Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pros and Cons of Firefox Critically Evaluated?

Posted by timothy on from the but-all-I've-got-is-cancer dept.

A Dafa Disciple writes "Fred Langa of Information Week has written an article claiming to discuss the 'Pros and Cons of Firefox'. At first I was excited because I thought I was going to get to finally read an enlightening, in-depth article that critically examined the browser. I should have known better. Aside from the usual criticism of open source software, it contains a reference to a Symantec Internet Security Report which claims that more security vulnerabilities in the last six months of 2004 were found in Firefox than IE. I'll leave it to you to analyze Mr. Langa's opinion and scrutinize Symantec's study and reputation as a security software developer."

3 of 674 comments (clear)

  1. WARNING: Link above is a goatse link by eno2001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Or at least it sure looks like one. I almost lost my lunch when I followed it.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  2. Fsck Symantec by devphaeton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As more and more time goes on, and i get more and more involved with computer security, malicious software removal, et al, the less and less i'm taking Symantec seriously.

    It's one thing to be a paranoiaware company that preys on ppl's insecurities and naivety.

    It's yet ANOTHER thing to produce some of the biggest pieces of malware around.

    Thirdly, there is a small but otherwise yet undefeated collection of evidence that Symantec themselves are a contributor of some of the more "harmless" internet worms.

    All in a day's marketing, hey folks?

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  3. Re:Langa assumes IE is the Standard by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Interesting that you use the phrase "hijacking of HTML standards". In many ways, the "standards" are the ones doing the hijacking. IE and Netscape existed before such standards existed. They have (and had) backwards compatibility issues to deal with that often prevented wholesale adoption of standards.

    As for "how is this firefox's fault", that's simple. Most people (users) don't give a shit if a website is standards compliant or not. They just want it to render the way they expect it to. Mozilla hasn't done a good job of driving expectation of standards compliance by end users, and since the "standards" are the new kid on the block, and they are often times at odds with legacy behavior, they need a lot of convincing.

    IE is "the standard" because it existed before the standards did, and the standards have had little to no effect on the end user because they have not proven their worth to them.

    --
    If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here