Firefox myths

[Lead Head]

I was responding to separate people using the quote feature.

Yes but you could have just quoted all of them in the same reply using the

tags.

Oh and, double post.

[worker201]

Many people do not care if something is open source or not, rather wether it is free.

However, many people do.

----------------------------------------------------

For me personally, there are 4 reasons not to use IE:

1) Duh, it's a Microsoft product!  Using IE is a tacit approval of the Microsoft company and the Microsoft way of doing business.  Of course nobody knows I am not using IE but me, but dammit, it's important to stick to your principles at all times, even when nobody else is watching.

2) Standards bludgeoning.  Of course not every browser can be 100% W3C standards compliant, because the W3C changes their minds about things every day.  But no other web browser is making up their own bits and pieces of HTML for their own specific use.  IE has all these little bits of code that it made up which go against standards.  And some of their handling of XHTML is mind-boggling.  I can provide more specific examples if you don't know what I am talking about.

3) Web annoyances.  In reality, these aren't IE's fault - it's the stupid damn web designers preying on the fact that IE is so popular.  Mostly these are pr0n sites who try to force downloads or redirect or take control of the browser.  Probably Linux and OSX have shielded me from as many of these as not using IE.

4) I just don't fucking like it.  And nobody can tell me differently.  This is one of those points that means nothing and everything all at once.  The greatest program in the world is useless to me if I can't stand to use it.  So there's why I like Firefox.  And there's why I am using SeaMonkey right now.  Opera might be good, but something about it just rubbed me the wrong way.  And IE makes me wanna slit my wrists everytime I see that Favorites menu up there where the bookmarks are supposed to be.  Well, perhaps growing up on Netscape Navigator has something to do with it.

[WMD]

Oh, how ironic!  The actual Mastertech shows up here.  lol.

http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php

Scroll to the bottom.  Mastertech is a fraud.

http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38

[cymon]

Technically you are still isecure since even the latest version of Firefox does not patch all the vulnerabilities.

Windows Updates? Funny how Microsoft has had one of the best update systems for years now and gets no credit.

More like debunk Myths. Notice here you just state another Myth. Firefox is NOT standards compliant.

No, Debian has had the best update system you fucking retard.  So does OS X, and I'm sure FreeBSD has a good one too.

[ReggieMicheals]

How does this change the fact that IE has lower system requirements than Firefox? It doesn't.

Stop talking in a fucking circle.

XP will run on its minimum requirements. IE is designed for more than one OS.

Not anymore. Microsoft pulled the plug on IE for the Mac a while ago.

Many people do not care if something is open source or not, rather wether it is free.

Say that to a developer's face.

EDIT: I see it isn't worth my time to respond to this idiot.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

On the same site there is another Firefox myths article (looks like this one may be the original)

http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php

There is another article entitled "Firefox Myths" that has been spammed on hundreds of websites. The article contains some deliberate misquotes from me and several others who pointed out flaws in the page, and it also contains other lies and libel. The author has even posed as me in discussion forums in support of his page. He has an extensive history of lying about his identity and relation to the article, and his persistent spam techniques and trolling have gotten him permanently banned from many websites including digg, Neowin, and TechSpot. His article should be regarded with a high degree of skepticism.

Very interesting indeed ...

For those of you who need spoon feeding ... The "other article" (the spammed one that contains some deliberate misquotes from the original article and several others who pointed out flaws in the page, and it also contains other lies and libel) is the one Aloone found and is the topic of this thread. The real myths article is at webdevout as I have just posted.

[Lead Head]

On the same site there is another Firefox myths article (looks like this one may be the original)

http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php



Very interesting indeed ...

For those of you who need spoon feeding ... The "other article" (the spammed one that contains some deliberate misquotes from the original article and several others who pointed out flaws in the page, and it also contains other lies and libel) is the one Aloone found and is the topic of this thread. The real myths article is at webdevout as I have just posted.

Yes, it is infact the original, and the orignal I can agree on a lot more then the spammed one

[Mastertech]

Please don't spread more lies. My Firefox Myths Page is the original. I really find it ridiculous to even have to defend that. David Hammond made his page AFTER I refused to add excuses to mine. You can read more about the truth of Mr. Hammond here:

Firefox Fables

What I continue to find funny is the complete inability for anyone to think for themselves. I get the same nonsense brought up from the same people and sites.

[Mastertech]

However, many people do.

People that are in the far minority.

1) Duh, it's a Microsoft product!  Using IE is a tacit approval of the Microsoft company and the Microsoft way of doing business.  Of course nobody knows I am not using IE but me, but dammit, it's important to stick to your principles at all times, even when nobody else is watching.

The average person doesn't care nor should they.

2) Standards bludgeoning.  Of course not every browser can be 100% W3C standards compliant, because the W3C changes their minds about things every day.  But no other web browser is making up their own bits and pieces of HTML for their own specific use.  IE has all these little bits of code that it made up which go against standards.  And some of their handling of XHTML is mind-boggling.  I can provide more specific examples if you don't know what I am talking about.

The key here is that no browser is 100% compliant, including Firefox. The reality is it means very little since the most web pages are compatible with IE. Yes IE's lack of full standards compliance is well documented and spread. It has nothing to do with Firefox lacking standards though.

3) Web annoyances.  In reality, these aren't IE's fault - it's the stupid damn web designers preying on the fact that IE is so popular.  Mostly these are pr0n sites who try to force downloads or redirect or take control of the browser.  Probably Linux and OSX have shielded me from as many of these as not using IE.

This is a really bad argument. Web Designers design for their audience. There is nothing "stupid" about that.

4) I just don't fucking like it.  And nobody can tell me differently.  This is one of those points that means nothing and everything all at once.  The greatest program in the world is useless to me if I can't stand to use it.  So there's why I like Firefox.  And there's why I am using SeaMonkey right now.  Opera might be good, but something about it just rubbed me the wrong way.  And IE makes me wanna slit my wrists everytime I see that Favorites menu up there where the bookmarks are supposed to be.  Well, perhaps growing up on Netscape Navigator has something to do with it.

They are just web browsers. I long ago woke up to the reality of page compatibility and so has the majority of users.

No, Debian has had the best update system you fucking retard.  So does OS X, and I'm sure FreeBSD has a good one too.

Wow, reading usually helps! I said "one of the best". But your "opinion" on Debian is just that. Nothing like personal attacks to ruin your credibility either.

[Mastertech]

Stop talking in a fucking circle.

I'm not YOU are. Are Firefox's minimum requirements lower than IE's or not? It is really a simple question. You insist upon making excuses for what is blatantly obvious.

Not anymore. Microsoft pulled the plug on IE for the Mac a while ago.

Interesting, I never said Mac. I said other OSes = Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP ect...

Say that to a developer's face.

ANYTIME! Whether something is Open Source or not has nothing to do with the Firefox Myths page.

EDIT: I see it isn't worth my time to respond to this idiot.

Why am I an "idiot"? Because I can backup everything I say and disprove every pathetic argument? Same nonsense different website.

[piratePenguin]

Technically you are still isecure since even the latest version of Firefox does not patch all the vulnerabilities.

Interesting - so what vulnerabilities am I being exposed to now if I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4?

It is not biased. Many people do not care if something is open source or not, rather wether it is free. The reality is Opera does not have embedded ads anymore. They probably generate there money now how Firefox does through the search bar.

IMO, your article is VERY biased. This one is a million times more fair I think - it not only debunks the myths but exposes the truth, and I think that's important if you're gonna go around saying it's not biased.

An example of where I think you're biased:

Reality - Firefox has incomplete support of many W3C standards including HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, CSS 2.1, CSS 3 and DOM.

The WebDevout Firefox Myths page is much more informative:

No web browser is 100% standards compliant. The web technology standards are very extensive and it often takes many years to implement all of the features of a standard, plus additional time to fix the bugs. In addition, the standards are always evolving and becoming more and more robust. Firefox

[Mastertech]

Interesting - so what vulnerabilities am I being exposed to now if I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4?

SA20442
SA20244
SA12979
SA12580
SA12403

IMO, your article is VERY biased. This one is a million times more fair I think - it not only debunks the myths but exposes the truth, and I think that's important if you're gonna go around saying it's not biased.

Funny how the one you think is so fair provides ZERO sources and doesn't cover any of the real Myths. It is a nice "feel good" Myths page for all Firefox users who can't handle the truth.

An example of where I think you're biased:The WebDevout Firefox Myths page is much more informative:I think it's very unfair to leave out that info, since FF is VERY standards compliant. It is CERTAINLY much better than IE in this regard and if it isn't better than Opera then there is definetly not much in it.

Um that is not a Myth. Everyone knows Firefox supports W3C standards better than IE. What you are talking about is an excuse. The Myth is that Firefox is a standards compliant web browser that fully supports standards. This is one of the most wide spread myths.

If FF isn't the best web-browser when it comes to standards compliance it is VERY close.

Maybe, maybe not but it clearly doesn't pass Acid2. You are missing the point of the Myths page. It is not a Firefox Promotional page. I don't make excuses and I don't include them on the page. The page isn't about selling Firefox.

You want to see Bias? Look at his Firefox Myths page than look at his Web browser security summary page. He cut the top "Historical cumulative values (Product life)" off the chart on the Myths page. I know I saw his myths page the first time it went up. He cut the top off because it made Firefox look bad in the vulnerability count. He has since played with the colors, changing almost all of Firefox's to an orange. There is no consistency in the numbers except IE is bad with Red and Firefox is not so bad. He is such a sad, sad fanboy.

Here is another good one. See how Firefox has 129 vulnerabilities with a relative danger of 381? Why then does Opera with only 56 vulnerabilities have a relative danger of 359? Shouldn't Opera's danger be more like 150? At least I don't play with figures like that. I simply count and report exact numbers.

[piratePenguin]

SA20442
SA20244
SA12979
SA12580
SA12403

Funny how the one you think is so fair provides ZERO sources and doesn't cover any of the real Myths. It is a nice "feel good" Myths page for all Firefox users who can't handle the truth.

Um that is not a Myth. Everyone knows Firefox supports W3C standards better than IE. What you are talking about is an excuse. The Myth is that Firefox is a standards compliant web browser that fully supports standards. This is one of the most wide spread myths.


Maybe, maybe not but it clearly doesn't pass Acid2. You are missing the point of the Myths page. It is not an Firefox Promotional page. I don't make excuses and I don't include them on the page. The page isn't about selling Firefox.


You want to see Bias? Look at his Firefox Myths page than look at his Web browser security summary page. He cut the top "Historical cumulative values (Product life)" off the chart on the Myths page. I know I saw his myths page the first time it went up. He cut the top off because it made Firefox look bad in the vulnerability count. He has since played with the colors, changing almost all of Firefox's to an orange. There is no consistency in the numbers except IE is bad with Red and Firefox is not so bad. He is such a sad, sad fanboy.

Here is another good one. See how Firefox has 129 vulnerabilities with a relative danger of 381? Why then does Opera with only 56 vulnerabilities have a relative danger of 359? Shouldn't Opera's danger be more like 150? At least I don't play with figures like that. I simply count and report exact numbers.

OK, well clearly your page is only about debunking myths as opposed to educating users with the full story. That's sad. Don't go around claiming it isn't biased - it's biased. Not including the full story that shows FF in a GOOD light (because FF is a GOOD web-browser) IS BIAS if you ask me.

This is why everybody hates you - and I hope you understand that. It's not because they're fanboys who can't handle the truth. They can handle the truth - the truth about Firefox is very pretty, the problem is you don't expose any of that.

But sure - you have your "it's a page about MYTHS" excuse, which is fine, but to many people you're still just a sad annoying little troll.

Also, your word doesn't weigh much with me and probably every other human in the world too. Find some evidence that the WebDevout ppl are biased and we might give it some attention.

[Mastertech]

OK, well clearly your page is only about debunking myths as opposed to educating users with the full story. That's sad. Don't go around claiming it isn't biased - it's biased. Not including the full story that shows FF in a GOOD light (because FF is a GOOD web-browser) IS BIAS if you ask me.

HAHA! That is classic. It is not my fault all the Myths about Firefox are over exaggerated positives. If people come off with a negative view about Firefox after reading my page than it is only because they believed one of the Myths. When you build your house out of cards don't complain because the wind blows it down.

This is why everybody hates you - and I hope you understand that. It's not because they're fanboys who can't handle the truth. They can handle the truth - the truth about Firefox is very pretty, the problem is you don't expose any of that.

Actually everyone doesn't hate me. Especially those that can comprehend what the page is about.

But sure - you have your "it's a page about MYTHS" excuse, which is fine, but to many people you're still just a sad annoying little troll.

That is not an excuse it is a fact. The page is called FIREFOX MYTHS! It is not a "Review of Firefox" it is not to sell or promote Firefox. The arguments get so ridiculous. It always goes off topic as it has here where people feel they must defend why they like Firefox. It cracks me up every time. I get emails from people telling me why they like Firefox? Who cares that has nothing to do with the page. I don't care why you like it. I simply care that people stop spreading these Myths.

Also, your word doesn't weigh much with me and probably every other human in the world too. Find some evidence that the WebDevout ppl are biased and we might give it some attention.

My word? I source all the Facts. And I just provided you with evidence. You didn't read his Internet Explorer is dangerous page? HAHA! Now tell me that is NOT biased. Please.

[piratePenguin]

I started a thread about the IE is dangerous page before.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10327
Get over there and post your thoughts.