Miscellaneous > Applications

Firefox myths

<< < (17/23) > >>

Mastertech:

--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---No it's nowhere near blaming C++ for viruses made with it. C++ is a low level programming language, ActiveX is a component of a browser. The two do not compare.
--- End quote ---
The concept is the same. Malware written using ActiveX scripting to exploit an unpatched IE vulnerability cannot be blamed on ActiveX. It is not an ActiveX vulnerability that is being exploited.


--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---The total number of vulnerabilities means jack shit on its own. How many of these vulnerabilities are for *NIX systems? How many are for Windows? What do they do? How critical are they? Are they patched?
--- End quote ---
Which is why the critical vulnerabilities are listed as well. And they are not all patched making even the latest version insecure.

Lead Head:
Piratepenguin, he seems to be ignoring that Opera has one real nasty vulnerability

Mastertech:
I see none Opera 9 (Secunia)

Canadian Lover:

--- Quote from: Mastertech ---
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.


--- End quote ---


Even at the 128 level, a whole lot of stuff is ran from the page file, slowing everything down. Maby there's a reason everyone else recommends 256?

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Mastertech ---I see none Opera 9 (Secunia)
--- End quote ---
Oh so you can't think for yourself no?

EDIT: I sent them a feedback thing to see my post.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version