What is so good about Firefox?

[supernatural_247]

I just want to know what's so good about Firefox as I really don't know that much about Firefox. All I know alot of folks are switching over to Firefox from Explorer. Is this because Firefox is a truly better browser or is it just because people hate Microsoft??

[a12c4magic]

Firefox has popup blocking as well as tab browsing
It’s quicker than IE at rendering pages
It has less security holes than IE
It’s multi platform – works with many different operating systems
It has excellent extensions that can be freely downloaded

[bodgekaloopie]

IMHO - Both!

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

It has less security holes than IE

I've heard contrary... that because Firefox is an independent project, contributed to by many different developers, it has more bugs and security holes. anyone else heard likewise?

[a12c4magic]

Originally Posted by supernatural_247

I've heard contrary... that because Firefox is an independent project, contributed to by many different developers, it has more bugs and security holes. anyone else heard likewise?

On May 12, 2005 Mozilla released an update to its popular bowser, Firefox. This update addresses the vulnerabilites with Javascript that have been found in the past couple of weeks.

The software can be installed via the automatic updater or downloaded from http://www.firefox.com

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

On May 12, 2005 Mozilla released an update to its popular bowser, Firefox. This update addresses the vulnerabilites with Javascript that have been found in the past couple of weeks.
The software can be installed via the automatic updater or downloaded from http://www.firefox.com

How quick are they to address new vulnerabilities? I know Microsoft gets on it as they have a whole department to deal with security flaws.

[a12c4magic]

Originally Posted by supernatural_247

How quick are they to address new vulnerabilities? I know Microsoft gets on it as they have a whole department to deal with security flaws.

If Microsoft have a whole department to correct the flaws, how come the whole company releases software with flaws to begin with?

Microsoft is a huge corporation with massive resources and yet trojans and worms can still get in easily via IE.

Firefox instead of being a huge corporation has instead a network of developers that respond very quickly to any problems with the browser. As they are a non-profit making organisation they have no hidden interest in stopping any flaws from being made public, unlike Microsoft that do not acknowledge flaws. Microsoft have even run down security companies making flaws public as irresponsible and have tried to insist that the security companies let them know in advance. Why does Microsoft need to do this if they are not trying to hide the issues altogether.

The open source community not only updates their software regularly they are even open about who found the exploit and how it was fixed in the updated software.

Are Microsoft as fast and as open with their information?

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Are Microsoft as fast and as open with their information?

Good point! However, since Firefox is an open community with a network of developers contributing to it, wouldn't that make it more vulnerable to attacks, given that the source code is widely available? It really doesn't matter, I guess... I'm being paranoid when the truth is, anyone who wants to can hack into anything...

anyways, I downloaded Firefox about 20 mins ago and have been playing with it... I do like the fact that it is way more flexible than Explorer. However, that can pose some problems for designers... I've got some work to do on mine so that Firefox users won't get pissed when things don't load and they don't know why because they installed some extension that they forgot about and the settings conflict with my website... (such as the NoScrip javascript plugin).

Also, does anyone know how to get rid of that annoying "bleep/click" that sounds whenever a new page loads?

Cheers,
Tim

[a12c4magic]

[quote="supernatural_247"]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Are Microsoft as fast and as open with their information?

Good point! However, since Firefox is an open community with a network of developers contributing to it, wouldn't that make it more vulnerable to attacks, given that the source code is widely available? It really doesn't matter, I guess... I'm being paranoid when the truth is, anyone who wants to can hack into anything...

Open source programmers would no doubt like to write bug and security flaw free software, however, If an issue arises then the developers want to rectify that issue as soon as possible. Possibly out of pride or just the desire to improve their coding. They aren't making any money from the software except from donations. Would their customers donate if the product is no good? Also producing a good product may lead to them gaining better paid employment elsewhere, but not if their current product is no good.

The fact that the source is open will allow others to modify it or suggest improvements. Microsoft code is 'closed shop' unless you wish to illegally decompile their programs. They have a vested interest to keep security issues from the public to protect their financial well-being.

Also, does anyone know how to get rid of that annoying "bleep/click" that sounds whenever a new page loads?

Cheers,
Tim

We have never had any annoying clicks or sounds here on Firefox on Windows or Linux, both OS's with speakers permanently on. As we don't have that issue here we could only guess that it may be hidden in the preferences somewhere, or it has added a sound into the sounds section within your Windows Control Panel.

You may like to look at some of the extensions such as forecastfox or the extension for warning you if you go to a spoofed ebay or other web address. There are many extensions available all for free and they operate across Firefox on all it's supported platforms.

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

We have never had any annoying clicks or sounds here on Firefox on Windows or Linux, both OS's with speakers permanently on. As we don't have that issue here we could only guess that it may be hidden in the preferences somewhere, or it has added a sound into the sounds section within your Windows Control Panel.

Ok, aparently, the NoScript extension causes the sound, so I unchecked the box in the options area to get rid of it - thank God!!!

[brian.mark]

FireFox has had 4 revisions since the release just over 6 months ago. Microsoft, on the other hand, has had one revision. Who is addressing flaws quicker? Open source.

Brian.

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by brian.mark

FireFox has had 4 revisions since the release just over 6 months ago. Microsoft, on the other hand, has had one revision. Who is addressing flaws quicker? Open source.

Yeah, but you would expect more revisions in a newer program. I would say that 4 revisions in 6 months is not as high as I would expect for a new program, particularly one that is massed used. I would like to see a revision every 1-2 weeks.

Now, that's not going to stop me from using Firefox as it's the best browser one can use. I do think that anti-Microsoft emotions can cloud objectionalism and lead to make an alternative solution seem much more solid than it actually is. Firefox is constantly been tested and found to have flaws (which is expected in a new program). However, people need to be alerted to this fact so that they are not mislead to think that Firefox is as solid as Explorer. So far, Firefox has crashed six times (since last Friday) when using it with the NoScrip and Adblock extensions. I have sent comments every time as to help the developers fix the bug. I do not remember the last time IE crashed...

I know I'm pushing a point that seems to contradict my affections for Firefox -- don't get me wrong, I love it! I think it's great that people are uniting against a monopoly that is trying to dictate how the web is used. This said, it is crucial that Firefox remains truthful and OPEN so that folks know what they're getting with the new baby (ie: poopy diapers, screaming... oh and a bunch of joy as well ;) ).

Cheers,
Tim

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Microsoft is a huge corporation with massive resources and yet trojans and worms can still get in easily via IE.

That's not a very fair statement for a few reasons:

1. With the large anti-Microsoft sentiment out there (justified or otherwise), there are subsequently a large number of people who would love to bring it down. As a result, no matter how many people Microsoft puts into development, someone somewhere is going to find something.
   
   Obviously, it would be preferential to have all potential security holes/issues resolved before product release, but given the gigantic market Microsoft has to release to and the different ways in which people think, act and do things, that's in no way realistic.
   
   This argument is akin to saying "there's a lot more crime in the United States than there is in Ontario." Of course there is, because it's a much larger demographic. And without going deeply into politics, there are a lot more people who hate the US than Ontario.
   
   You have to expect problems, but as long as they're fixed and there's a department on it, that's all I care about.
2. IE is not Microsoft's only product, but it is one of its few freely available products. Pretend you're Bill Gates standing in front of two customers. One of them has a copy of Office, and one a copy of IE. Both are bitching that they want the product fixed right away because they found some bug or hole in it. Who would you deal with first? I'll guarantee you 99 out of 100 of you would deal with the person with the Office copy in his/her hot little hand.
   
   And what will happen with FireFox if and when it grows to seriously compete with IE (which it hasn't done yet...I'm sorry, but less than 10% market share doesn't even make Microsoft blink in response)? Will those same developers who are contributing to the project be around? Or will there be more? Or will those developers who gave of their time and money find paying clients/jobs to deal with? The resource simply won't be there, unless FF branches out into other things such as office suites, productivity software, games, consoles, etc. and then the same people who are on the FF bandwagon will turn around and be bitching at FF for selling out.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Firefox instead of being a huge corporation has instead a network of developers that respond very quickly to any problems with the browser. As they are a non-profit making organisation they have no hidden interest in stopping any flaws from being made public, unlike Microsoft that do not acknowledge flaws. Microsoft have even run down security companies making flaws public as irresponsible and have tried to insist that the security companies let them know in advance. Why does Microsoft need to do this if they are not trying to hide the issues altogether.

The open source community not only updates their software regularly they are even open about who found the exploit and how it was fixed in the updated software.

Are Microsoft as fast and as open with their information?

There's a perfectly logical reason why they're not, and it relates to the security holes you're talking about; it opens up a potential future hole. "Here's the problem, and here's how we solved it. We'll provide it to you, but please don't analyze it looking for any holes within the solution that could be exploited as well." Give black hat hackers the chance to do something like that, and eventually they'll jump right through that hoop just because they can.

Microsoft wanting security companies to let them know in advance is logical as well. If the security company lets Microsoft know in advance, they can solve the problem and provide the patch before a leak goes public and people try to exploit it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case. They're not trying to "hide" the issue...they're trying to solve it before it becomes a catastrophe.

Again, to put a parallel on it, one of us (we'll call him Bob) has designed a website with a database backend. At some point, there's an SQL statement to access the backend. Bob inadvertently ignored the SQL injection when he generated the SQL statement and someone found it by accident.

Would Bob rather have that someone tell him or have that information reported publicly so that anyone and everyone could see it and possibly exploit it? I'm pretty sure Bob would much rather have someone tell him privately so that he can fix it with minimal damage.

I should note that I'm no Microsoft apologist. There are MS products out there (FrontPage, for example) that I think are completely terrible, and there are certain policies out there that I may not agree with. However, if I have to pick between whether or not I'd want a commercial team of developers supporting my product vs. a team of volunteers, and there's a business logic behind it...I'm picking the commercial team every time.

Note: I have used Firefox myself, and personally, the only thing I've found about it that I prefer over IE is the Javascript debugger.

I find it takes up 4x the RAM IE does, renders a lot of things improperly despite code being perfectly valid (IE does as well, but I've found it's about about a 3:1 ratio between FF and IE in terms of what I would consider "bugs"), and you can't get the real Google toolbar for FF...you just get that ugly G one.

I'm not a fan of tabbed browsing, as I find I often want to have two pages beside each other on the screen and tabbed browsing doesn't allow for that, and I just find FF ugly in general to look at. I don't know why...it just doesn't appeal to me visually the way IE does.

FireFox...bad! IE...good!

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

Microsoft wanting security companies to let them know in advance is logical as well. If the security company lets Microsoft know in advance, they can solve the problem and provide the patch before a leak goes public and people try to exploit it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case. They're not trying to "hide" the issue...they're trying to solve it before it becomes a catastrophe.

Good point! I am very thankful that you posted this information as I have only been looking at pro-Firefox posts until now...

Everything you said re-inforces my fears about security and the ability to update Firefox. And for that reason, I am going to make IE my default browser once more. I prefer a professional team over a bunch of developers as well, although I've been hearing so many raves about Firefox that I thought I'd give it a shot. I like the tab browsing and the cleaner interface, but the whole thought of it having a bunch of security holes kinda ruins the fun...

Adam makes a good case - MS keeps closed about new breaches so that the hacker community will not know that they have discovered the flaw and will be able to stop it before it becomes a huge ordeal whereas Firefox broadcasts security holes loud and clear to their volunteers (and to anyone else for that matter).

Thanks, Adam, for the info... To anyone else who is stuck on the fork between IE and Firefox, I'd say stick with IE until the Firefox craze emotions wear off and the reality of constant updates and fixes wears in. If Firefox is able to keep up the pace over the next 12 months and not die out, then I will most likely re-think my stance on it.

Cheers,
Tim

[dvduval]

For some reason when I run Firefox my computer seems to run slower. Has anyone else experienced this? Or just me?

[angelpure]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

FireFox...bad! IE...good!

Amen Brother, I don't like the way FF looks, for that matter, I have never liked Netscape either. I have been a big fan of MS since the old DOS 3.0 days, so I guess you can say I am a little jaded.

However, having said that, I am always willing to try new things that are not MS. Like WordPerfect and Lotus.

Both really buggy in the beginning and Office was a lot easier to use. Most of the Fourtune 500 went with Office way back when it was Office 97 and most have stayed with it. Why? I think it's becuase it's easy to use and learn and the big 500's IT guys are always looking a new products and evaluating them.

There are some that use other products, not all of the big 500 use Office and Corel is getting some new attention with the big US Government contract they landed, but by and large MS is here to stay.

BTW, did I say I liked MS?

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by dvduval

For some reason when I run Firefox my computer seems to run slower. Has anyone else experienced this? Or just me?

It's not just you. See my 4x the resource comment from earlier. You aren't insane. Isn't that lovely? :)

angelpure: the problem with tha US Government contract is that Office is still installed on all of the same machines, so all it's doing is serving to put more software on the machines than is absolutely necessary to run them. And anyone who's ever done any IT work of any kind knows exactly what that means...CONFLICTS! Wonderful conflicts.

There's nothing wrong with trying new software, since that's how development and technological advances take place. The problem is that very few of the products actually are revolutionary and cause significant productive improvement.

supernatural_247: no problem. I'd be willing to do the same, but I don't see that happening. I'm reminded of another not-for-profit "open" directory project that seems to be taking a reputation beating of late.

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

supernatural_247: no problem. I'd be willing to do the same, but I don't see that happening. I'm reminded of another not-for-profit "open" directory project that seems to be taking a reputation beating of late.

Which not-for-profit "open" directory project would that be? Would it be DMOz? can't really think of any other big open directory project...

[ADAM Web Design]

That would be the one, yes.

[supernatural_247]

Where can I read up on what's going on with DMOz? It was always like a mystery project to me... lol... I submitted a few sites, but they never got added and I would hear bits and pieces about it and wish that my sites too could be like those other, lucky PR high sites... ;0

[mushroom]

If you are going to talk about security, IE and Firefox check the known facts;

IE6

Currently, 19 out of 80 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

http://secunia.com/product/11/

Firefox 1.x

Currently, 4 out of 17 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

http://secunia.com/product/4227/

NOTE: Some of the "Unpatched" advisories in IE6 date way back into 2003.

[ADAM Web Design]

That really doesn't establish much of anything.

In terms of scale, IE and FF are approx. even (23.5% unpatched for IE, 23.7% unpatched for FireFox).

MS may have released a workaround/patch for one or more "unsolved" issues in the Secunia database, and so too might FireFox.

And we're assuming that Secunia is actually correct (I have no reason to doubt it, but the possibility exists that they're wrong in at least one instance.)

Also, a lot of those "reports" aren't even written by people who wouldn't use their names. With all of the different third-party contributors (some of which hide behind the relative anonymity of an Internet alias), there's bound to be at least one or two mistakes either way.

So that's not "known fact". That's "snapshot of information as of a certain date/time with the possibility that work has either been performed since said date/time or information is incorrect." I'm not saying it is wrong...I'm saying it might no longer be accurate, and to present it as "known fact" is very misleading.

[a12c4magic]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

That's not a very fair statement for a few reasons:

1. With the large anti-Microsoft sentiment out there (justified or otherwise), there are subsequently a large number of people who would love to bring it down. As a result, no matter how many people Microsoft puts into development, someone somewhere is going to find something.
   

1. We aren't anti Microsoft out of 14 PC's here 6 are Windows only, 8 are dual/multiboot and 1 Apple Mac
   
   

   Obviously, it would be preferential to have all potential security holes/issues resolved before product release, but given the gigantic market Microsoft has to release to and the different ways in which people think, act and do things, that's in no way realistic.

   IE has no excuses for security breaches, Microsoft own the OS, they integrated the browser in to the OS claiming in courts that it could not be separated out. They have a huge market yes for their total product range, but IE doesn't have to integrate with anything else, everything else has to integrate with IE.
   
   IE only has to work on Windows and they build a version of it for Apple Mac. Firefox is available on more OS's than IE. The fact that Microsoft produce office and such like is irrelevant as they have different departments of coders working on those products. Their other products are also full of bugs.
   
   

   This argument is akin to saying "there's a lot more crime in the United States than there is in Ontario." Of course there is, because it's a much larger demographic. And without going deeply into politics, there are a lot more people who hate the US than Ontario.

   Irrelevant to this discussion, plus most crime in America is committed by Americans not by visitors to the country there is a large culture difference between the USA and Canada. Canada is larger still than the USA, but it's population is only a small percentage of the USA's. The cultural change is more so to here in the UK, but this point has nothing to do with web browsers.
   
   

   You have to expect problems, but as long as they're fixed and there's a department on it, that's all I care about.

   From the company that own the whole OS and can integrate their products fully in a manner that no other company can do they have no excuse for any problems? They have access to ALL the code. Are all the problems fixed? Some are still unfixed since prior to IE 4.0 and earlier. Microsoft don’t tell you anything about a problem unless it has been released in to the public domain, they are reactive not proactive.
   

   IE is not Microsoft's only product, but it is one of its few freely available products. Pretend you're Bill Gates standing in front of two customers. One of them has a copy of Office, and one a copy of IE. Both are bitching that they want the product fixed right away because they found some bug or hole in it. Who would you deal with first? I'll guarantee you 99 out of 100 of you would deal with the person with the Office copy in his/her hot little hand.

   Microsoft chose to integrate IE into the OS so they don't sell it as a separate product, but you are paying for it as part of your OS purchase. What you get for free online is the updates and new versions. It is possible to argue that you have paid for that ability when you first purchased the OS product.
   
   

   And what will happen with FireFox if and when it grows to seriously compete with IE (which it hasn't done yet...I'm sorry, but less than 10% market share doesn't even make Microsoft blink in response)? Will those same developers who are contributing to the project be around? Or will there be more? Or will those developers who gave of their time and money find paying clients/jobs to deal with? The resource simply won't be there, unless FF branches out into other things such as office suites, productivity software, games, consoles, etc. and then the same people who are on the FF bandwagon will turn around and be bitching at FF for selling out.

   FireFox is a project in itself, there is nothing to prevent it's developers from working on other products. Should Quark coders be forced to branch out because their product has limited use? No I hear you say because they are being payed for doing so. We have no way of knowing if Firefox, Gimp, Open Office or other coders are being payed for other work, short of asking them personally. Whether they are paid or not for producing FireFox is irrelevant, a cynic (not I) might argue that by getting businesses hooked on your software that is bug ridden you have a constant income from those buying the next version hoping it is better than the last version, all because it would be an unknown to change to something else. Corporate businesses and the public will continue with Microsoft IE and other products out of familiarity and their perceived ‘comfort zone’

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Firefox instead of being a huge corporation has instead a network of developers that respond very quickly to any problems with the browser. As they are a non-profit making organisation they have no hidden interest in stopping any flaws from being made public, unlike Microsoft that do not acknowledge flaws. Microsoft have even run down security companies making flaws public as irresponsible and have tried to insist that the security companies let them know in advance. Why does Microsoft need to do this if they are not trying to hide the issues altogether.

The open source community not only updates their software regularly they are even open about who found the exploit and how it was fixed in the updated software.

Are Microsoft as fast and as open with their information?

There's a perfectly logical reason why they're not, and it relates to the security holes you're talking about; it opens up a potential future hole. "Here's the problem, and here's how we solved it. We'll provide it to you, but please don't analyze it looking for any holes within the solution that could be exploited as well." Give black hat hackers the chance to do something like that, and eventually they'll jump right through that hoop just because they can.

Rubbish, the security holes are there, the security companies let the public and MS know about them. Are you saying that the 'hackers' are going to say here's the hole please plug it? If a security company has found the hole in the software then it's highly likely that a bunch of others have too. The security companies need to make their findings public to force Microsofts hand in to fixing the issues and to let the public and business worlds be aware of potential issues. The hackers that you talk about will be straight at trying to find another way in as soon as it is patched whether or not the security companies have made it public. The only secure PC is one that is not on the Internet or any LAN, take that a stage further the only secure PC is one that is switched off and has no power source available.

Microsoft wanting security companies to let them know in advance is logical as well. If the security company lets Microsoft know in advance, they can solve the problem and provide the patch before a leak goes public and people try to exploit it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case. They're not trying to "hide" the issue...they're trying to solve it before it becomes a catastrophe.

See above, they are trying to hide the issue from their users as the hackers you talk about will know of the holes in the software without being told by security companies.
Microsoft have a vested interest in financial terms of keeping security issues hidden. Open source does not. If you produce bad open source software then no one will use it. Your reputation as a programmer is diminished. No one except Microsoft know which of their developers have screwed up on their coding. With open source you do know who ultimately is responsible.

Off subject, it has recently been announced about a security hole in Office that allows password-protected documents to be opened without the password. Microsoft have reluctantly said it can't do anything to prevent it. I personally have known of this hole for over 10 years, I suspect there are many thousands of other who have too. It used to be worse in that you just needed to compare a blank new document to the password protected one and it gave you all the differences without being asked the password. At least now you have to open a decent text or HEX editor to be able to extract the document. In 10 years, shouldn't they of removed the feature completely? Think of all the businesses that leave password protected documents on hotel computers at conferences etc. When I showed a hotel 3500+ documents they had on their PC's they hit the panic button (10 years ago) especially when I could print off and show them all their clients confidential documents.

Again, to put a parallel on it, one of us (we'll call him Bob) has designed a website with a database backend. At some point, there's an SQL statement to access the backend. Bob inadvertently ignored the SQL injection when he generated the SQL statement and someone found it by accident.

Would Bob rather have that someone tell him or have that information reported publicly so that anyone and everyone could see it and possibly exploit it? I'm pretty sure Bob would much rather have someone tell him privately so that he can fix it with minimal damage.

Bob would no doubt, however, you are talking of one person's computer/server and millions being left open and not through their own fault but that of the software owners (MS still own the software you use, the end user is licensed to use it). There is a big difference between the end users incompetence and that of their software providers.

I should note that I'm no Microsoft apologist. There are MS products out there (FrontPage, for example) that I think are completely terrible, and there are certain policies out there that I may not agree with. However, if I have to pick between whether or not I'd want a commercial team of developers supporting my product vs. a team of volunteers, and there's a business logic behind it...I'm picking the commercial team every time.

I am no Microsoft basher either, however, in the above Word document example they never rectified how many others have not been fixed over the years in all of Microsofts software? If the issues are never made public you have no way of knowing that they have been fixed, nor any way of knowing there are issues that you have to protect yourself from. Microsofts customers then are led in to a false feeling of security as they believe the problems are fixed before any of their information or an entire computer was hijacked.

Note: I have used Firefox myself, and personally, the only thing I've found about it that I prefer over IE is the Javascript debugger.

I find it takes up 4x the RAM IE does, renders a lot of things improperly despite code being perfectly valid (IE does as well, but I've found it's about about a 3:1 ratio between FF and IE in terms of what I would consider "bugs"), and you can't get the real Google toolbar for FF...you just get that ugly G one.

Strange we have removed the Google toolbar here, also we have no problems with it's speed or resource usage. Then again we don't have any problems with IE in it's usage or of Opera. We don't use Netscape out of personal choice. IE is not ‘standards’ compliant and so pages written to use IE’s none standard features will not work correctly on other browsers. Just because a browser is the dominant one in the market does not make it the standard there is a standards committee that decide the Internet standards.

I'm not a fan of tabbed browsing, as I find I often want to have two pages beside each other on the screen and tabbed browsing doesn't allow for that, and I just find FF ugly in general to look at. I don't know why...it just doesn't appeal to me visually the way IE does.

That's called individual taste. Some people find Ferraris attractive some find them ugly. Without a range to choose from there is no personal choice? It is the same with anything in life and especially in computers.

FireFox...bad! IE...good!

You can turn tabbed browsing off, or still open in a new window, Oddly enough IE 7.0 is due to have tabbed browsing. Hurray for having a choice in this world!

[ADAM Web Design]

Wow, talk about misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

We aren't anti Microsoft out of 14 PC's here 6 are Windows only, 8 are dual/multiboot and 1 Apple Mac

I never said you specifically were. I merely said there were people out there that were and would do anything to bring MS down. And that's not a small number.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

IE has no excuses for security breaches, Microsoft own the OS, they integrated the browser in to the OS claiming in courts that it could not be separated out. They have a huge market yes for their total product range, but IE doesn't have to integrate with anything else, everything else has to integrate with IE.

IE only has to work on Windows and they build a version of it for Apple Mac. Firefox is available on more OS's than IE. The fact that Microsoft produce office and such like is irrelevant as they have different departments of coders working on those products. Their other products are also full of bugs.

Again, this goes back to the size of the market. As anyone who has done any programming will tell you, it's impossible to predict what people will do all of the time and bugs will result, particularly when that market is the size of the market MS is dealing with.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Irrelevant to this discussion, plus most crime in America is committed by Americans not by visitors to the country there is a large culture difference between the USA and Canada. Canada is larger still than the USA, but it's population is only a small percentage of the USA's. The cultural change is more so to here in the UK, but this point has nothing to do with web browsers.

Actually, it was an illustrative example. It wasn't meant to provide direct relevance, but merely a different way to look at the same thing.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

From the company that own the whole OS and can integrate their products fully in a manner that no other company can do they have no excuse for any problems? They have access to ALL the code. Are all the problems fixed? Some are still unfixed since prior to IE 4.0 and earlier. Microsoft don’t tell you anything about a problem unless it has been released in to the public domain, they are reactive not proactive.

Again, there's a perfectly logical reason for this, but I'll discuss it below.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Microsoft chose to integrate IE into the OS so they don't sell it as a separate product, but you are paying for it as part of your OS purchase. What you get for free online is the updates and new versions. It is possible to argue that you have paid for that ability when you first purchased the OS product.

I don't see that as being the reason at all. IE isn't the only program that comes with Windows. There are other tools that come with the program. There's a calculator, a word processor, a paint program, an email client, etc. And no one bitches at Microsoft for integrating these products into its OS. Why? Because there are better alternatives out there. And those alternatives are generally paid alternatives, whereas MS's versions that come with Windows are free. And when those products gain next to no market share (e.g. Corel WordPerfect), do we go bitching because Office dominated the market? I don't hear that argument spread around anywhere near as much.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

FireFox is a project in itself, there is nothing to prevent it's developers from working on other products. Should Quark coders be forced to branch out because their product has limited use? No I hear you say because they are being payed for doing so. We have no way of knowing if Firefox, Gimp, Open Office or other coders are being payed for other work, short of asking them personally. Whether they are paid or not for producing FireFox is irrelevant, a cynic (not I) might argue that by getting businesses hooked on your software that is bug ridden you have a constant income from those buying the next version hoping it is better than the last version, all because it would be an unknown to change to something else. Corporate businesses and the public will continue with Microsoft IE and other products out of familiarity and their perceived ‘comfort zone’

Again, you've missed the point completely. The developers in question could be paid for working other projects, yes. But what matters in this case is whether or not they're paid for working on this project. If they're not paid to work on FireFox and they are paid for working on other things, other things will always take priority and justifiably so.

The point is that FireFox cannot sustain growth as a free project and at some point will have to be injected with a commmercial element. At that point, it will fail.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Rubbish, the security holes are there, the security companies let the public and MS know about them. Are you saying that the 'hackers' are going to say here's the hole please plug it? If a security company has found the hole in the software then it's highly likely that a bunch of others have too. The security companies need to make their findings public to force Microsofts hand in to fixing the issues and to let the public and business worlds be aware of potential issues. The hackers that you talk about will be straight at trying to find another way in as soon as it is patched whether or not the security companies have made it public. The only secure PC is one that is not on the Internet or any LAN, take that a stage further the only secure PC is one that is switched off and has no power source available.

And that's exactly why MS shouldn't publish the info. Why make a hacker aware of what they know/don't know, especially by publishing the source code that allows the hacker to read it and potentially exploit it further?

What the security companies are doing is actually compounding the problem for the end user. By publishing the information on vulnerabilities, they're alerting those who might not otherwise be aware of it to the problem, which means those who would choose to exploit and wouldn't otherwise be aware of it can freely do so. Seems to me that a company who is truly concerned about the privacy and well-being of others (i.e. a security company) wouldn't go around doing something like that.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

See above, they are trying to hide the issue from their users as the hackers you talk about will know of the holes in the software without being told by security companies.

See above. There are those that wouldn't.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Microsoft have a vested interest in financial terms of keeping security issues hidden. Open source does not. If you produce bad open source software then no one will use it. Your reputation as a programmer is diminished. No one except Microsoft know which of their developers have screwed up on their coding. With open source you do know who ultimately is responsible.

So what? You don't know which guy at a bank screwed up when they bounce a cheque that should have cleared. You don't know who cooks your food in the back of a restaurant unless you're seated near the kitchen. You don't know a lot of things in this world. It would be nice to know them, but sometimes you can't.

And if a developer screwed up, Microsoft can perform some revolutionary management procedures like firing and terminating contracts. Whether they do or not, I don't know, and I don't care. The point is that they have avenues as well.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Off subject, it has recently been announced about a security hole in Office that allows password-protected documents to be opened without the password. Microsoft have reluctantly said it can't do anything to prevent it. I personally have known of this hole for over 10 years, I suspect there are many thousands of other who have too. It used to be worse in that you just needed to compare a blank new document to the password protected one and it gave you all the differences without being asked the password. At least now you have to open a decent text or HEX editor to be able to extract the document. In 10 years, shouldn't they of removed the feature completely? Think of all the businesses that leave password protected documents on hotel computers at conferences etc. When I showed a hotel 3500+ documents they had on their PC's they hit the panic button (10 years ago) especially when I could print off and show them all their clients confidential documents.

And with 3500+ documents, no one thought to apply any security measures to the directory, rather than the files? And if these files were to be transported, why not just zip them up and put passwords on the ZIP files? There are ways around that issue as well. And the last time I checked, Word was a word processor, which means that its primary intent is not to be accessing things in the public domain, unlike IE.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Again, to put a parallel on it, one of us (we'll call him Bob) has designed a website with a database backend. At some point, there's an SQL statement to access the backend. Bob inadvertently ignored the SQL injection when he generated the SQL statement and someone found it by accident.

Would Bob rather have that someone tell him or have that information reported publicly so that anyone and everyone could see it and possibly exploit it? I'm pretty sure Bob would much rather have someone tell him privately so that he can fix it with minimal damage.

Bob would no doubt, however, you are talking of one person's computer/server and millions being left open and not through their own fault but that of the software owners (MS still own the software you use, the end user is licensed to use it). There is a big difference between the end users incompetence and that of their software providers.
[/quote]
And what if Bob were storing user information on his website? By going public, you've exposed all of those users as well as Bob. Depending on how popular Bob's site is, that could be a lot of people that now have their info in jeopardy because of it.

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

Just because a browser is the dominant one in the market does not make it the standard there is a standards committee that decide the Internet standards.

This is something I've always found a little asinine. I'm not going to go listening to the 'standards' put forth by a 'committee'. I'm going to base my 'standards' on those set forth by the end users of the websites I build. And if that means ignoring some of the W3's protocols, or ignoring 'W3 standards' to accomplish my goals, then hell's bells that's what I'm going to do.

Ultimately, though, this little disagreement between you and I really doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't, and neither does mine. What ultimately matters is the opinion of the collective user base. And they've decided that IE (and MS products in general) is the way to go.

[a12c4magic]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

Wow, talk about misinterpretation.

I wouldn't say it is misinterpretation I was merely pointing out my stance which isn't anti Microsoft. Then giving my opinions on other points of view.

Ultimately, though, this little disagreement between you and I really doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't, and neither does mine. What ultimately matters is the opinion of the collective user base. And they've decided that IE (and MS products in general) is the way to go.[/quote]

You are correct, neither of our views will change these issues very much by themselves, however, the collective user base is on the whole fairly ignorant of such things. The number of my husbands clients that do not know how to reinstall Windows yet alone how to repair a damaged system without using their suppliers restore disk is quite frightening. How would you expect them to undesratand about Internet security/ Firewalls/ anti virus etc.

Many people do not even know of other web browsers such as FireFox, Opera, Netscape, Mozilla they only find out by magazines or articles on TV news etc. the fact that most users on this forum are probably more aware of what products are available than the average end user. As a result many will never venture away from the one they have installed with their OS, which just happens to be IE. Just as many never venture away from Outlook Express or even Windows itself.

Just because something is the market leader does not make it the best in computers or any field. Using an analogy of automobiles once more, some would say feraris are the best car, however, they are certainly not the market leader. GM certainly where the market leader worldwide and they produce many middle of the road/ bland products. It's not to say their products don't suit the masses, because they evidently do!

It is down to personal choice and opinion as per so many choices in life. However, having the other products available is what gives people that choice. IMHO if Microsoft weren't watching what the other software makers produce then IE 7.0 wouldn't be getting tabbed browsing (something you dislike)

It is also IMHO a very bad idea to have a web browser so intergrated into the OS as once someone has used a security hole in the browser they then have full access to the OS. That is just my view though and I will no doubt continue to use and test across a wide series of web browsers and across platforms other than those sold by Microsoft.

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

This is something I've always found a little asinine. I'm not going to go listening to the 'standards' put forth by a 'committee'. I'm going to base my 'standards' on those set forth by the end users of the websites I build. And if that means ignoring some of the W3's protocols, or ignoring 'W3 standards' to accomplish my goals, then hell's bells that's what I'm going to do.

Amen, brother!! Before visiting this forum, I'd never heard of W3 before in my life, nor the great complications and frustrations that come with trying to meet this organization's "standards".

I try as much as I can to make my sites accessible by everyone. However, I have my own time to think about as well as the site's purpose. Also, that article about being sued if your website is innaccessible is completely BS. If anyone sues me, I'll sue them for being a ****head. I state it perfectly clear in the TOS that I have full rights to do what I wish with my sites and that it is a "priviledge" - not a right - to use/access my sites. Now, this may sound a bit anal and/or mean, but the truth is, I'm not gonna spend all my time making a version of my site (which is huge) just for blind people. I use ALT tags and that's good enough.

a12c4magic -- I find it very ironic that you bash Microsoft for putting restrictions on freedom of choice, yet you stand behind a committee that sets its own standards of how the web should work, thus eliminating my freedom of choice as a designer.

The reason why we will always have conflict and arguments is due to differences of opinion. You have people who like MS, and those who dislike. You have control freaks and then you have rebellious creative freaks like me who don't give a **** about the nitty gritty lines of code and such. It ain't worth losing your hair or time over.

Cheers,
Tim

[a12c4magic]

[quote="supernatural_247"

a12c4magic -- I find it very ironic that you bash Microsoft for putting restrictions on freedom of choice, yet you stand behind a committee that sets its own standards of how the web should work, thus eliminating my freedom of choice as a designer.
[/quote]

I didn't realise I had been bashing Microsoft, only giving my opinion on the relative differences between Microsoft and the open source community at how they approach updating their products for security reasons. It is the very fact that there are other web browsers, office packages, graphics programs and desktop publishing that actually gives users a choice. However if you design a website that takes advantage of some of the none standard features available to IE then you have to accept that the site won't work on other browsers and possibly other OS's as a result. As you state that is your choice and it's good that you can make that choice. I personally would prefer to have a site that I am not going to lose 5-10 % of my viewers (In Windows) or a lot more should they be choosing a different OS.

At no point have I bashed Microsoft on the features and abilities of their software, after all I am using Windows presently, however, I have given my opinion that I do not agree with their approach to security within their products. Netscape also was renowned for adding none standard features in the past and I don't use Netscape because I don't like it, there are still a number of people that prefer Netscape and I wouldn't deride them for their choice.

On Windows we use:

Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera

Linux:

Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Nautilus

Mac:

Internet Explorer, Opera, Firefox

[ADAM Web Design]

That is incorrect. There are ways to code non-W3-standard and proprietary stuff that looks pretty cool and degrades nicely enough so as not to get rid of the 5-10% of alternate browser users (by the way, from looking at site stats for the Canadian-based sites on which I work, that 5-10% is actually closer to 5 than it is 10. But I digress.)

Anyway, for an example of something that looks cool in IE and okay in everything else:

http://www.tscst.org/content.asp?PID=11

As you can see, down the right are three plain text headers in H3 tags. I've set up the H3 tags to take advantage of Microsoft's proprietary gradient filter, just to bring them out a bit more. In FF and other browsers, they see a plain green background.

Is that likely to scare off the 5% of FF users? I don't think so. They just won't get the full benefit of what an IE user will, and I can accept that.

Does the site still work? Yes, it does.

Why isn't there any "web-standard" CSS to code a gradient? Or for that matter, a drop shadow, or an outer glow, or some of the other cool filters MSIE has that the other browsers don't. Yes, these same things could be done in Photoshop and made into images and saved for the web using ImageReady and etc. and so on, but in doing so, the load time of a page is increased. In some cases, that load time increase can be quite significant.

There are also times when I've used an iframe to present information from another site because it fit what I was trying to accomplish, whereas "standards-compliant code" didn't. The end users liked it each time I used it, and that's all I care about.

I really don't give a damn if I impress the W3 or Jeffrey Zeldman (who is indirectly responsible for influencing the mentality of some of the most clueless people to ever enter the field of web design) or anyone else I've never met and probably never will meet. I give a damn about whether my clients are making money or not, and as long as they are, I'll keep doing what I'm doing and to hell with those who don't like it.

[supernatural_247]

Originally Posted by a12c4magic

I personally would prefer to have a site that I am not going to lose 5-10 % of my viewers (In Windows) or a lot more should they be choosing a different OS.

I noticed that you are using OS Commerce above all other shopping cart solutions available to you. OS Commerce does not have the best browser compatibility on earth, so why would you pick it?

Adam - I would have never dreamed of creating a drop-shadow or fancy effects with CSS as I've done everything with Photoshop. Load time for www.iHomeConnect.com is not that much so I prefer to use images... I got a load time of 35.78 secs for a user on a 56k modem... (a ranking of 4/10 on www.sitereportcard.com ). So it's a tad large, but so far everyone has been able to access it as far as I know of. In certain areas where we've gotten complaints, I have streamlined it so that it works now -- and faster! When you've got a site with tons of info, you can only do your best when it comes to things such as accessibility and load time.

[mushroom]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

There are ways to code non-W3-standard and proprietary stuff that looks pretty cool and degrades nicely enough so as not to get rid of the 5-10% of alternate browser users (by the way, from looking at site stats for the Canadian-based sites on which I work, that 5-10% is actually closer to 5 than it is 10.

And what happens when a new browser or a browser up-date brakes your non-standard code?

Standards are there to be followed any any one that is not following them is begging for trouble.

And have you not read the news about all the govenments and corporations that are switching to open source, that 5-10% will be growing.

I am proud to say I am a Linux user and will not use a Microsoft product on the internet.

[Burf.com]

I agree with these

Firefox has popup blocking as well as tab browsing
It’s quicker than IE at rendering pages
It has less security holes than IE
It’s multi platform – works with many different operating systems
It has excellent extensions that can be freely downloaded
It has better support for html / css etc standards


I would say though
Firefox does use alot of memory and is slow to load up at first
Seems to have problems running on 2003 server

[a12c4magic]

Originally Posted by supernatural_247

I noticed that you are using OS Commerce above all other shopping cart solutions available to you. OS Commerce does not have the best browser compatibility on earth, so why would you pick it?

This is off topic, however I chose osCommerce because I'm new to PHP and osCommerce have an excellent support forum. I am aware that osCommerce can render differently on various web browsers, however I have tested it on several browsers across different OS's and there is nothing that I have found that doesn't work that I am concerned about, or that I believe would prevent users from using my site. osCommerce allowed me to build a shopping cart without prior knowledge and excellent support from the previously mentioned forum without costing me anything except time and patience (no license fee for software that I may only use once)

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by mushroom

And what happens when a new browser or a browser up-date brakes your non-standard code?

Hasn't happened yet, and it probably won't. And if you had bothered to look at the example I'd provided (which you clearly didn't), then you'd realize there is a "standards-compliant" alternative for those who can't see the effect in question.

Originally Posted by mushroom

Standards are there to be followed. Any one that is not following them is begging for trouble.

And if we're all so busy "following", then where do leadership and new standards come into play? Do we have to rely on some committee most of us will never have any access to or input into in order to help establish newer and better standards?

Originally Posted by mushroom

And have you not read the news about all the govenments and corporations that are switching to open source, that 5-10% will be growing.

I elect not to read news due to the large number of biased sources out there and the bits and pieces of information that are distorted and conveniently left out in order to fill a story.

As far as what "governments" and corporations are doing, I go by what I've seen, not what I've read. And I happen to be unique in that I have clients who fall under both categories.

I'll provide you with some stats on what's actually being used from my clients (percentages):

Open source packages being used: 0%.
Non-IE browsers: < 1% (two people who use Netscape).
Non-Microsoft productivity suites being used: < 1% (one of my clients uses Lotus Organizer, which is part of SmartSuite, and that comprises the percentage figure.)

It's like that US government story that was going around about how the Corel office suite was being installed on all of the government machines and everyone was all excited because this meant the downfall of Microsoft and the US government was going to stick it to them and...oh wait. That's not gonna happen. They still need to keep and use MS Office on all of the machines because that's what most of the people that they deal with have as well.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea (and I imagine some might by now), I am the first person to encourage multiple choices and a competitive marketplace. I would love to see someone take on Microsoft on any level and pose a real competitive threat. The problem is that the angles that peopla are pursuing just aren't viable alternatives.

For the masses (not you, me, and any one of us as individuals):

There are no better browsers.
There are no better productivity suites.
There are no better OSes.

And if someone out there doesn't like this, then I challenge him/her to really do something about it.

I don't mean bitch and moan and whine and post about how MS Word has this problem and IE has this problem.

I mean go out there and build an OS. Build a productivity suite. Build a browser. Test your products among average people. Grow your company. Have people hate your company. Have people try to attack your company and find major security holes. And if any of you out there can do that, I will be one of the first ones to buy your product. Until then...keep it to yourselves. The only people listening are the ones who are firing the same BS back at you anyway.

supernatural_247: there are a lot of IE CSS proprietary filters (although some are kinda crappy). Look them up sometime. Some of them can do some pretty cool stuff.

[a12c4magic]

Originally Posted by ADAMWebDesign

I mean go out there and build an OS. Build a productivity suite. Build a browser. Test your products among average people. Grow your company. Have people hate your company. Have people try to attack your company and find major security holes. And if any of you out there can do that, I will be one of the first ones to buy your product. Until then...keep it to yourselves. The only people listening are the ones who are firing the same BS back at you anyway.

I don't think Microsoft or Apple or any OS writers give the OS to average people to test. It isn't in their interest to do so as the average user won't know how to report bugs/faults. Betas of Windows and Windows applications are sent out to a very restricted audience for appraisal. Hence why Windows has various betas followed by the RC's (release candidates) which still aren't released to average users to test. Despite this controlled environment bugs and security holes still get through! They probably always will and the reason is not due to poor testing but down to the size and complexity of the problem.

I am not an Apple Mac fan but do use them on occasion, if you'd believe what you read then the most secure (read least attacked) OS is currently OS X/Darwin. If that fact hadn't escaped you, then you will also realise that OS X is derived from Unix/BSD, without a lot of input from Microsoft. As stated earlier biggest is not always the best.

On another part of the topic, which seems to have wandered from being what is good about Firefox into a complete melee. Some financial institutions (in the UK) have had to change their websites as they refused to work on anything except IE. As they received enough complaints about this they have chosen to alter their sites to work with other browsers, financial organizations don't like to do things that cost money without a reason, one might expect that they did so as they were concerned about losing some of their customers, even if it was only a small percentage.

Microsoft haven't just added CSS filters they have also added to Java, a language they do not even own or control, leading to a legal wrangle with Sun microsystems.

IE is a good browser for the user that likes to keep things 'as out the box' let's all be honest here and say that a high proportion of users will NEVER try anything else than what their computer is supplied with. After all how did MS-DOS become so widely used. It was because it came supplied on most PC's

All the time there is an alternative to use that 'might' tempt the more adventurous users away. Microsoft or who ever the market leader in that field, will develop their software to stay ahead of their competition.

[supernatural_247]

Well, it's obvious that this thread has indeed turned into a melee and has totally gone in directions I was not expecting. IF you all wish to keep debating to the point of no return, I have begun a new thread entitled: Firefox vs. Explorer. Or keep posting here if you wish.

Thanks to all who have answered my questions - your info (and even personal opinions) have been most helpful.

Cheers,
Tim

[premtech]

Untill we get some serious regulation on web coding and browser standards ...they all are crap....cross browser design..the bane of a web designer.... at least Firefox is trying hard to set a standard by attempting to follow W3C guidelines