So do I which is why I hate your artical, note I don't think much of Internet Explorer or Firefox, but I prefer the latter.
That doesn't make sense. If you hate misinformation you would love Firefox Myths since is corrects vast amounts of it.
And what's a nube to do?
Probably just click on yes because they don't know what they're doing, oh and good old CERT knows about the problems with ActiveX too (read on).
Irrelevant. The point is clearly how ActiveX works. Phishing style attacks do not change the security aspects of ActiveX. People all over spread BS that with ActiveX running you just simply get spyware autoinstalling ect... Simply untrue. Autoinstalling spyware is due to exploits that you failed to patch. It has nothing to do with the security design of ActiveX. IE vulnerabilities are largely exploited using code written in ActiveX this in no way makes ActiveX the cause of the problem. It is just like blaming C++ because a virus author uses it to write his virus.
Either way, no one here believes any of the Firefox myths, we all know that FireFox isn't 100% secure (no browser is) but you cannot deny the fact that Microsoft Internet Explorer is the worst as far as security is concerned. Opera is probably one of the most secure browsers around, infact my bet would be on a text-only browser like Lynx.
Neither Firefox nor IE are secure as of this writing. Opera currently is with no unpatched vulnerabilities. Currently Firefox has slightly less total vulnerabilities than IE but this is changing rapidly has more and more Firefox vulnerabilities are discovered. All of which is irrelevant to the Firefox Myths page. Why are you bringing up irrelevant things? The Myth being debunked is that Firefox is Secure. It isn't. Making excuses for this does not change this fact.
You talk about standards, well as far as I'm concerned IE is one big problem because it's using a form of vendor lock in to retain its dominance rather than being superiour from a technilogical aspect.
I really don't care this has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
That doesn't mean anything, any software vendor can give overly optimistic minimum system requirements, the very fact that you've mentioned this means you're trying to misinform people. Rather than look at this you should focus more on things like memory usage, here's an example of how minimim requirements are confusing XP lists a minimum requirement of 64MB of RAM while Ubuntu, lists 256MB, however the default configureations for both OSs result in similar memory usage, both use between 80MB and 110MB when booted up with no other porgrams running.
Microsoft is VERY clear about it's minimum requirements. IE will run on them as I have tested it to work fine. Have you? Everyone making these claims never tested anything. I've been building PCs since the 80s. Windows XP's requirements are stated clearly that 64 MB will limit features and performance and thus mentions 128MB as the recommended minimum, which is what I also clearly recommend. Your lack of understanding and obvious complete lack of testing is the real misinformation here. Minimum requirements are just that, the minimum of which the software application will run. Misinformation is NOT telling them this. Mozilla clearly set the minimum requirements were they were most likely due to Firefox being unusable below those. I can confirm 100% that IE will run on the minimum requirements listed. If you have a problem with Firefox's then bring it up with them I simply report the facts.
Well you can play with the numbers all you want but does anyone really care?
If counting the number of vulnerabilities is "playing with the numbers" then please tell me how. This is the reality. If you cannot grasp the fact that an advisory is released with a variable amount of vulnerabilities I cannot help you.
For example I could argue that UNIX has more vunerabilities than Windows because more are listed on Secunia, but there again I would be forgetting the fact that UNIX is a very big familly of operating systems.
See my point?
No and irrelevant.
The anti-Firefox crowd will push the figures one way and the pro-Firefox crowd will push them the other way.
There are no numbers to "push". There are the total number of vulnerabilities and that is it.
Again, it depends on how you measure speed, the fact that you only mention start up time is an indication thet you're trying to decieve people, also you've made no mention of the fact that IE is only faster because it's already loaded when you boo Windows and that you can pre-fetch Firefox so it pops up just as quickly.
Here let me help you:
1. What you read:
"Internet Explorer 6.x is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x in 6 out of 7 measures of performance
and is significantly faster from a cold start."
2. What certain people are incapable of reading:
"
Internet Explorer 6.x is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x in 6 out of 7 measures of performance[/size] and is significantly faster from a cold start."
Now read the note and try to understand it. If you don't get it read it again 50 times until you do:
The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part.[/SIZE][/b]
Still don't get it? Read it
50 more times.
This is plain wrong, just read the CERT article and you'll see.
So now you are calling the IE devs liars? Read the IE Dev post 50 more times until you understand it. It is quite clear.
I know, Opera is the only browser that passes it, but just you try it in IE then Firefox, sure Firefox doesn't pass but it's a damn sight nearer to passing than IE is.
Who frickin cares!! There is no Myth that IE passes it or passes it well. STOP making excuses.
Neither is Internet Explorer, but there again just because more developers support IE it doesn't make it any better.
IE is by FAR compatible with more sites. This is indisputable.
And I've read it and it's bullshit, the very fact that you've been infected by a Rootkit before means you're not doing things right.
It is not that simple anymore. Software is getting more complex and people are not going to sacrifice ease of use for security.
Anyway, I've read on your site you like OpenOffice.org, what's your view on MS Office, and what about MS Works? Do you agree with me tha MS Works is a complete was of space?
MS Office is hands down the better product. However it is very expensive and generally unnecessary for the home user. Businesses who rely on Excel or Access will and should continue to use MS Office. MS Works never impressed me and I find Open Office a better solution. Open Office is recommended because I found it to be the best free (as in money) Office Solution.
