IE/FF? « Giveaway of the Day Forums

Back to Giveaway of the Day

Giveaway of the Day Forums » Software Talks

IE/FF?

(47 posts) (13 voices)

Started 17 years ago by crud3w4re
Latest reply from BuBBy

« Previous 12

BillW50
Member

For starters, I disagree that most people don't know that the security sliders exist under Internet Explorer. And yes, a setting of high does lock down IE and does make it secure. Which a lot of supposed experts claim that can't be done. So it is generally the FF zealots are the ones that are clueless, not the IE users IMHO. And yes, a setting of high does lock out useful things from happening too. Well no problem there. If you trust the site, no problem adding it to a trusted zone, now is there?

And why do you have a problem with me stating that FF has its own share of security problems and then you list Security Advisories to back up my claim? What was that about?

You claim I do know better because I don't use IE. Well that isn't totally true. One computer I have, I only have IE7 installed on it for testing purposes. There are no other browsers installed on this computer. Plus I do use other people's computers all of the time and most of them also only have IE installed too. And if I had a choice of using either FF or IE6/7, I'd use the latter. But then again, I do know better and I know the truth about FireFox as well. Unlike most FireFox users themselves.

You claim you don't see any big deal about Maxthon when viewing the feature list. Yet you admit, that Maxthon has them built in while to get something similar under FF, you have to download and install addons. Maxthon also has addons and can use Maxthon or IE addons. FF can only use FF addons. So without addons, Maxthon is feature rich. And FireFox looks as plain as IE itself. Making excuses doesn't change the truth.

Also lots of anti-spyware doesn't check anything coming through FireFox, like Ad-Watch for example. Yet Ad-Watch protects you in real time with IE and Maxthon, but not with FireFox at all. While you believe that most IE users don't know where the security slider is at, which I don't believe for a second. And I believe most FireFox users are too dumb to know that much security software out there does nothing when you are using FireFox.

Now just read the people having trouble with FireFox vs. say like Maxthon on their own official forums.

news://news.mozilla.org/mozilla.support.firefox

http://forum.maxthon.com/

Big difference between the two. Maxthon users doesn't have 1/50th of the problems that FireFox users do. How do you explain this? I can, the answer is so simple.

I don't know where you get the idea that Maxthon has to reboot to switch engines. As it works by a tab to tab bases. And while Maxthon covers their butts and claims they won't focus on the Gecko engine. The truth is many are using the Gecko engine without problems. Sure the Gecko engine has a few bugs, but that isn't Maxthon's problem, now is it?

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/2782/maxthon001sz5.gif

And claiming my credibility is in question when I say FireFox is bloated and filled with memory leaks? Okay smart guy! This is how stupid many FireFox users are. They try to discredit people telling the truth. I have FireFox opened and it is using 120MB of memory. While I have 12 other applications opened included bloated MS Word and all 12 of them doesn't even add up to one big fat FireFox! This is the nonsense we people have to put up with clueless FireFox users. They just keep denying the truth and make excuses for the sad coding of FireFox. And it isn't because it is a browser. As other browsers, including IE and Maxthon doesn't even come close to FireFox's bloat.

Ah FUD! Your sources are wrong! It started before any PCs were built. And it is in the world when IBM only made mainframes. Although today FireFox users make very good use of FUD. As they belittle IE users and make fun of them that are running unsecured browsers, when most malware goes right on through FireFox without any problems (thanks to their belief that they are protected with like with Ad-Watch and things). Yes clueless FireFox users are the leaders of FUD. No doubt about it.

And anybody whom feels that FireFox as safer because it is open source is just full of it. As that is like giving a hacker the combination to the safe. As honest people with the combination to the safe will think and believe it is secure. But hackers and smart people know far better. As you never make anything safer by releasing the source code. Never!

You also belittle my opinions. But you can't belittle the truth. And anybody can prove to themselves whether I am saying the truth or not. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist either. Just anybody with the will to learn the truth with an opened mind. Users of FUD, need not apply.

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

BillW50, I appreciate you wanting to contribute to this thread, but if you want to make a point can you at least try to keep it a little less "personal". I don't care that you like Maxthon but this is a discussion on FF and IE.

Your description of users as "clueless" and "zealots" makes me believe you are approaching this discussion from an emotive/religious rather than technical viewpoint.

For future it helps to back up any claims you make with recent specific references (where available) from reputable sources (if possible), and to distinguish between a personal opinion and a point with technical merit.

I'm not even going to reply to the post you have made because you have misquoted, misinterpreted, and come to assumptions that I am sure many readers would recognize as being "a big stretch".

This is not a religious war about Maxthon (although I am sure you would love to push that barrow a bit further) - My extended post was simply to demonstrate just how many holes, assumptions, technical flaws, personal motives and bias your previous post had - I never expected that you would reply with more of the same.

Posted 17 years ago #
BillW50
Member

Less personal? You said: "(oh boy there goes any tech credibility you might've had)." Really BuBBy? I am sorry, but that is just pure nonsense! Plus this has nothing to do with Maxthon, but about IE and FireFox. And *most* FireFox users don't have a leg to stand on and I have proven they have no clue what they are talking about in regards to security. Nor do they know anything about great programming either. As the worst coded browser in the world has to be FireFox bar none. Even MS is known for poor coding and FireFox has MS beaten by far! And the proof is it is the slowest of all browsers and eats up more memory than anything else on the planet. I know FireFox lovers can't deal with the truth. And for that I am so sorry that people are in love with a loser. But anybody with an open and an honest mind can plainly see it. The truth is some can't accept the truth. So what do you want me to do? Lie? Sorry! It is too late as I know better. And I don't care if you want to continue to attack me personally. But you can't attack the truth.

Posted 17 years ago #
BillW50
Member

"I'm not even going to reply to the post you have made because you have misquoted, misinterpreted, and come to assumptions that I am sure many readers would recognize as being 'a big stretch". -- BuBBy

That's right BuBBy. When many find the *facts* disagrees with their own. They pretend the conflict doesn't exist and then tries to paper it over. And/or they try to attack the messenger. Yes I know all about this ploy, it is called cognitive dissonance.

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

No I am frustrated because you have posted so few *facts* but continue to refer to them as such.

@BillW50 "The real truth is that FireFox is a bloated pig (like most open source software)"

@BuBBy : (oh boy there goes any tech credibility you might've had).

Perhaps you would like to justify your generalization then, that most open source software "is a bloated pig".

And while you are at it - explain in detail exactly what criteria you are using to identify this "bloated pig".

Maybe starting with Linux, Open Office, 7Zip, Gimp, Azureus, Thunderbird, VLC, phpMyAdmin, Filezilla, Keypass...

So like most of your comments they come without any supporting references or proof.

In fact even your comment on security and open source just shows how little real world experience your "opinion stands up to"

@BillW50 - And anybody whom feels that FireFox as safer because it is open source is just full of it. As that is like giving a hacker the combination to the safe. As honest people with the combination to the safe will think and believe it is secure. But hackers and smart people know far better. As you never make anything safer by releasing the source code. Never!

I would suggest you read the following from http://keepass.info/

Yes, KeePass is really free, and more than that: it is open-source (OSI certified). You can have a look at its full source and for example check if the encryption algorithms are implemented correctly.

Perhaps you wonder why I decided to make it open-source. The answer is relatively simple: in my opinion all software that has something to do with security should be open-source. Here's a quote of Bruce Schneier that sums it up pretty good:

As a cryptography and computer security expert, I have never understood the current fuss about the open source software movement. In the cryptography world, we consider open source necessary for good security; we have for decades. Public security is always more secure than proprietary security. It's true for cryptographic algorithms, security protocols, and security source code. For us, open source isn't just a business model; it's smart engineering practice.
Bruce Schneier, Crypto-Gram 1999/09/15

If the "closed source" model was the answer to "software bloat" and "security vulnerabilities" then users should not have any concerns when running Microsoft software (or any closed source software)?

Security that is open for inspection, review and improvement by everyone will always be preferred to "security by obscurity".

Having a hundred locksmiths get together to invent a better lock will always be a better option than just hiding the keys under your mattress. A good lock is well designed when the thief is allowed to know how it works and still cannot open it.

The counter-argument you sometimes hear is that secret cryptography is stronger because it is secret, and public algorithms are riskier because they are public. This sounds plausible, until you think about it for a minute. Public algorithms are designed to be secure even though they are public; that's how they're made. So there's no risk in making them public. If an algorithm is only secure if it remains secret, then it will only be secure until someone reverse-engineers and publishes the algorithms. A variety of secret digital cellular telephone algorithms have been "outed" and promptly broken, illustrating the futility of that argument.
Bruce Schneier, Crypto-Gram 1999/09/15

Posted 17 years ago #
BillW50
Member

Well I would love to chat with you more about this, but I opened my big mouth and promised a friend I would pour a sidewalk for them tomorrow (since they don't have a clue what they are doing) and then Monday I'm having surgery. No big thing, but I might not be back here for a week or so. See you all later then. And BuBBy, I still think you are great... so don't take any of this the wrong way, ok?

Posted 17 years ago #
Mapi
Member

Arg. Look at the difference between Firefox and IE:
-Look at Google! They support Firefox 'cause they believe it's way better than IE. Google is more powerfull than Microsoft (finance.google.com)
-IE has got ActiveX, better just call it full access to your computer.
-Out of research 70% didn't even knew what ActiveX was.
-IE has got lot's (what do I say? Bunches!) of leaks, all Firefox leaks will be fixed withing days, IE leaks within weeks or in IE6 her case: years.
-Still need IE? Use IE-Tab extention for Firefox! IE in Firefox environment.
-Memory leaks? Yes, at fragmented, spyware-full, no-free-hdd-space computers.
-Firefox 2 is also for Linux, Mac and some other OS'ses.
-Firefox 2 uses Gecko, which is proven to be better than IE.
-Download.com check all software. Firefox had a WAY better rank than IE7.
-Firefox 2 takes on an averages machine ~10 MB ram, IE7 the same.
-Firefox 2 can run on 32/64 MB ram pieces, IE7 should at least have 256 to work fine.
-Firefox 2 is WAY faster.
-Firefox 2 takes ~10 seconds to install. IE7 takes about 20 -minutes!- to install.
-Firefox 2 is open-source and in way more languages than IE7.
-Firefox 2 has got lots of FREE-ONLY extensions, which 0wn IE7's addons / activeX.
-Firefox 2 has got a cleaner interface.
-Firefox 2 is on the SIM-PC, a computer with Open-Source Linux with Firefox, because Firefox is so secure even 65+ people can work it.
-Firefox 2 her print function prints way better than IE7's print function, which throws up the whole page.
-Lots of web-developpers use Firefox or Opera, instead of IE because they can't hold itself to the standard HTML, XHTML, PHP, CSS, JavaScript etc norms, Mozilla and Opera can.
-Firefox 2 has got ChatZilla (downloadable), a complete IRC client, costing 250 KB more rams when running.
-Firefox 2 has got an about:config page containing lots of tweaks.
-Firefox 2 has proven security by experts.
-Firefox 2, Opera and Safari are rising, IE is dropping fast in popularity.
-Firefox 2 has got a better bookmark system.
-Firefox 2 can import all IE4 (or even lower maybe) until IE7 her settings, cookies, bookmarks etc.
I'm just beginning.
Now we've got to look what Microsoft has stolen from Firefox:
-Tabs
-Safe mode function
-Addons (they suddenly rise by 400% when a research tells Addons are important to Firefox)

Don't forgot for newbies Mozilla offers _LOTS_ of support to everybody (else ask me :D)!

Still not convinced? Firefox can be installed within 10 seconds and uninstalled in 20.
Don't forget if you're for privacy, you're for Firefox!

http://www.getfirefox.com/
For all people who have not tried Firefox, give it a try :)

I'm helping Mozilla with the translation of her products to Dutch, so I do know where Firefox stands for! Even Firefox 1.0 didn't have the security holes as IE5+IE6+IE7 has got.

That was ment seriously.

Posted 17 years ago #
Mapi
Member

BillW50 wrote:
Also lots of anti-spyware doesn't check anything coming through FireFox, like Ad-Watch for example. Yet Ad-Watch protects you in real time with IE and Maxthon, but not with FireFox at all. While you believe that most IE users don't know where the security slider is at, which I don't believe for a second. And I believe most FireFox users are too dumb to know that much security software out there does nothing when you are using FireFox.

In some points you are right. But in IE this is possible because it's not secured against unwanted plugins. THey can just connect and read all ur dataz on Internet Explorer. In Firefox security software can't just plugin. Only a few like ZoneAlarmPro and McAfeeSiteadvisor, but in this case you are getting warned and the extention will be blocked when it contains known spyware. Firefox has got a build-in phishing filter since version 1.0 (or maybe even before, but those weren't complete).

Google if you arn't satisfied or got questions, you'll always find it

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

I was not going to mention the AdWatch comment, as it is not really a reflection on Firefox or AdWatch but only demonstrates that there is some confusion as to what Ad-Watch actually does.

AdWatch.

1. Can block cookies. (Not really a threat - AdAware treats these as a "Negligible Risk")
2. Can detect and block known spyware/trojan ActiveX installs. SpywareBlaster does the same. Firefox by default does not use ActiveX technology (Many consider ActiveX a security risk).
3. Can detect bad processes. The Windows process list is independent of the browser being used.
4. Can detect and block changes to the registry settings. This is independent of the browser being used.

Most good security software isn't dependent on protecting only while you are running a certain browser or version of software. Good security software operates on a level apart and provides security protection for any application that is running. This is the case for almost all Antivirus, Firewall, AntiSpyware or Proxy Servers.

If your "security software" only protects you when you run a certain piece of software (like a browser) that is not a flaw in the protected software, but an obvious limitation in the design of the security software (eg If your antivirus software only protected against viruses in Office documents - is the limitation/problem with the AntiVirus, or the Office Suite?)

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

@Mapi - Arg. Look at the difference between Firefox and IE:

Please check that your claims can be backed up with references to your sources, or else state that the claims are personal opinion only. Many of your claims as they stand are dubious in accuracy.

Posted 17 years ago #
Swan
Member

Hello Bill,

Firstly,

I'm pretty annoyed and take great umbrage at the names you've called me and others who prefer Firefox over Internet E. IF you were technically minded, you'd be able to present an argument without resorting to name calling - this behavior is just elementary school boy tactics.

"Also lots of anti-spyware doesn't check anything coming through FireFox, like Ad-Watch for example."

I've been using the Ad-Watch add-on for Firefox for about a year and it works in real time perfectly - so you're mistaken Bill.

Plus, I'm able to use McAfee Site Advisor in real time as they will have pre-tested the site and can report detailed information about any website I choose - especially any malicious programs available for download and right down to how many emails they received after registering with the website and what kind of sites they link to.

On top of that, I also use the Firefox plug-in for No-Script.

"Winner of the "2006 PC World World Class Award", this tool provides extra protection to your Firefox.

It allows JavaScript, Java and other executable content to run only from trusted domains of your choice, e.g. your home-banking web site, and guards the "trust boundaries" against cross-site scripting attacks (XSS).

Such a preemptive approach prevents exploitation of security vulnerabilities (known and even unknown!) with no loss of functionality...

Experts do agree: Firefox is really safer with NoScript ;)"

So I feel pretty safe with Firefox Bill - especially after Bubby posted all those fantastic links. (Thanks again Bubby!) My husband is a software programmer for an international company - and even he and others in the development department choose Firefox.

I really don't know what you're on about - hasn't Bubby convinced you yet? If not, I'd be happy to loan you my glasses. ;)
~ Swan

Posted 17 years ago #
Michelle
Member

I use Firefox mostly.

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

Firstly, my intention is not to "prove Internet Explorer is a terrible browser" - because it isn't.

But I draw the line at someone trying to demonstrate how Browser A is a good browser because Browser B has some issues. You sell each product on its own merits, not on the weakness of the competition.

This tactic I have noticed more and more in political election campaigns - rather than demonstrating why a candidate is worthy of votes - they decide to campaign solely on why the opposition is a bad choice - on polling day you still don't know what you are voting for - only against what you are fearful of winning.

In this case putting forward myths, misunderstandings, generalizations and assumptions against Firefox - but refraining from demonstrating the positive qualities of Internet Explorer. Every product has shortcomings and tradeoffs. The advantage (as I see it) with Firefox is that you can "config" or "extend" your way out of these.

If someone uses Internet Explorer and they are happy with it - then that's great. Same with Opera and Maxthon. They don't become any less a person by making "the wrong choice" (as some see it).

What is important it that they make that decision in an informed manner and not out of ignorance. I am the first to say that to use Firefox to its full potential you will need to make some simple changes - because the default install isn't best for all people on all systems. But that flexibility is a strength of Firefox in my view - to someone who is not willing or doesn't know how to tune Firefox's settings to suit their browser usage or their memory requirements - they may view the same flexibility as a flaw or liability.

Some Extra Opinions (from Computerworld).

Browser Smackdown: Firefox vs. IE vs. Opera vs. Safari

Posted 17 years ago #
alexiussg
Member

i suppose IE7 settings page is more complicate to use as compared to firefox where they categorised everything and u can't press Ctrl+Shift+Del to clear yur private data in IE7??

oso, u can't add/change themes to IE7.

but in IE u can copy mp3/videos files, which is embeded into a webpage via Adobe flash, onto yur desktop frm the "Temporary Internet Files" folder.

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

@alexiussg - but in IE u can copy mp3/videos files, which is embeded into a webpage via Adobe flash, onto yur desktop frm the "Temporary Internet Files" folder.

In firefox, I use the "CacheViewer" Extension available from

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2489

Posted 17 years ago #
alexiussg
Member

i agree with Mapi and Swan, and open source doesn't mean hackable,

compare Microsoft vs Apple OS X, who has more viruses attacking??
or abt MS Mobile for PocketPC vs Symbian??

the more protected it is, the more fun to un-protect it!!
we hav DVDs that r protected, but people found a way to decrypt it!
now so with HD-dvds [snipped]

Posted 17 years ago #
BuBBy
Teh adnim

open source doesn't mean hackable...
the more protected it is, the more fun to un-protect it!!

That is an entirely different subject. The prevalence of exploits and the motivations of hackers is still up for debate. One school of thought says hackers are motivated by the challenge (a difficult target is more attractive). A second school of though says hackers are motivated by exposure and public recognition (perhaps overlapping with the first concept, "hacking a difficult target = public recognition").

In terms of comparing Apple OS X and Microsoft - I believe the motivation to create a virus on one of those platforms in the past appears to be based on "Where can my virus create the most damage and get the greatest exposure" (This is also affected by the availability of development tools)

The logic that "the absence of exploits means a platform is secure" is like saying "a green ferrari is the safest car in the world to drive, because they were not involved in any road fatalaties over the last 2 years."

Developers can only fix the bugs and exploits they know about. Just because there are no known bugs, doesn't mean the software cannot be exploited or used in a way never intended by the developers.

Where "open source" has it over "closed source" (in theory at least) is the potential for a greater number of eyeballs to look over the code and spot flaws that "somebody" can be made aware of to fix. The reverse is not true - clearly if closed source made something secure - there would be no such thing as "reverse engineering" and the Windows platform would be exploit free.

Closed source has far more to do with protecting commercial and intellectual property than it has to do with security.

Posted 17 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.