March 7, 200521 yr Although IE's activex is comparable to Firefox's extensions, the extensions are generally open source, which helps make entensions safer as they can be easily tested for safety by programmers.If open source is safer then tell me why the patch times for open source are twice that on average of most M$ patch times? The proof of this is the published study last week showing that Windows Server 2003 is more secure than Linux. (this put a bunch in a lot of Linux guys "panties") Anyways... I know there are a lot of problems with IE... It seems like very recently M$ has been making some strides in trying to get some of these issues more under control. I just want until the first big vulnerability in FF is found that causes some major issues. My philosophy... If someone built it, someone can take it apart. It's just a matter of time.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>IE will never be as secure as Firefox. It doesn't have to do with it being Open Source, look at Opera. It has to do with the fact that IE is so integrated with Windows that when you exploit IE, you also exploit Windows. The worst thing a Firefox vulnerability would do is harm the program, not your operating system (as things should be, especially a web browser.)As per your quoted study, the reason that they said that was taht Windows Server 2003 out of the box has fewer vulnerabilities than Red Hat. Why? It doesn't come with anything, whereas Red Hat comes with Apache and other extra software preinstalled. Microsoft's IIS server has far more vulnerabilities than Apache, and it isn't even more popular.I mean, SP2 is great, and I look forward to IE7. However, dismissing Firefox and sticking with IE is just a waste of time at this point. Firefox is a great browser, and with extensions you can customize it however you like. IE is also a good browser, but sometimes likes to try to customize itself when you visit strange websites without your permission. Can't even display a PNG image properly? No tabs? No thanks, I'll use Firefox/Opera instead.
March 7, 200521 yr without fanatism...as a webdevver i'll be very glad if ther would be anapplication/xhtml+xml support in IE7...along with right CSS Box Model...In the same time I must admit - it's just a habit to use standarts compliencebrowsers instead of IE because of two reasons above though...Even if it will be better than was, it will be just good enough to use as otherbrowsers are...So, if it appears....why should I change my horse ?
March 7, 200521 yr I thought only we Germans have this standar"d" spelling mistake <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ahh...we are living in the neighbourhood...just two boots on the map...at that we use the same browsers I gess...
May 26, 200521 yr I'll continue to use firefox as my default depending on how good IE7 will be. I will definitely have both though as sometimes IE is the the only option for certain web sites.
May 26, 200521 yr Can't wait for FF 1.1, 1.5 and 2.0.Not forgetting IE7!Btw that site is very slow in FF, when you are scrolling.Could be becuase of a PNG backgrund.
May 26, 200521 yr Mozilla Firefox of course. Just look at the new features coming up in v1.1http://www.mozilla.org/projects/deerpark/whatsnew.htmlI will likely need to slipstream IE7 in, but i doubt I am ever going to use it.
May 26, 200521 yr Currently, my favorite browser is Firefox.I will try out IE7 on Windows XP, but I am inclined to dislike it because it doesn't support Windows 9X, which I also use. What does IE7 do exactly that I need? "Warning: 'www.mozilla.org' - the site you are attempting to visit is untrusted and may cause permanent damage your computer and data. Are you sure you want to visit it?" Or maybe this? "Warning: IE has detected that the MP3 files you are downloading are untrustworthy and may contain spyware or viruses. Please wait while IE removes untrustworthy data from your computer."
Create an account or sign in to comment