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.""

Comments

What is so surprising about this?

[Noryungi]

Consider these point:

1. Even though Slate is financed by Microsoft, its journalists can be independent and willing to criticize their bosses boss. Good for them.
2. Microsoft security is such a joke that it is starting to percolate to the general public. Good for the alternatives.
3. An application (IE) that hasn't been updated for a long time, and which is present on 95% of all computers, is bound to contain more security problems than one with an active developer community (Firefox). Good for Mozilla and Firefox.

All in all, this is not really surprising, although it is certainly not good news for Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft and Mozilla

[Cruciform]

MSNBC has articles that put Microsoft in a bad light all the time. And they do the standard disclaimer at the end that they are owned by MS as well.

They understand that it's a bad idea to mess with the "ethics" of journalism (though that's questionable these days), and that it can all be countered with advertising anyway.

The average consumer won't go looking for that article, and they know it.

integrity

[Schlemphfer]

There are more than a dozen posts since this article was posted, but none so far have mentioned the obvious comment. For all Microsoft's sleazy business practices, this article is evidence that they are exercising great integrity when it comes to publishing Slate. That article completely (and justifiably) ripped Internet Explorder a new one. After reading that article, I view Slate far more favorably than I used to.

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.

The hardest part

[FrO]

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.

IE sucks

[essreenim]

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...

Re:IE sucks

[foidulus]

I don't think that being closed source is the sole reason why IE is insecure, there are relatively secure closed source browsers(Safari being one), I think that IE's main problem is that Microsoft never showed any interest in making it a mature browser. It is a product of the browser wars of the 90s, where MS tried to get as many features as possible into the browser, security be damned(and others participated in this mentality too during that time). The problem is, after Microsoft won the battle(in terms of install base), they pretty much lost all interest in keeping IE up to date, as there have been almost no new features introduced into IE for a long, long while. Meanwhile, other browsers fixed their problems and moved on. This is what we have today.
I think that products can be secure without being open-source. Peer review is great, but let's not forget that Microsoft has some brilliant minds working for it, the problem is that MS management decides that they want to add some type of random, pointless feature and assigns these people to do it, and do it FAST, instead of allowing them to work on increasing security, maturing the browser etc.
Probably the feature of FOSS that makes it more secure is that it removes all PHBs(Pointy haired bosses for those who aren't dilbert fans)

Same old party line.

[twitter]

For all Microsoft's sleazy business practices, this article is evidence that they are exercising great integrity when it comes to publishing Slate. That article completely (and justifiably) ripped Internet Explorder a new one.

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.