I should really delete things like this when I test them out later

"If you thought MS was slow to release patches, wait till the attacks build up on FF..."

What is this statement supposed to even mean, and what is the precedent?

"Compound the issue above, with the fact that the promise of FF is security... once those Cool Web Search guys find a new way in, those people will run from FF in droves."

To what? Internet Explorer, which has the same security problems regardless of whether or not Firefox has any, but is lacking the tabbed browsing, popup blocking (Yes, XP SP2 is still vulnerable to Flash-spawned popups, while they can be disabled in Firefox) or extensibility of Firefox? Or Opera, for which you already proclaimed your hate? Something being imperfect doesn`t mean it isn`t the least worst option.

"Add to the above that there will be no Automatic Updates simply prompting people to "Install Now" to resolve issues they don`t even know about before they even affect them."

Firefox supports automatic updates not only on the browser itself, but on all installed extensions as well through the update URL in the extension`s RDF. In the event of a critical update, it will replace the browser`s homepage with a giant alert until the browser is updated. Have you even used Firefox?

All in all, nice troll. It got me.

The precendent is actually established by the Fact, ( that`s a capital "F"), that the IDN vulnerability was found as earliy as Feb. 9.. and a fix was avaiable no earlier that March.

I use FF 1.0 right now - and although I know 1.0.1 is available, there is no notification whatsoever... I only get the FF-friendly Google search page. (http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official).

My browser has not been "Automatically Updated" as you suggest it should have.

"Something being imperfect doesn`t mean it isn`t the least worst option". --- --- -- I need to break out my calculator to figure what the hell that even means.

first of all, I did use firefox and even have the latest ver installed on my pc right now but...

with a nice plugin you can add tabbed browsing to IE

and I did not find FF anywhere faster than IE it only "appears to be" or maybe it`s the dial-up users that`s affected but that I dunno, I got ADSL now (most people do)

other than that I use download managers (outside the browser), IE now has popup and privacy protecting thingies and so I don`t need that much blockings whatsoever

Also that firefox still has problem rendering some of the pages which I believe is not the webmaster`s fault, it`s firefox`s. I believe that its FireFox that should reflect to the ongoing standard rather than blaming the web author for "they did not made pages for FireFox and used some IE features". Why would FireFox be jumping right in the net standards and pull them their way?!?! well atleast don`t blame the webmaster for just that it`s not their fault!! that`s a bad saying from many FF users which I do not like.

FF do have a nice look and some good feature but most of them are already found in IE and the real good ones ain`t that precious enough for me to switch.

And I don`t recommend you get firefox over IE (I did used FireFox over a month) I recommend you learn the basics of safe web surfing and that should do.

Don`t pick firefox just because they say "hey use firefox its safer its better" try them out and compare it with IE first and if it`s really better, make the switch I don`t mind but if it`s don`t - believe your own experience and don`t

"If you thought MS was slow to release patches, wait till the attacks build up on FF..."

When a security threat occours when I`m sleeping, and a patch was released, my IE automatically get patched up but not FireFox. I`ll have to start FireFox first and then access the update functionality and not to mention the speed of reactions to threats

p.s. sorry for any english mistake, me no englishmen!!

The reason I chose FF instead of IE is mainly the ease of use (a.o. tabbed browsing) and the extensions. Security? Maybe: FF has a lot of configuration possibilities to make it fairly safe. However, I`m sure holes can be found in any browser if you look long enough.

"Also that firefox still has problem rendering some of the pages which I believe is not the webmaster`s fault, it`s firefox`s. I believe that its FireFox that should reflect to the ongoing standard rather than blaming the web author for "they did not made pages for FireFox and used some IE features"." Hmmm, are you sure you know what you`re talking about? Ever played around with CSS for web site design? Then you`ll quickly learn that IE behaviour is not according to standards, and even varies between releases. And this is just CSS. In HTML you`ll find similar things. I`m afraid too many web sites use IE tricks that look good on IE, but not on other browsers, because they don`t comply with the standards (HTML, CSS). I definitely blame it on the web author for being lazy :-).

Anyway, I agree with the comment about comparing IE and FF first and then making a switch to the browser you like. In my case it just happens to be FF.

very nice scripts about the fire fox i think talking about security on the net would be better to promote the gnu phylosophy cuz people are more screamed of .

Did you even bother to read that article you linked to?

Did you see this bit?

"Internet Explorer, however, still had a higher proportion of serious vulnerabilities, with nine of the 13 flaws rated as highly severe. By comparison, 11 of the 21 Mozilla browser flaws were deemed highly severe, and just seven of Firefox flaws were seen as highly severe. The Internet Explorer flaws also took longer to fix -- an average of 43 days, compared to 26 days for Mozilla browsers"

People think whatever they like using. No amount of preaching will change that.

Oh yeah, blog schmog

Peter1968 - a detractor of online web diaries.

"People think whatever they like using. No amount of preaching will change that."

Make that: ""People think whatever they like using is best for their needs."

While I did review the article, and saw the quote you, metioned, it is simply not the point. Explaining that IE has security issues is not required, as it is well-known. However, THE POINT IS, in fact, that Firefox is not invincible and we are starting to see the flaws.

Internet Explorer will always have more areas of security issues than Firefox because it`s integrated to the OS. And for the same reason, all your opened IE windows will be closed when Explorer.exe performs an illegal operation. Muhahahaha!

"Also that firefox still has problem rendering some of the pages which I believe is not the webmaster`s fault, it`s firefox`s. I believe that its FireFox that should reflect to the ongoing standard rather than blaming the web author for "they did not made pages for FireFox.." <-- Replace all instances of firefox with IE. That guy sounds rather ignorant to me.

Is this a "troll"?

Maybe, but simply existing in an arena mostly populated with anti-IE competition does not make it one. The fact that it goes against trendy opinions is all that makes it a "troll" to you.

A response is simply not required here. It`s literally suggested that you don`t reply if you don`t agree and further suggests that your opposing response is the reflex of a simple person unable to resist spewing forth a love for "Big Brother" in the face of the documented weaknesses of your fearless leader.

Stay at Stylegala and A List Apart where you can freely bleet out your obedience to a doomed interpretation a good idea fallen into the hands of idiots.

I would much rather hear from like-minded people and had no intention of "trolling" in your stupid "blogoshpere" or any other stupid lingo you interpret as cool, and I see as "the pun is on you, you just don`t get it"

I should "troll" about how I hate the redundantly mundane banter on most blogs and the ridiculously redundant issue that "trackback" raises on search engines, but that would be a new "troll"

Joe++

Itis people like "Billie Joe Armstrong" that cause the internet to be such a had place to be if you aren`t on the Microsoft bandwangon.

I dare you to spend 1 day, 1 single day as a webmaster/webdesigner and come back and make the comment.

Standards allows for everyone to use the browser they want to and have pages look the right way.

Firefox isn`t broken, IE is. You say that the pages don`t look right in Firefox, wrong! They look how they were supposed to look. People use the broken down shambles of IE to make their pages look pretty and then get mad when they don`t look how they should in Firefox/Safari/Opera or any oter stands compliant browser.

Furthermore how can you say standards are evolving? W3 releases the new versions of HTML/XHTML/CSS when needed.

"Evolving Standards" doesn`t exist in the way you want it to.

The reason why there is so much hate for IE because it is a pain in the ass to design content for it, if you wish to use the latest Web Technologies, you are always set back by a bug in Internet Explorer, I find FireFox to basic for my liking, my firewall works with both to get rid of ads inside of pages pop-ups etc. So no difference there. I find tabbed browsing stupid and annoying. I use <a href="http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net">K-Meleon</a> it`s a free not actively developed browser used by hundreds not millions, its shitty practical and is bloody customizable.

Nice site, it`s hard to find sites who state honestly how things are...

Agreed with the pro-FF crowd I`m afraid. The latest instalments of IE (6, 7, and 8b) all have different rendering engines, different hacks, and different support for various web development standards.

Plain and simply put: web developers (myself included) can create a standards-compliant page with nice effects like CSS menus (see A List Apart, which you quoted) which can be discovered by search engines (automatic SEO) without using proprietary per-browser Javascript implementations (which IE certainly used to advocate preliferous usage of). Said pages will work in cross-platform Firefox, Opera, Safari/WebKit, Konqueror (remember that 90% of PCs run Windows, so 10% - or approx. 60 million - run an OS that doesn`t have MSIE).

Then, you go and test in IE - and in IE it breaks due to the out-dated Trident rendering engine, pure and simple. Even in different versions of IE there are problems - look at quirks mode between IE6 and 7.

Standards were invented to make pages accessible to all, be they blind, deaf, fully-functional human or search-engine spider. Well-implemented CSS standards in all other browsers brings this closer to reality. IE does not - why do you think they`ve worked so incredibly hard to get IE8 to pass Acid2?

Just my tuppence worth as a web developer who believes in the standards.

Benjamin

Standards, good. Standard-compliant browsers, good. At the time when I originally wrote this up the focus was the inaccurate promotion of Firefox as the more secure browser.

I would only add that I don`t think it`s the IE development team that is specifically pushing more use of JavaScript, or per-browser JavaScript... rather it`s the turn the industry has taken. AJAX, Web 2.0, etc... the whole web is littered with mootools, prototype, etc. and I don`t really see that slowing up anytime soon.

Browsers are free and users are free to choose browsers. Should it be any other way? As a developer you or I write code to achieve the goal, whether that be SEO or interactivity or what-have-you, it`s in the hands of the user to choose how to view that code. If the bulk of the users are using "Browser X", then is that not the standard we should code to? In order to insure accessibilty to the bulk of our visitors? Are we not spending the time to additionally insure that users with alternative browsers can view that code as well... is that not the true hack?

I don`t have a preferred browser, but I have a lot of websites... and standard metrics tell me that they have a preference and it is IE. Is that a good choice? I dont know and have no say in the matter, I only know I need to make certain that they can access the content I deliver to them.