated clearly that 64 MB will limit features and performance and thus mentions 128MB as the recommended minimum, which is what I also clearly recommend. Your lack of understanding and obvious complete lack of testing is the real misinformation here. Minimum requirements are just that, the minimum of which the software application will run. Misinformation is NOT telling them this. Mozilla clearly set the minimum requirements were they were most likely due to Firefox being unusable below those. I can confirm 100% that IE will run on the minimum requirements listed. If you have a problem with Firefox's then bring it up with them I simply report the facts.
Well you can play with the numbers all you want but does anyone really care?If counting the number of vulnerabilities is "playing with the numbers" then please tell me how. This is the reality. If you cannot grasp the fact that an advisory is released with a variable amount of vulnerabilities I cannot help you.
For example I could argue that UNIX has more vunerabilities than Windows because more are listed on Secunia, but there again I would be forgetting the fact that UNIX is a very big familly of operating systems.No and irrelevant.
See my point?
The anti-Firefox crowd will push the figures one way and the pro-Firefox crowd will push them the other way.There are no numbers to "push". There are the total number of vulnerabilities and that is it.
Again, it depends on how you measure speed, the fact that you only mention start up time is an indication thet you're trying to decieve people, also you've made no mention of the fact that IE is only faster because it's already loaded when you boo Windows and that you can pre-fetch Firefox so it pops up just as quickly.Here let me help you:
This is plain wrong, just read the CERT article and you'll see.So now you are calling the IE devs liars? Read the IE Dev post 50 more times until you understand it. It is quite clear.
I know, Opera is the only browser that passes it, but just you try it in IE then Firefox, sure Firefox doesn't pass but it's a damn sight nearer to passing than IE is.Who frickin cares!! There is no Myth that IE passes it or passes it well. STOP making excuses.
Neither is Internet Explorer, but there again just because more developers support IE it doesn't make it any better.IE is by FAR compatible with more sites. This is indisputable.
And I've read it and it's bullshit, the very fact that you've been infected by a Rootkit before means you're not doing things right.It is not that simple anymore. Software is getting more complex and people are not going to sacrifice ease of use for security.
Anyway, I've read on your site you like OpenOffice.org, what's your view on MS Office, and what about MS Works? Do you agree with me tha MS Works is a complete was of space?MS Office is hands down the better product. However it is very expensive and generally unnecessary for the home user. Businesses who rely on Excel or Access will and should continue to use MS Office. MS Works never impressed me and I find Open Office a better solution. Open Office is recommended because I found it to be the best free (as in money) Office Solution.
IE vulnerabilities are largely exploited using code written in ActiveX this in no way makes ActiveX the cause of the problem. It is just like blaming C++ because a virus author uses it to write his virus.
There are no numbers to "push". There are the total number of vulnerabilities and that is it.
Opera currently is with no unpatched vulnerabilities.Excuse me (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114655&postcount=14)?
No it's nowhere near blaming C++ for viruses made with it. C++ is a low level programming language, ActiveX is a component of a browser. The two do not compare.The concept is the same. Malware written using ActiveX scripting to exploit an unpatched IE vulnerability cannot be blamed on ActiveX. It is not an ActiveX vulnerability that is being exploited.
The total number of vulnerabilities means jack shit on its own. How many of these vulnerabilities are for *NIX systems? How many are for Windows? What do they do? How critical are they? Are they patched?Which is why the critical vulnerabilities are listed as well. And they are not all patched making even the latest version insecure.
Microsoft is VERY clear about it's minimum requirements. IE will run on them as I have tested it to work fine. Have you? Everyone making these claims never tested anything. I've been building PCs since the 80s. Windows XP's requirements are stated clearly that 64 MB will limit features and performance and thus mentions 128MB as the recommended minimum, which is what I also clearly recommend. Your lack of understanding and obvious complete lack of testing is the real misinformation here.
I see none Opera 9 (Secunia) (http://secunia.com/product/10615/)Oh so you can't think for yourself no?
Mozilla Firefox 1.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Less critical
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Moderately critical
If IE is as safe as Firefox, why can I do this in IE?
That doesn't make sense. If you hate misinformation you would love Firefox Myths since is corrects vast amounts of it.
Irrelevant. The point is clearly how ActiveX works. Phishing style attacks do not change the security aspects of ActiveX. People all over spread BS that with ActiveX running you just simply get spyware autoinstalling ect... Simply untrue. Autoinstalling spyware is due to exploits that you failed to patch. It has nothing to do with the security design of ActiveX. IE vulnerabilities are largely exploited using code written in ActiveX this in no way makes ActiveX the cause of the problem. It is just like blaming C++ because a virus author uses it to write his virus.
Quote from: US CERTService Pack 2 for Windows XP disables Active scripting and ActiveX controls for IE and several other programs using Local Machine Zone Lockdown.
But that doesn't stop it becoming re-enabled.QuoteNeither Firefox nor IE are secure as of this writing. Opera currently is with no unpatched vulnerabilities.
Correct.QuoteCurrently Firefox has slightly less total vulnerabilities than IE
Well that's an understatement.Quotebut this is changing rapidly has more and more Firefox vulnerabilities are discovered.
As they are they're being fixed, and so are the IE vunerabilities.
Not only that but Firefox's vulnerabilities being discovered at a similar rate as IE's.
http://www.webdevout.net/security_summary.php#graphs_totalQuoteAll of which is irrelevant to the Firefox Myths page. Why are you bringing up irrelevant things? The Myth being debunked is that Firefox is Secure.
Of course it's rellevant, you're debunking myths about Firefox right?
Firefox is a web browser so why is it not rellevant to compare it to another web browser like Opera? You've already compared it to Internet Explorer.
You need to make sure your readers understand that security is relative, and it's a fact that Internet Explorer is insecure relative to Firefox which is insecure relative to Opera.QuoteIt isn't. Making excuses for this does not change this fact.
I'm not making any excuses - I'm merely filling in the gaps.QuoteI really don't care this has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
Yes does.QuoteMicrosoft is VERY clear about it's minimum requirements. IE will run on them as I have tested it to work fine. Have you? Everyone making these claims never tested anything. I've been building PCs since the 80s. Windows XP's requirements are stated clearly that 64 MB will limit features and performance and thus mentions 128MB as the recommended minimum, which is what I also clearly recommend. Your lack of understanding and obvious complete lack of testing is the real misinformation here. Minimum requirements are just that, the minimum of which the software application will run. Misinformation is NOT telling them this. Mozilla clearly set the minimum requirements were they were most likely due to Firefox being unusable below those. I can confirm 100% that IE will run on the minimum requirements listed. If you have a problem with Firefox's then bring it up with them I simply report the facts.
Have you ever tested Firefox on hardware lower than the minimum requirements? If so you'll find that it actually works, these are recommended minimum requirements not absolute minimum requirements like MS states for it's products.
What you've stated is true, Microsoft's minimum requirements are just that minimum requirements but some other software vendors bais their minimum requirements to is required to give reasonable performance.QuoteIf counting the number of vulnerabilities is "playing with the numbers" then please tell me how. This is the reality. If you cannot grasp the fact that an advisory is released with a variable amount of vulnerabilities I cannot help you.
And you can't understand the fact that Firefox is more secure than Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Wait a second, even US CERT recommends you should use a diffenent browser!Quote from: US CERTUse a different web browser
There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies related to the IE domain/zone security model, trust in and access to the local file system (Local Machine Zone), the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented as operating system components that are used by IE and many other programs to provide web browser functionality. These components are integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.
It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML documents (e.g., web sites, HTML email messages). Such a decision may, however, reduce the functionality of sites that require IE-specific features such as proprietary DHTML, VBScript, and ActiveX. Note that using a different web browser will not remove IE from a Windows system, and other programs may invoke IE, the WebBrowser ActiveX control (WebOC), or the HTML rendering engine (MSHTML).QuoteNo and irrelevant.
Of course it is and it's exactly why your page totally blows. You can't discuss page rendering and compatability without mentioning standards support which very important.Quote"Internet Explorer 6.x is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x in 6 out of 7 measures of performance and is significantly faster from a cold start."
[list=1]
- Apart from the start-up speed the other differences are neglidgable.
- These tests don't feature web pages containing a variety of content i.e. each test just looks a one type of content.
- Not in my experiance, for example Firefox renders hotmail faster than IE, Firefox renders this forum faster than IE.
- It doesn't even mention download speed.
QuoteThe argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part.[/SIZE][/b]
Wow, I agree.
Hang on, IE must really be shit then, if it's already loaded when Windows starts, yet Opera actually starts faster!
Well you've proved to me that IE is actually worse than I thought it was before I read your post!QuoteWho frickin cares!! There is no Myth that IE passes it or passes it well.
So what?
You quite rightly raise the point that Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test, well done! But wouldn't it be more fair to compare it to IE as well as Opera?
Wouldn't that be providing the reader with more relevant information so they can make a more informed choice?
It's one of those relative things again, something you don't seem to understand.QuoteSTOP making excuses.
I'm not making any excuses.QuoteIE is by FAR compatible with more sites. This is indisputable.
But you're neglecting the all important standards debate again - something very important if you want your reader to become more educated.QuoteIt is not that simple anymore. Software is getting more complex and people are not going to sacrifice ease of use for security.
Bullshit, Mac OS is both easy to use and secure, ease of use and security can go hand in hand but obviously Microsoft has lead you to believe otherwise, I pitty you.QuoteMS Office is hands down the better product. However it is very expensive and generally unnecessary for the home user.
I generally agree.QuoteBusinesses who rely on Excel or Access will and should continue to use MS Office.
On the contrary, bussinesses should continiously evaluate different products and use the one that suits them best - they might be able to make considerable savings.QuoteMS Works never impressed me and I find Open Office a better solution. Open Office is recommended because I found it to be the best free (as in money) Office Solution.
I agree, and if you have money to spare there's always other alternatives like Star Office and Corel Office.
Even at the 128 level, a whole lot of stuff is ran from the page file, slowing everything down. Maby there's a reason everyone else recommends 256?Is it? Has anyone here actually ever tried this instead of just guessing? People make all sorts of recommendations usually much higher claiming Windows will not be useable with less, pure BS. Yes more RAM is better but it has nothing to do with what Windows XP will run on. And don't confuse the requirements of XP with third party applications.
Oh so you can't think for yourself no?Irrelevant, I have yet to see them confirm it is a security exploit.
EDIT: I sent them a feedback thing to see my post.
What a surprise!Nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
I've ran firfox on a 200Mhz Pentium running windows XP with 64MB of ram. It ran pretty damn well considering the outrageous specs of the machine.Sure... Please provide documented reproduceable proof of your claims. I see this all the time people making unfounded claims.
EDIT: Ive run firefox on a 133Mhz Pentium running Win98 with 32MB of ram, even then it still ran better then IE on the 233Mhz Pentium running XP
If IE is as safe as Firefox, why can I do this in IE?
(code actually loads onto the page, here's the link: http://www.openopen.org/old/ie/open-cd-ie.html)
Does my post describe a security vulnerability with Opera or not? Try thinking independently for once please.
Irrelevant, I have yet to see them confirm it is a security exploit.
So what?
Nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
Does my post describe a security vulnerability with Opera or not? Try thinking independently for once please.
Your artical doesn't provide all the facts and thus doesn't allow the reader to make an informed decision about their choice of browser.IT IT NOT SUPPOSED TO! Wake up. This is not a comparison guide. It is not a review of Firefox. It is only a Firefox Myths page. The information is provided so people do not fall for the Myths when making that decision. Every single Fanboy/Anti-Microsoft user is incapable of understanding this.
The I suggest you read the US CERT article again.I've read it. In recommendations like this that is because ActiveX can be used to exploit the vulnerability NOT because the vulnerability is due to ActiveX.
But that doesn't stop it becoming re-enabled.You can say that for any setting. But SP2 provides a better solution.
Of course it's rellevant, you're debunking myths about Firefox right?No it is NOT. IE's security and Opera's in the context of the Myth "Firefox is Secure" are both irrelevant.
Firefox is a web browser so why is it not rellevant to compare it to another web browser like Opera? You've already compared it to Internet Explorer.This is NOT a comparison guide. Just because certain Myths use comparisons does not change this fact. The page only debunks Myths. I have not compared it to IE in the sense of a comparison guide. I have stated Myths that just so happen to be comparisons. That is the nature of Firefox Myths. Some of the Myths people spread are incorrect comparisons with misinformation.
You need to make sure your readers understand that security is relative, and it's a fact that Internet Explorer is insecure relative to Firefox which is insecure relative to Opera.This isn't a Browser security page. It isn't a comparison page. Regardless both IE and Firefox are insecure. Nothing is relative about it. This page is a Firefox Myths page for the 5000 time.
I'm not making any excuses - I'm merely filling in the gaps.No you are making clear excuses. You have to as do all the Firefox Fanboys and Anti-Microsoft users. I don't make excuses.
Yes does.Are you kidding me? Your emotional reasoning for IE and standards has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox Myths. It is your attempt to pile on the excuses. TOO BAD. I will NEVER add excuses period.
Have you ever tested Firefox on hardware lower than the minimum requirements? If so you'll find that it actually works, these are recommended minimum requirements not absolute minimum requirements like MS states for it's products.I have tested everything I claim. FF's performance severly declines below those requirements. Mozilla clearly states they are the minimum and also includes recommended requirements. Microsoft includes no mention of the word absolute,
What you've stated is true, Microsoft's minimum requirements are just that minimum requirements but some other software vendors bais their minimum requirements to is required to give reasonable performance.Microsoft does as well.
And you can't understand the fact that Firefox is more secure than Microsoft Internet Explorer.According to the current vulnerability count it is slightly more secure but still clearly insecure. Again this is irrelevant to the Firefox Myths page.
Wait a second, even US CERT recommends you should use a diffenent browser!This is a common recommendation by security companies during the time any critical vulnerability for any browser is unpatched.
Of course it is and it's exactly why your page totally blows. You can't discuss page rendering and compatability without mentioning standards support which very important.That was in response to the Unix vulnerability Distro statement. Anyway to reply to this new statement. Page Compatibility has little to do with W3C standards support since so many pages do not conform to W3C standards. This is one of the biggest things clueless people do not get. IE is the standard of which many pages are coded.
[list=1]
- Apart from the start-up speed the other differences are neglidgable.
- These tests don't feature web pages containing a variety of content i.e. each test just looks a one type of content.
- Not in my experiance, for example Firefox renders hotmail faster than IE, Firefox renders this forum faster than IE.
- It doesn't even mention download speed.
Well you've proved to me that IE is actually worse than I thought it was before I read your post!No it just proves Opera is well coded and the nonsense about components of IE loading at Windows startup is irrelevant.
So what?What part of FIREFOX MYTHS IS NOT A COMPARISON GUIDE do you not comprehend? There is no Myth IE passes this test and if there was it would not be on the Firefox Myths page. You want to add in excuses that are irrelevant.
You quite rightly raise the point that Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test, well done! But wouldn't it be more fair to compare it to IE as well as Opera?
Wouldn't that be providing the reader with more relevant information so they can make a more informed choice?
It's one of those relative things again, something you don't seem to understand.
I'm not making any excuses.Yes you are. You keep making comparisons to IE with the attempt to excuse Firefox any time a Firefox Myth is debunked.
But you're neglecting the all important standards debate again - something very important if you want your reader to become more educated.This is not s page that debates the relevancy of standards. It debunks Firefox Myths. The reaon you think this has anything to do with the page is because you don't understand how to state something without including excuses.
Bullshit, Mac OS is both easy to use and secure, ease of use and security can go hand in hand but obviously Microsoft has lead you to believe otherwise, I pitty you.I really don't care, honestly I don't have any security problems with Windows or IE. This debate has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
On the contrary, bussinesses should continiously evaluate different products and use the one that suits them best - they might be able to make considerable savings.Again off topic. Businesses that actually stay in business will always use the most reliable and compatible solution to what they are using. Which in this case is Microsoft Office. Compatibility issues cost them money.
I agree, and if you have money to spare there's always other alternatives like Star Office and Corel Office.Considering Star Office is based on Open Office and I the main reasons to use Microsoft are compatibility and ease of use I do not believe Corel has much of a chance.
All I can say is that your posts are truly infused with logic oh great Mastertech ... I can see the light now ...He's a lean, mean, logic machine!
I was gotta quote some of your logic, but I realized that I'd have to quote everything, cuz it's pure logic ... the purest I've seen in a while.
Sure... Please provide documented reproduceable proof of your claims. I see this all the time people making unfounded claims.
Oh it will probably run but so will IE and there is no proof of the ridiculous claims that on that Hardware the memory leaking (I mean memory caching) Firefox will run better than IE.
I have tested everything I claim. FF's performance severly declines below those requirements. Mozilla clearly states they are the minimum and also includes recommended requirements. Microsoft includes no mention of the word absolute,
Sure... Please provide documented reproduceable proof of your claims. I see this all the time people making unfounded claims.
You ask everyone else to prove their claims but provide no proof of yours.
IT IT NOT SUPPOSED TO! Wake up. This is not a comparison guide.
Acid 2 Browser Test
Myth - "Firefox fully supports the most important W3C Standards"
It is not a review of Firefox. It is only a Firefox Myths page. The information is provided so people do not fall for the Myths when making that decision.
Every single Fanboy/Anti-Microsoft user is incapable of understanding this.
I've read it. In recommendations like this that is because ActiveX can be used to exploit the vulnerability NOT because the vulnerability is due to ActiveX.
No it is NOT. IE's security and Opera's in the context of the Myth "Firefox is Secure" are both irrelevant.
This is NOT a comparison guide.
Just because certain Myths use comparisons does not change this fact.
The page only debunks Myths.
I have not compared it to IE in the sense of a comparison guide.
I have stated Myths that just so happen to be comparisons. That is the nature of Firefox Myths. Some of the Myths people spread are incorrect comparisons with misinformation.
According to the current vulnerability count it is slightly more secure but still clearly insecure. Again this is irrelevant to the Firefox Myths page.
This is a common recommendation by security companies during the time any critical vulnerability for any browser is unpatched.
I have tested everything I claim. FF's performance severly declines below those requirements. Mozilla clearly states they are the minimum and also includes recommended requirements. Microsoft includes no mention of the word absolute,
Microsoft does as well.
Windows XP:
32 MB of RAM minimum
Full install size: 12 MB
Page Compatibility has little to do with W3C standards support since so many pages do not conform to W3C standards. This is one of the biggest things clueless people do not get. IE is the standard of which many pages are coded.
* Download speed of what? A file? That has nothing to do with the browser. It has to do with your bandwidth limit of your internet connection.
No it just proves Opera is well coded and the nonsense about components of IE loading at Windows startup is irrelevant.
What part of FIREFOX MYTHS IS NOT A COMPARISON GUIDE do you not comprehend?
| (http://images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif) | Firefox myths (http://showthread.php?p=114702#post114702) | June 23rd, 2006 09:04 PM | Mastertech (http://member.php?u=4528) | Misinformation |
Yes, I know your banned, but how exactly is my post about the Pentium with with win98 misinformation?
* Download speed of what? A file? That has nothing to do with the browser. It has to do with your bandwidth limit of your internet connection.There's actually some interesting things in this area. FF checks for ipv6 DNS first so it's slower to resolve domain names. However, it supports HTTP pipelining, which I've noticed does make a good difference when loading pages with lots of external objects (e.g. images) - all the objects are requested at once and come up faster. HTTP pipelining is disabled by default though, because it doesn't work with some (non-standard?) web-servers, but I've never had a problem with it.
* Download speed of what? A file? That has nothing to do with the browser. It has to do with your bandwidth limit of your internet connection.There's actually some interesting things in this area. FF checks for ipv6 DNS first so it's slower to resolve domain names. However, it supports HTTP pipelining, which I've noticed does make a good difference when loading pages with lots of external objects (e.g. images) - all the objects are requested at once and come up faster. HTTP pipelining is disabled by default though, because it doesn't work with some (non-standard?) web-servers, but I've never had a problem with it.
(http://images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif) Firefox myths (http://showthread.php?p=114702#post114702) June 23rd, 2006 09:04 PM Mastertech (http://member.php?u=4528) Misinformation
Yes, I know your banned, but how exactly is my post about the Pentium with with win98 misinformation?
He was abusing the reputation system by basically giving out negatives to anyone who posts....except they come up as "balance" instead of negative - I like that rep system!
Actually my full name is Clint Eastwood and I live in Los Angeles. Unlike you whos full name is Pee Wee Herman who's blog can be found here: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/This man should be a comedian!