Firefox Myths

[1veedo]

Haha Klaynos. Gnome confusing me with the tob bar thing. Or I'd use it.

2) Fx uses a system that, althougha little slower than hopes, provides the ability too have a full extension system - well work the delay I think.

Although a bad syllogism, as herme3 would say!

I was a little interested in the fact that they said Firefox requiring more system resources was a bad thing. Normally the best programs required the most system resources. If people like programs that use few system resources, they should go back to using DOS for their operating system.

[Mastertech]

I dont have the link right now but firefox is faster rendering[/i']. In other words you click a link and the page will be loaded faster. They're argumetn that IE is faster is that IE takes less time to load on startup. This is true but the claim that fiefox started faster has never been made.* IE is part of the Windows OS and taking up memory even when you're not using it.

How did you miss read that Myth? Check the source. IE is faster then Firefox in everything but script speed and IE is SIGNIFICANTLY faster from a cold start.

[Mastertech]

People should really make more notice - trusing sources like that one could cause people more problems than are nessisary.

What? All the information is properly sourced. Informing people only does good. I'm personally tired of the exaggerations about FF and happy to see these debunked.

 

I love the Firefox is a Solution to Spyware[/i'] one, since I have been suing Firefox not one infestation of adware, I use the same sites, smae software coincidence?

I use IE 24/7 and never get infected with Spyware.

 

Myth - "Firefox was the first Web Browser to offer Tabbed Browsing"[/i'] No-one ever said it was :S

Come on everyone who hypes it acts like it is something new that only FF has.

 

Myth - "Firefox is faster than Internet Explorer"

Again' date=' I've never heared it was even though it almost is.[/quote']Come on you never heard this either? The look at the button at the top of the page that says Firefox - Safer, Faster, Better. This was a common promotion.

 

Thats the end of my rant but read the other article if you really are objective and don't want to belive all that crap in the posted article.

Don't want to believe? Huh? Read the sources and look at the Data. The author of your link has an agenda. Look at his pages with IE and look at the BS warnings he added.

[bascule]

There is a lot of hype surrounding Firefox and as a web developer it drives me absolutely insane.

 

For example there's no sane errors about malformed XSLT (when using XSLTProcessor), instead you get something to the effect of NS_COMPONENT_FAILURE 0x342030209403290. Also at some point XSLT we had working in Firefox 1.0.x stopped working even though it continues to work in 1.5.

 

I also like how trying to use .innerHTML in an application/xhtml+xml document returns a similar NS_COMPONENT_FAILURE. In my case it was buried under layers of abstraction. Ruby on Rails' link_to_remote function embeds a JavaScript function that uses .innerHTML. I searched for nearly a half hour trying to decode the cryptic error message before finally discovering that application/xhtml+xml, link_to_remote, and Firefox are simply incompatible.

 

Sadly this behavior is NOT to specifications (the assignment should return false if the fragment fails to parse, behavior that works beautifully in Opera)

 

I'm still yet to confirm if Firefox 1.5 has the same problem...

 

Anyway that's about 1% of my frustration with Firefox as a web developer. Seriously, even with its non-standard box model I have less trouble with IE, especially regarding features like XSLT.

[RyanJ]

Don't want to believe? Huh? Read the sources and look at the Data. The

author of your link has an agenda. Look at his pages with IE and look

at the BS warnings he added.

 

Information can be presented in one way or another' date=' the sources mean nothing. There are true sources out there.

 

The one about Firefox being not more secure - WHAT THE HELL? they showed the firefox exploits yes it has some but did they bother too show the IE ones? I think not.

 

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

 

 

One down.

 

One more thing, look for alternate sources as they guy shows ONE side of the argument and the suthor of the artcile I posted is not bias, his work will be used in a number of books in the future, a few about web development and a few about security issues.

 

Don't want to believe? Huh? Read the sources and look at the Data. The

author of your link has an agenda. Look at his pages with IE and look

at the BS warnings he added.

 

Using reliable sources and showing botrh sides fair enough, that guy

shows thing too pick at FIrefox, nothing bad asbout IE in there and

thats no co-incidence, in the link I posted do you see anyhting saying Firefox is perfect because thats basically what the guy on that artcile is trying too say.

 

There is no point debating it the article is one sided and bias. The

new Fx 1.5 version is much faster than it was and with an enhancemen that does too it what IE has done automatically, preloading, it if faster than IE.

 

Once again, look for a non-bais article and one that covers both sides

of the argument, no-one ever said Firefox was perfect but Firefox is

shure as hell a lot better than IE.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Klaynos]

There is a lot of hype surrounding Firefox and as a web developer it drives me absolutely insane.

 

For example there's no sane errors about malformed XSLT (when using XSLTProcessor)' date=' instead you get something to the effect of NS_COMPONENT_FAILURE 0x342030209403290. Also at some point XSLT we had working in Firefox 1.0.x stopped working even though it continues to work in 1.5.

 

I also like how trying to use .innerHTML in an application/xhtml+xml document returns a similar NS_COMPONENT_FAILURE. In my case it was buried under layers of abstraction. Ruby on Rails' link_to_remote function embeds a JavaScript function that uses .innerHTML. I searched for nearly a half hour trying to decode the cryptic error message before finally discovering that application/xhtml+xml, link_to_remote, and Firefox are simply incompatible.

 

Sadly this behavior is NOT to specifications (the assignment should return false if the fragment fails to parse, behavior that works beautifully in Opera)

 

I'm still yet to confirm if Firefox 1.5 has the same problem...

 

Anyway that's about 1% of my frustration with Firefox as a web developer. Seriously, even with its non-standard box model I have less trouble with IE, especially regarding features like XSLT.[/quote']

 

 

Did you file a bug report/look for it in their bugzilla? If not don't expect it to be fixed.

 

Just saying FireFox has X problems does not mean that IE>FireFox, it just means that it isn't perfect and noone said it was hence why it's still in development. Comparatively the advantages of firefox greatly outway internet explorer in every well thought out and constructed arguments I have seen.

[Mastertech]

The one about Firefox being not more secure - WHAT THE HELL?

Did you read? The Myth says: "Firefox is a Secure Web Browser" Not Firefox is MORE secure.

 

One more thing, look for alternate sources as they guy shows ONE side of the argument and the suthor of the artcile I posted is not bias, his work will be used in a number of books in the future, a few about web development and a few about security issues.

He is incredibly biased.

 

Using reliable sources and showing botrh sides fair enough' date=' that guy shows thing too pick at FIrefox, nothing bad asbout IE in there and

thats no co-incidence, in the link I posted do you see anyhting saying Firefox is perfect because thats basically what the guy on that artcile is trying too say.[/quote']It is a Firefox Myths page. It is not about Internet Explorer. You seem to have a problem comprehending what the page is about.

 

There is no point debating it the article is one sided and bias. The new Fx 1.5 version is much faster than it was and with an enhancemen that does too it what IE has done automatically, preloading, it if faster than IE.

No it is not. You see you are just making stuff up again. No wonder the author made this page. The source clearly shows Firefox v1.5 is NOT faster then IE 6.0.

 

Once again, look for a non-bais article and one that covers both sides of the argument, no-one ever said Firefox was perfect but Firefox is shure as hell a lot better than IE.

That's your opinion but this page is not about which is better, only about what people make up about Firefox as you have just clearly demonstrated.

[Klaynos]

No it is not. You see you are just making stuff up again. No wonder the author made this page. The source clearly shows Firefox v1.5 is NOT faster then IE 6.0.

 

But that page is not about IE ffs, you can't have it both ways.

 

I think RyanJ and others problem here is this is a DEEPLY abstract view of what people say about browsers, they don't say that Firefox is a 100% secure browser which is what the article indicates is said they just say (and are backed up by the evidence) that FireFox is MORE secure than IE.

 

All these things are about comparasons not about perfection as no browser is perfect ffs...

[Mastertech]

But that page is not about IE ffs, you can't have it both ways.

Are all the Myths FF vs IE? No, so try not to jump to conclusions. The page simply reiterrates the most commonly said Myths on the Internet. SOME of which happen to be IE and FF related. This does not make the page a comparison.

 

I think RyanJ and others problem here is this is a DEEPLY abstract view of what people say about browsers' date=' they don't say that Firefox is a 100% secure browser which is what the article indicates is said they just say (and are backed up by the evidence) that FireFox is MORE secure than IE.

 

All these things are about comparasons not about perfection as no browser is perfect ffs...[/quote']What you do hear from alot of people is that Firefox is secure and IE is not. More informed users say it is more secure but they never mention any of the vulnerabilities. So yes they can't have it both ways. If all the Firefox users are so concerned about security they should be using Opera anyway. This page is not for informed users but all of the uninformed users who are the ones saying the Myths to begin with.

[Klaynos]

It needs to be more precise and have better sources if it is for uninformed users so they can fully understand it. I dislike the way it says things like "it have vunrebilities therefore it is unsecure".

[Mastertech]

"multiple unpatched vulnerabilities"

 

And yes that means it is unsecure. No way around that.

[Klaynos]

"multiple unpatched vulnerabilities"

 

And yes that means it is unsecure. No way around that.

 

No it means that there are multiple unpatched vulnerabilites. If tehre are attacks in the wild THAT means it is insecure, if the vulnerabilities are not infact allowing anyone to do anyting atm that is not a security risk.

 

AND it is a comparative thing FireFox has less vlnerabilites than IE so is MORE secure than IE. That is a simple known fact.

[Dak]

"multiple unpatched vulnerabilities"

 

And yes that means [FF] is unsecure. No way around that.

'Secure' isn't an absolute, otherwize the phrase 'absolutely secure' would be redundant and non-sensical.

 

Despite the security flaws firefox is more secure than not, and -- for a variety of reasons -- more secure than IE, thus the phrase 'secure web-browser' is applicable to FF.

 

'100% secure web-browser' is not applicable to FF... which may explain why I have never heard it applied to FF.

[Mastertech]

That is absurd. You can prove that there are no attacks in the wild? Come on. A vulnerability means exactly what is said. That the browser is vulnerable.

 

thus the phrase 'secure web-browser' is applicable to FF.

No it isn't. See you are proving exactly why this page is a great idea.

[RyanJ]

That is absurd. You can prove that there are no attacks in the wild? Come on. A vulnerability means exactly what is said. That the browser is vulnerable.

 

How can you prove there are? There have been none confirmed because no-one has reported them - thats how they find that out.

 

And we are stating that Firefox is more secure and less vulnerable than IE is - there is no denying it.

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

No it isn't.

 

Would you care to justify that.

[Mastertech]

You cannot call a browser a "Secure Web Browser" if it has existing security vulnerabilities.

[RyanJ]

You cannot call a browser a "Secure Web Browser" if it has existing security vulnerabilities.

 

It is secure in that it is FAR mre secure than IE and thats the context in which its used and so it IS correct for that.

 

Ryan Jones

[penagate]

You cannot call a browser a "Secure Web Browser" if it has existing security vulnerabilities.

Could you define a "secure browser" then?

[Klaynos]

Would you care to justify that.

 

Then no piece of software is secure because there is always the possibiliy of a vunerability being found and most have some anyway.

 

Also I hope you don't have any money in a bank because that is obviousely not secure and hiding it in your draws is a FAR better idead... ffs...

[RyanJ]

Then no piece of software is secure because there is always the possibiliy of a vunerability being found and most have some anyway.

 

Also I hope you don't have any money in a bank because that is obviousely not secure and hiding it in your draws is a FAR better idead... ffs...

 

True but that does not stop us using the words more or less does it? When its defined as secure it is being defined as being relative too another browser, in most cases Internet Exploiter, and therfor is acceptible right?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[penagate]

I use IE 24/7 and never get infected with Spyware.

Does the course of your internet voyaging stretch beyond your website and this forum?

 

Also, you have very nicely cited your sources for all the myth "debunkings", but where on earth did you get the actual myths from? Most of them are absurd claims, of course you can easily blow them off.

 

Like for example,

"Firefox is Bug Free",

"Firefox was the first Web Browser to offer Tabbed Browsing",

"Firefox fully Supports W3C Standards",

Firefox works with every Web Page"...

 

... I've never heard any of those claims made.

 

Oh and if you use IE 24/7 and you're so supportive of it, then what is the Firefox ad on your page for

[Mastertech]

A secure web browser would have no known unpatched vulnerabilities. You can say firefox is a MORE secure web browser but you cannot say it is a Secure one.

[penagate]

A secure web browser would have no known unpatched vulnerabilities. You can say firefox is a MORE secure web browser but you cannot say it is a Secure one.

In that case no browser is secure... so what's your point?

[RyanJ]

A secure web browser would have no known unpatched vulnerabilities. You can say firefox is a MORE secure web browser but you cannot say it is a Secure one.

 

EXACTLY! That is the context in which it is used so you just defeted your own argument then? I don't recall anyone every saying "Firefox is 100% secure" - Firefox is secure compared with IE and so its a vaid statement.

 

Ryan Jones