Slashdot Mirror
MSN's Slate Recommends Firefox over IE
brightertimes writes "That's right folks, Slate (Microsoft's on-line magazine) recently printed an article enitled "Are the Browser Wars Back?
How Mozilla's Firefox trumps Internet Explorer.""
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Cheers!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
All in all, this is not really surprising, although it is certainly not good news for Microsoft.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I've always thought Microsoft made the best keyboards and mice, but second-rate everything else. Turns out that they also deserve credit for making content sites.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
However - I think they are making a mistake in that philosophy (if it IS there philosophy), in so far as much if they try and forceably tie people down to their platform then corporates and government departments will rebel against microsoft. Some already are - there will be more. Also if FireFox/Mozilla becomes the standard browser it could lead the way to a migration away from the Windows OS.
Microsoft have made mistakes concerning the global village paradigm before - I think they are doing it again now.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
From the article: Whether or not you do, US-CERT advises increasing your Internet Explorer security settings, per Microsoft's instructions. (Alas, the higher setting disables parts of Slate's interface.)
Sorry, you seem to have misspelled "Alas, the higher setting highlights Slate's use of insecure and nonstandard features." You might want to have that keyboard checked.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
You know what the hardest part of this is? Getting those computer-illiterate people who you support to use Firefox.
I've been trying to get my dad to use it (with threats like, "when the russian mafia gets your credit card because you were using IE, don't complain to me"...) but it doesn't work. And he's not terribly illiterate. I can't imagine trying to explain to my girlfriend's grandparents, "Ok, Don't click on the blue E anymore... click on the icon that looks like an orange fox"... they would never do it.
As nice as Firefox is, it's going to be an uphill battle to get those illiterate folks to switch.
I want to iterate the above..
If you read the article (wolf in sheeps clothing) it knocks Firefox because it has fewer users and therefore hacks for IE are far more lucrative than for Firefox - True.
Does this mean there are as many potential hacks for Firefoxs - No, False, in my opinion. Why?
Because the types of hacks found in Ie are fundamental mistakes in design that would be universal to ANY browser if they were on the same par. They are not. These fundamental mistakes have not been made by the othere -especially the OSS browsers. This is because, as I have always said - OSS software is open to the world and gets more scrutiny. Major problems a re found earlier.
However, the makers of Firefox should not rest on their laurels...
Ironically, the very reason people avoid ActiveX - the fact that, once an applet is "trusted" it can do pretty much anything - is the reason Windows Update uses the technology (how else can you update your system without an applet trusted to do anything?)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's not like IE is a profit-center for Microsoft anyway;
they make all their money from Office and the O/S itself.
What's to stop them from scrapping IE6, and replacing it
with a Firefox derivative labelled "IE7" ?
(no doubt accompanied with lots of unconvincing spin
about how they're cool now with open-sizzource, 'yo)
>;k
Well it's interesting to see that an MSN run website has slammed Internet Explorer, and spent some time extolling the virtues of Firefox, which is indeed surprising at first glance. But in many ways, there is one other important factor to consider.
Even Microsoft *knows* that Internet Explorer is antiquated. They pulled developers off it years ago, and afaik have only recently started some work on it. It displays none of the features that all the modern competitive browsers have, and has FAR more security issues than possibly any other browser.
But at the end of the day, they don't care. It doesn't provide them any revenue, so they don't really give a damn about what features you want. It comes free with every OS they distribute, and it doesn't have advertising panels or anything like that, so it doesn't really matter to them what browser you decide to use with their OS, you're still using their OS.
And that's another thing to consider. Until they bother undertaking a vast overhaul of Internet Explorer (which they may not even do), they know that users will be vulnerable to all sorts of these problems that keep reoccuring. So in some ways it can be construed as a good idea for them to move you to other browsers, especially free ones like Mozilla where they do not provide another company with revenue. This will keep their users much safer, and at the end of the day, I think that's what this is about. Their users. You can use any browser you want on their OS, but again, you're still using Windows.
Consider the two scenarios. You get extremely frustrated with all the viruses and bugs that Internet Explorer throws up, and you decide that you've had enough. What are your options?
With those choices in mind, which would you expect Microsoft to prefer? ;)
I'm not as impressed as you are. Paul Boutin is still dismissive, insulting and pulling the party line. He gives the wrong reasons for using Firebird and stops short of placing blame where it belongs. It's not just the browser, it's the OS that's got problems.
Here's a flamebait quote:
You've probably been told to dump Internet Explorer for a Mozilla browser before, by the same propeller-head geek who wants you to delete Windows from your hard drive and install Linux. You've ignored him, and good for you.
Paul does not go on to tell us why anyone who did not dump Windows after Melissa should be happy. Instead he gives us the now usual FUD equating M$ and Linux security and the M$'s lame excuse for poor security:
Even Mozilla's spokespeople stress that no software can be guaranteed to be safe, and that Firefox's XPInstall system could conceivably be tricked into installing a keystroke logger instead of Sun's Java engine. But for now, there's safety in numbersâ"the lack of them, that is. Internet Explorer is used by 95 percent of the world. Firefox's fan base adds up to 2 or 3 percent at most. Which browser do you think the Russian hackers are busily trying to break into again?
Sorry Paul, this normal user is very happy to have dumped Windoze 98 in favor of Red Hat and Debian years ago. I've had perfectly usable browsers, email clients, digital music, and everything else I've ever wanted with far less hastle and trouble than my Windoze suffering peers and relatives. The browser is just the tip of the iceburg. I've enjoyed stable systems that stay up longer than my utility company's electricity, and a plethora of superior programs and features without having to drive to a store and periodically "rebuild" my computers. Learning Linux has been easy, fun and never required me to wear a propeller on my head.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft didn't care about browsers until Netscape and Java. Then they saw that the future might be a commodity OS running a browser as the interface to the apps (running on a server).
If Microsoft doesn't control the browser, it doesn't control that interface. Windows becomes very easy to replace.
And there goes Microsoft's monopoly.
Uhm, the phrase "pointy haired bosses" doesn't have any meaning whatsoever outside the context of Dilbert.
Obviously, you've never worked for a big company.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.