Firefox Myth debunking?

[JPnyc]

I s'pose you could look at it that way, but activeX is more than just a liability, it adds a lot of possibilities, which unfortunately can be perverted by sociopaths. In my browser I can disable activeX globally, or on a per tab basis (along with scripting, java and flash), so I can use it when needed on sites i completely trust, and leave it off the rest of the time.

[brokencrow]

I s'pose you could look at it that way, but activeX is more than just a liability, it adds a lot of possibilities...

No doubt. It enables me to scan for viruses online (my primary AV tool since I run no client). Your so-called sociopaths are turnin' more than a few dimes on it though.

Beware the pop-up...

[JPnyc]

Precisely why I like one that has activeX but allows quick and flexible disabling of it from the toolbar. Just like you, I ran a pc successfully for 8 yrs with no av or fw loaded. I used online scans and good sense.

[brokencrow]

Hmmm....

They play these sort of games, just like MS supporting SCO

And just like MS supporting Novell/SUSE?

But, alas, that's another thread...

[brokencrow]

"Washington Post’s Security writer, Brian Krebs, analyzed the data for 2006 and found that for 284 days of that year, known security vulnerabilities could have easily been taken advantage of if you hadn’t patched your IE browser."

"Naturally, Krebs had the good sense to look at Firefox as well. He discovered that it performed far better than IE 6, with only nine days in 2006 where there was known exploit code on the Internet that could be used to attack an unpatched version of Firefox."

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8417/53/

[Shellster]

These results are somewhat skewed, but overall they are fairly accurate. As a proffesional web developer, I can definately say I hate IE because it does not display the webpages the same as any other browser.

[JPnyc]

That's true of course, but even FF, Safari and Opera don't always agree. Beyond that, while IE6 (and probably 7 too) show VERY poor implementation of the w3c standards, they DID have certain inclusions omitted from the standards that give a designer/developer more possibilities and flexibility. For example, innerHTML is faster than the DOM method, and won't throw an exception when writing to a tag that is empty. The DOM method does.

And then there's the plethora of filters and effects, which, while just eye candy, would make sites less Flash dependent for that type of stuff.

[Egaladeist]

FireFox postdates AOL's financing of Mozilla, as does SeaMonkey. AOL does not own any "stock" in any of them, and has not been involved for some time AFAIK.

Sorry nihil...but Mozilla came first then Firefox...AOL was financing Mozilla before it even was called Mozilla...and then just before the development of Firefox AOL bailed as they were undergoing restructuring...but anted up a $2 million development fund that was used to create Mozilla and part to create Firefox.

But...you are right...they ( AOL ) appear to be uninvolved.

Eg

[nihil]

Hi EG~,

I think that you might have misread my post?......... I said "postdate" which means to come after, rather than "pre-date" which means to come before.

As we all know "predate" means to eat US politicians (incidentally, do you have any good recipes?)

Anyways, $2M (USD) is peanuts is it not?..............someone has been subventing SCO for a hell of a lot more than that, have they not?

Not that I would mention any names

[Moira]

I installed NoScript but so many sites don't work with it enabled, I just leave it off - it's there if needed.

Opera is supposed to be good (I've never personally used it) but it has such a small share of the market that it just isn't as well supported by web developers.