Your artical doesn't provide all the facts and thus doesn't allow the reader to make an informed decision about their choice of browser.
IT IT NOT SUPPOSED TO! Wake up. This is not a comparison guide. It is not a review of Firefox. It is only a Firefox Myths page. The information is provided so people do not fall for the Myths when making that decision. Every single Fanboy/Anti-Microsoft user is incapable of understanding this.
The I suggest you read the US CERT article again.
I've read it. In recommendations like this that is because ActiveX can be used to exploit the vulnerability NOT because the vulnerability is due to ActiveX.
But that doesn't stop it becoming re-enabled.
You can say that for any setting. But SP2 provides a better solution.
Of course it's rellevant, you're debunking myths about Firefox right?
No it is NOT. IE's security and Opera's in the context of the Myth "Firefox is Secure" are both irrelevant.
Firefox is a web browser so why is it not rellevant to compare it to another web browser like Opera? You've already compared it to Internet Explorer.
This is NOT a comparison guide. Just because certain Myths use comparisons does not change this fact. The page only debunks Myths. I have not compared it to IE in the sense of a comparison guide. I have stated Myths that just so happen to be comparisons. That is the nature of Firefox Myths. Some of the Myths people spread are incorrect comparisons with misinformation.
You need to make sure your readers understand that security is relative, and it's a fact that Internet Explorer is insecure relative to Firefox which is insecure relative to Opera.
This isn't a Browser security page. It isn't a comparison page. Regardless both IE and Firefox are insecure. Nothing is relative about it. This page is a Firefox Myths page for the 5000 time.
I'm not making any excuses - I'm merely filling in the gaps.
No you are making clear excuses. You have to as do all the Firefox Fanboys and Anti-Microsoft users. I don't make excuses.
Yes does.
Are you kidding me? Your emotional reasoning for IE and standards has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox Myths. It is your attempt to pile on the excuses. TOO BAD. I will NEVER add excuses period.
Have you ever tested Firefox on hardware lower than the minimum requirements? If so you'll find that it actually works, these are recommended minimum requirements not absolute minimum requirements like MS states for it's products.
I have tested everything I claim. FF's performance severly declines below those requirements. Mozilla clearly states they are the minimum and also includes recommended requirements. Microsoft includes no mention of the word absolute,
What you've stated is true, Microsoft's minimum requirements are just that minimum requirements but some other software vendors bais their minimum requirements to is required to give reasonable performance.
Microsoft does as well.
And you can't understand the fact that Firefox is more secure than Microsoft Internet Explorer.
According to the current vulnerability count it is slightly more secure but still clearly insecure. Again this is irrelevant to the Firefox Myths page.
Wait a second, even US CERT recommends you should use a diffenent browser!
This is a common recommendation by security companies during the time any critical vulnerability for any browser is unpatched.
Of course it is and it's exactly why your page totally blows. You can't discuss page rendering and compatability without mentioning standards support which very important.
That was in response to the Unix vulnerability Distro statement. Anyway to reply to this new statement. Page Compatibility has little to do with W3C standards support since so many pages do not conform to W3C standards. This is one of the biggest things clueless people do not get. IE is the standard of which many pages are coded.
[list=1]
- Apart from the start-up speed the other differences are neglidgable.
- These tests don't feature web pages containing a variety of content i.e. each test just looks a one type of content.
- Not in my experiance, for example Firefox renders hotmail faster than IE, Firefox renders this forum faster than IE.
- It doesn't even mention download speed.
* They are clearly faster in IE. Either way it debunks the Myth
* That is the only way to get an idea how a browser is faster. Since FF is faster in only script speed a test full of scripts would make FF look like it is faster when it is clearly not.
* Where is your documented reproduceable proof of this. Every Firefox Fanboy/Anti-Microsoft user makes these claims yet provides NO proof.
* Download speed of what? A file? That has nothing to do with the browser. It has to do with your bandwidth limit of your internet connection.
Well you've proved to me that IE is actually worse than I thought it was before I read your post!
No it just proves Opera is well coded and the nonsense about components of IE loading at Windows startup is irrelevant.
So what?
You quite rightly raise the point that Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test, well done! But wouldn't it be more fair to compare it to IE as well as Opera?
Wouldn't that be providing the reader with more relevant information so they can make a more informed choice?
It's one of those relative things again, something you don't seem to understand.
What part of
FIREFOX MYTHS IS NOT A COMPARISON GUIDE do you not comprehend? There is no Myth IE passes this test and if there was it would not be on the Firefox Myths page. You want to add in excuses that are irrelevant.
I'm not making any excuses.
Yes you are. You keep making comparisons to IE with the attempt to excuse Firefox any time a Firefox Myth is debunked.
But you're neglecting the all important standards debate again - something very important if you want your reader to become more educated.
This is not s page that debates the relevancy of standards. It debunks Firefox Myths. The reaon you think this has anything to do with the page is because you don't understand how to state something without including excuses.
Bullshit, Mac OS is both easy to use and secure, ease of use and security can go hand in hand but obviously Microsoft has lead you to believe otherwise, I pitty you.
I really don't care, honestly I don't have any security problems with Windows or IE. This debate has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.
On the contrary, bussinesses should continiously evaluate different products and use the one that suits them best - they might be able to make considerable savings.
Again off topic. Businesses that actually stay in business will always use the most reliable and compatible solution to what they are using. Which in this case is Microsoft Office. Compatibility issues cost them money.
I agree, and if you have money to spare there's always other alternatives like Star Office and Corel Office.
Considering Star Office is based on Open Office and I the main reasons to use Microsoft are compatibility and ease of use I do not believe Corel has much of a chance.
