Miscellaneous > Applications
Firefox myths
WMD:
Ok, Mastertech, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute here. Let's say that the truth is, simply, that Firefox fanboys (per your definition and experience) have been banning you and supressing your page because they can't handle the truth.
This leaves me with one question: if that's the case, then why do you keep going to sites that are known to be filled with Firefox users and fanboys? After all, to quote you,
--- Quote from: Firefox Fables ---We all know 8 forums run by Fanboys = the millions of forums on the Internet.
--- End quote ---
There's lots of places you could go and not have to put up with what you have. But apparently, you haven't done that, and gone primarily to places that you know (perhaps only subconciously, but still) have a large population of Firefox fanboys. That would make you a textbook internet troll.
And don't tell me it's because David H. and his friends follow you around - that certainly isn't the case here, and if David H. suddenly did show up, I would be rather suspicious.
Dark_Me:
--- Quote ---Read the source AGAIN. IE is integrated but there are no special os functionality that only IE exposes that no other browser cannot. I am not debating whether integration is good or bad but the reality of the irrational security issue. Soooo much of this stuff has been going around forever that are blatant lies.
--- End quote ---
It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.
--- Quote ---It is all the Fanboys have left. They have no facts, no data nothing. What is funny is attacking me does not change the facts from any of my sources or the facts on my page.
--- End quote ---
Attacking the maker of an arguement is not a valid method of arguement, no. However attacking the sources (though not the makers of those sources) used in an argument is.
toadlife:
--- Quote from: Mastertech ---Funny how someone who shows up to defend his page is labeled a "Troll". But you are correct it is the vulnerabilities that are the real problem and have always been.
--- End quote ---
The definition of "troll" is often influenced by the setting.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Mastertech ---
Oh lets get back on track and discuss my page. Wait I just disproved ever point so obvious it is easier to personally attack me. Forget finding actual facts on anything.
--- End quote ---
I didn't see you disprove this:
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114532&postcount=34
--- Quote from: me ---I've developed web-pages, I know the story, and I know that standards support on Firefox is very good - it's among the best in any web-browser.
--- End quote ---
Your webpage is a good resource if someone wants a list of misconceptions ever made about Firefox, that's it. And these are misconceptions made by obvious non-geeks, I wouldn't expect too much from them. If as many people used Opera it wouldn't be hard to find people saying the same crap ("Opera is 100% standards compliant").
For non-geeks who want to learn the absolute reality I'll be pointing them to David H's page. For people like that, you must bring things into perspective for them - otherwise they'll over react. Really, it's not a bit deal that FF isn't 100% standards compliant at this early stage. But it IS among the best browsers out there when it comes to standards compliance.
--- Quote ---"Internet Explorer has very good support (81-86%) for the most important web standard, HTML 4.01. In most educational systems an 81-86% would equal a "B" grade and without HTML the World Wide Web would not exist as we know it."
IE does support some W3C standards but it doesn't really matter since by far the most web pages work correctly only on IE.
--- End quote ---
The W3C developed XHTML some time around 1999 - 7 years ago. Even in IE7, it is not supported. Send IE7 an XHTML document, as long as you're using the proper MIME type, IE won't even recognise it as a webpage!
The amount of CSS hacks out their to fix IE bugs is insane - I just don't bother with them. I develop my pages according to the specs and sometimes apply workarounds for the advanced stuff like DOM level 3 load & save which is only supported in Opera.
And what do you know? Even written to the specs - IE won't render them.
http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com I think there's one page there that works - the first page that just contains a single link. It's HTML 4.01, but in 2006 not many of my pages will be written in HTML 4.01.
IE is holding back the web-developers from moving forward to XHTML - not gonna happen with me. Do you think there'd be as many HTML 4.01 or as many broken XHTML (XHTML documents sent incorrectly as text/html) out there if IE supported these W3C recommendations?
Your webpage sucks. Why would a list of misconceptions and too-simple of "realities" to put things into perspective be of any use to anyone?
toadlife:
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.
--- End quote ---
That's not true. IE is not "the shell" and exploiting IE does not automatically give control of the entire computer. It depends on the privieldges of the user, which in Windows is unfortunately usually 'root'.
Regular old buffer overflow vulnerabilities are not any more danerous in IE than any other browser.
The big problem with IE has to do with the fact that ActiveX controls can do anything on the system. While activeX controls require administrator permissions to install, is doesn't much matter since everyone logs onto windows as administrators. As a result all of those auto-install activeX vulnerabililties have greatly increased the danger of using IE. If people normally logged onto windows as non-admin users, ActiveX based exploits would be rare, and IE's security record would be MUCH better.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version