Which Browser Do You Use?

[Lost Soul]

i like firefox for browsing, if i need a window update ill use ie

[atomizer]

i like firefox for browsing, if i need a window update ill use ie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

probably no need to rely on windows updates as hevily if you use mozilla/firefox/thunderbird. matter of fact, no need to use IE to access windoes update:

try this instead.

oh, and it's really funny to see that, so far, mozilla/FF is doing better than IE... on a MICROSOFT forum love it!

Edited June 26, 2005 by atomizer

[maxamoto]

Firefox is an excellent browser but i found that it uses waaaaaaay to much ram and of course is picked upon becoz of its open source and popularity.

yes, the poor memory managment issue with FF is very popular, however there are very simple tweaks available to make it behave. and those who pick on open source code need a life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Picking on OSS is one thing, pointing out glaring OSS deficiencies is another. Would you consider me picking on firefox if I pointed out this? Or this? How about this? Then there's the claims that firefox is immune to spyware. Well, this should put an end to those rumors. Finally, you can read about more firefox security issues here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Aw heck, just take a look at the very long list of issues with Firefox yourself. Head over to www.securityfocus.com and choose Mozilla from the dropdown menu. See for yourself. Oh, sorry. That was just the list of security issues. If you want regular old bugs, check here. That's page 1 of 229. I don't need a life. You need a dose of reality. What it comes down to is that both IE and FF are highly insecure and unstable. With that said, the only other thing I can think of that would set the two apart is the branding. So, it's a Coke / Pepsi argument. And the first person to pipe up with "Opera is so much blah blah blah" can click here and educate yourself a bit before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks for playing!

[DigeratiPrime]

I didnt bother to visit the laundry list of claims, except your claim that you can get spyware using while using Firefox.

Then there's the claims that firefox is immune to spyware. Well, this should put an end to those rumors.

at that link it say the problem was introduced 07/05/2005 and was fixed 08/05/2005.

Btw seven of your links are broken. And alot of these 'exploits' arent as serious as the ones present in Internet Explorer. Please try again If your going to use IE, why not at least use Maxthon?

Edited June 26, 2005 by DigeratiPrime

[Zxian]

And the first person to pipe up with "Opera is so much blah blah blah" can click here and educate yourself a bit before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks for playing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm... look at the link you provided... The latest date there is 2005-02-13 (more than 4 months ago), and it doesn't affect Opera 8... The next one is dated 2004-11-24, and also doesn't affect Opera 8.

The only security issue that I've ever heard of with Opera was a URL spoofing issue that actually affected all browsers, and that problem was fixed in Opera 8.01.

So I've "educated" myself a little bit, and haven't put my foot in my mouth...

As for the "Firefox & spyware" discussion... if Firefox is "immune" to spyware, then how come SpywareBlaster 3.4 still has updates and entries for Mozilla based browsers?

[atomizer]

You need a dose of reality. What it comes down to is that both IE and FF are highly insecure and unstable.

so what's your point? BTW, many of the problems you pointed out have already been fixed, making your list of problems 1/2 worthless.

EDIT: make that 90% worthless. the 229 pages you refer to are bugs -- many of them OLD and most not for FF, but for mozilla (there's 9 pg's for FF). as for security vulnerabilities, there are 5 pg's. for FF (as opposed to 32 for IE) and all/most of them appear to be outdated. you need a dose of learning your calander.

i never claimed that FF was bomb-proof. and my comment as to those who pick on open source s/w was meant as just that -- open source in general, not any one piece in particular.

see ya...

Edited June 27, 2005 by atomizer

[maxamoto]

And the first person to pipe up with "Opera is so much blah blah blah" can click here and educate yourself a bit before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks for playing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm... look at the link you provided... The latest date there is 2005-02-13 (more than 4 months ago), and it doesn't affect Opera 8... The next one is dated 2004-11-24, and also doesn't affect Opera 8.

The only security issue that I've ever heard of with Opera was a URL spoofing issue that actually affected all browsers, and that problem was fixed in Opera 8.01.

So I've "educated" myself a little bit, and haven't put my foot in my mouth...

As for the "Firefox & spyware" discussion... if Firefox is "immune" to spyware, then how come SpywareBlaster 3.4 still has updates and entries for Mozilla based browsers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also can't let this one go. Had you spent any time on the link I posted, you would have noticed the vulns weren't ordered by date. They were ordered by rank. As I said before, people see what they want to see. My apologies, but did you even bother to look, or did you have your mind made up before my post even hit the boards? Not very scientific or intelligent...

Let's head over to Secunia and take a longer look at Opera 8x. There's not one flaw like you mentioned, there are 5 for 2005. Granted, it's not like the list for IE, but it is an example of how people choose to see what they want to see. Opera 7 had 37 in 2004 compared to 34 for IE6.x in 2004. Granted, I was in a hurry to tame the zealots, and that was my bad. For one, zealots will often disregard reality and can be extremely irrational and emotional about the products they choose. Two, regardless of how you break it down all browser products (right up to and including the much-touted and very venerable Lynx browser are affected in one way or another by security issues. Here's one of my favorites, especially for the zealots that are always claiming thst the Linux kernel is more secure than Windows (You'll note that, when cornered by a knowledable person, the oss zealot will generally say two things. One: Linux is just a kernel and Windows is and OS. Two: You have to compare apples to apples if you want an accurate representation of which one is more secure. Apples to apples means we add up all the kernel vulnerabilities from Linux and Windows (I said kernel vulns, not OS vulns. Fair is fair), starting with Linux. First, there's a grand total of 104 vulnerabilities for the Linux kernels version 2.0.x to 2.6.x, roughly covering a time period 2003 - 2005. I know, not really fair, since WinXP came out in 2001. Regardless, there were 81 flaws for WinXP as an Operating System, but only 19 affecting the Windows XP kernel. OSS zealots will be quick to point out that there is no accurate way to compare Windows and Linux (sorry, the Linux kernel), and they'll usually tell you this right after telling you that Linux is more secure than Windows. Zero logic, folks. Anyway, Let's get back to the firefox thing and we'll do an apples to apples comparison of products as best as we can. We'll have to use the period 2004-2005 since firefox wasn't out before then (but Mozilla, which FF is based on, was out way before then. All the same bugs that affect mozilla affect FF, to my knowlege, or at least thats what the Mozilla Foundation is saying. Still, apples to apples, kids), so we'll only be able to tally up the number of vulnerabilities for IE6.x during 2004-2005. Looks like there are 31 for the FF series and 42 for IE6.x. That's an apples to apples comparison. Sure, FF is more "secure", but not by much. It's still riddled with holes like every other browser. My previous post used vulns from the Mozilla and Thunderbird projects as well, because it's my firm belief that the Mozilla foundation changes directions to avoid having any one of it's products scrutinized too much. When Mozilla started getting more publicity, the security folks started coming forward with reports that it was full of holes. Enter Thunderbird, and again, FireFox. Now that FF is under pressure to compete with IE in all areas, including security, let's see how they do it. I wouldn't be surprised if they change names again. Yeah, I guess I am kind of a zealot too, but I'm more of an anti-zealot zealot. So, to all the Firefox zealots out there, your choice still comes down to taste. Coke or Pepsi. For the record, I think all browsers suck B)

[Zxian]

I also can't let this one go. Had you spent any time on the link I posted, you would have noticed the vulns weren't ordered by date. They were ordered by rank. As I said before, people see what they want to see. My apologies, but did you even bother to look, or did you have your mind made up before my post even hit the boards? Not very scientific or intelligent...

Let's head over to Secunia and take a longer look at Opera 8x. There's not one flaw like you mentioned, there are 5 for 2005. Granted, it's not like the list for IE, but it is an example of how people choose to see what they want to see. Opera 7 had 37 in 2004 compared to 34 for IE6.x in 2004. Granted, I was in a hurry to tame the zealots, and that was my bad. For one, zealots will often disregard reality and can be extremely irrational and emotional about the products they choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I spent a good 20 minutes at the site you linked, and while digging though the many pages of vulnerabilities, I found that many of them were irrelevant, since they referred to old versions of Opera. It's not very scientific or intelligent to refer to old data.

And yes, let's head over to Secunia... and find how many unpatched security flaws? Zero. Yes, there were 5 flaws found (3 moderately critical, 2 Less critical), but all of them have been patched by version 8.01. IE has 30% of it's 82 security advisories unpatched (14% extremely critical), and Firefox 1.x has 32% of its 19 unpatched (0% extremely critical, 14% highly critical).

What are you showing by pointing out the flaws in Opera 7? Everyone who bought a licence to Opera 7 got a free upgrade to Opera 8, so the number of users still on Opera 7 is pretty much nil.

I don't really like being called a zealot (read more on zealotry), since I actually do take the time to read about security advisories and the problems with operating systems and browsers. I'll agree with you that there are many people who simply say that one is better than the other without giving justification.

Also... next time you post a lot of information, it helps the rest of us if you split it up into paragraphs. One big long paragraph makes it look like a rant and most people will just skim over it (I read the whole thing though).

[maxamoto]

I also can't let this one go. Had you spent any time on the link I posted, you would have noticed the vulns weren't ordered by date. They were ordered by rank. As I said before, people see what they want to see. My apologies, but did you even bother to look, or did you have your mind made up before my post even hit the boards? Not very scientific or intelligent...

Let's head over to Secunia and take a longer look at Opera 8x. There's not one flaw like you mentioned, there are 5 for 2005. Granted, it's not like the list for IE, but it is an example of how people choose to see what they want to see. Opera 7 had 37 in 2004 compared to 34 for IE6.x in 2004. Granted, I was in a hurry to tame the zealots, and that was my bad. For one, zealots will often disregard reality and can be extremely irrational and emotional about the products they choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I spent a good 20 minutes at the site you linked, and while digging though the many pages of vulnerabilities, I found that many of them were irrelevant, since they referred to old versions of Opera. It's not very scientific or intelligent to refer to old data.

And yes, let's head over to Secunia... and find how many unpatched security flaws? Zero. Yes, there were 5 flaws found (3 moderately critical, 2 Less critical), but all of them have been patched by version 8.01. IE has 30% of it's 82 security advisories unpatched (14% extremely critical), and Firefox 1.x has 32% of its 19 unpatched (0% extremely critical, 14% highly critical).

What are you showing by pointing out the flaws in Opera 7? Everyone who bought a licence to Opera 7 got a free upgrade to Opera 8, so the number of users still on Opera 7 is pretty much nil.

I don't really like being called a zealot (read more on zealotry), since I actually do take the time to read about security advisories and the problems with operating systems and browsers. I'll agree with you that there are many people who simply say that one is better than the other without giving justification.

Also... next time you post a lot of information, it helps the rest of us if you split it up into paragraphs. One big long paragraph makes it look like a rant and most people will just skim over it (I read the whole thing though).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My basis for referring to old data is that the versions in question (opera 7, FF 0.x, etc) span the release times for IE6.x. In order to do a scientific comparison we have to take into account not only versions, but also release dates and timelines. I don't think it's fair to compare the amount of vulns in product A and product B when product B has only been around for half as long. Besides, it's always good to know where a product stands security-wise, regardless of versions or dates, and this is why I pointed out the vulns with Opera 7.x, since it is still relevant information just like vulns about Win2K is still relevant. Muddy waters, indeed.

From Wikipedia: "Zealotry denotes zeal in excess, referring to cases where activism and ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point of being harmful to others, oneself, and one's own cause."

When people make claims such as DakotaSunRunner did ("I use firefox and with all the security issues with MSIE I shall always no doubt use it") or crahak ("IE has so many bugs, so many security issues, and CSS support is very poor at best"), the perception they're giving is flawed and incomplete. And to this end they become harmful to their own cause. For example, if a newbie to the Internet becomes swayed by these remarks and decides to go with Firefox as their default browser but then becomes the victim of a phishing attack, they will undoubtedly tell anyone they encounter about how FF failed to live up to it's promises (promises that, I have to say, were made by end users and not the company that makes Firefox). This will have the effect of hurting Firefox's market share. Example:

I work for the Army, it's no secret. Linux had a chance at making inroads into our datacenters thanks to the very vocal endorsements from one of the higher-ups who was, in my opinion, an OSS zealot. After careful consideration by the elements responsible for securing our networks and datacenters it was decided that Linux had no place in our networks because, contrary to the claims of our resident zealot, the Linux kernel has a far worse track record for security than Windows, and when coupled with a 3rd tier vendor such as Red Hat or Suse it actually becomes one of the most insecure, bug-ridden operating system ever pushed upon an unsuspecting hard drive. The evidence was so contrary to what our zealot was claiming that Linux doesn't stand a chance in our organization, and probably won't for quite some time. If our zealot had spoken the truth instead of making false claims and said Linux is a viable alternative to Windows and, if administrated properly, can be just as secure and stable, he might have had a chance. Instead, he killed his cause by demonstrating zeal in excess, just like the definition says. A bit off-topic, yes, but I really didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings with the zealot remarks and felt like I should at least explain what I meant. Education is my goal, you could say.

My apologies about the ramblings in my last post. I'll try to break it up more to make it easier to read in the future.

[Zxian]

I think I'm following your thinking here.

I can understand the basis for comparing the track record of programs, but in the end, what we have on the market today is what really matters. If IE6 has been around for several years, but that also means that Microsoft has had several years to patch any security flaws that have come up over the years (See here for an example of a highly critical unpatched vulnerability for IE from 2003). If someone were to decide to use a browser that used to have several flaws, but doesn't anymore because the vendors/developers fixed the flaws, would that really be an issue?

I agree with you that a lot of the Firefox hype has been made by the public, and not the Mozilla group. It's also interesting how many of the "new and innovative" features of Firefox have been around in other browsers for quite some time now.

[offtopic]

As for the security of OSes, I agree with you that Linux is not as bulletproof as some people make it seem. The only difference here is that no hacker would target Linux computers because it simply wouldn't make a big difference to everyday life.

[/offtopic]

[Kenny McCormick]

FireFox for everything except Windows Update.