Firefox = PWNED by IE?

[BWF89]

Some bad news about everyones favorite browser.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1774091,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616

[DJ_Max]

Hrrmm, doesn't talk about much, complaints on server usage, windows updates. The rest are speculations.

[jdodson]

this is far from bad news. this article really borders on fud.

first things first.

the author states that the way in which firefox rolled out its security release(i.e. it was basically just having people install 1.0.1) was annoying. ok so, i was not really annoyed. i have a windows box here at work and it just installed 1.0.1. big deal. not sure how this is going to get firefox "pwned."

popunders in another point the author makes. ok so is ie any better in the regard? is there any better option in a browser currently? this seems to be a new trend. so new i have never seen it. maybe its because i have a pretty terse adblock ruleset, maybe its because it is not a big deal.

oh right and the new big bad version of IE will kill it off to right? ummm, well sure if you use windows. but the mac release, if it comes at all will be belated, no gnu/linux release ever, so i think i will keep firefoxing. not that i would use ie if it was on gnu/linux or anything, i wouldnt.

"If Firefox rots from the inside out—the way so many other programs, like the original Netscape browser, did—then it's not going anywhere much beyond where it is now." - direct quote from article.

that line is utter trash. rot? i am not sure where the author has the credibility or knowledge to understand a statement like that, much less make it. perhaps firefox needs a bit of a push as far as direction goes, perhaps it needs to scale back its feature list for 2.0? perhaps that developer that complained that his blog was wrong? perhaps not. i think it is WAY to early to call hellfire and brimstone on firefox and call it rot. seriously, some people will write any load of rubbish to get an article.

"...then it's not going anywhere much beyond where it is now." - direct article quote.

firefox, right now, is gaining momentum and userbase at a blazingly fast rate. its stable releases and continued excellence make for the BEST browser in the market currently. so even if it just continues on at this pace and does not gain momentum as it will keep doing, it will already overtake IE by a huge margin. thats if it just stays at the pace it is at, not gain any.

people are always writing articles that state "THE END OF THE MAC" or "BSD IS DEAD!" however, if anything reality states the opposite. mac is doing awesome right now and bsd is going nowhere. authors like this need readership, scaring people is a way to grab attention.

[krusbjorn]

the linked article about IE7 says


The 7.0 release, which will go to beta this summer, will add new anti-phishing, anti-spyware and anti-virus safeguards, according to company officials

is that a reason to be a little worried? i mean, right now, everyone knows (heck, even my mother does) that IE is nothing but a security risk. if microsoft ships IE with built-in anti adware, anti spyware and anti virus features, people are going to start believing that IE isnt that insecure at all. at least, my mother will ;)

[TravisNewman]

Your subject line was misleading. The article isn't really about IE overtaking, or PWNing as those who think they're too cool for the English language put it, Firefox, but more about the uncertain future of Firefox.

This guy just overreacted. I'm concerned about Firefox development as it is, but I don't think it's going to "rot" from the inside out or anything. It might lose some users, but Mac and Linux users are going to stick with it, obviously. Almost every major Linux browser is based on Mozilla's engine. And honestly, if Windows users want to switch back to IE and the security holes, just because of a few missing features and a couple of quirks, then they deserve the ruin it will bring to their PC (unless of course IE does fix up it's security issues, but as long as ActiveX is around, I don't see that happening-- yes, it's now disabled by default, but when a user sees that he/she can't play a game, activex will be turned back on, allowing that spyware in the door again.

[TravisNewman]

I find that disturbing because people will start relying on Microsoft for all their security needs, and will then wonder how a virus disabled and corrupted all of it?

Also, you better hope they're a little faster than monthy security updates now that they're planning all these built in security features.

Again, I'd say people who blindly trust MS being secure almost deserve it, but I worry about the world's computing on the whole. MS specific viruses and worms slow the Linux and Mac users too.

[gnuneo]

yup, firefox sure is beat. (ie7.com)
check out ie7.com \\:D/


:-\"

[newbie2]

look at the date of that article :p --> March 8, 2005

[KiwiNZ]

Its an old article the shows very poor journalism,but that is typical of the standard of www IT so called Journalism.

And what the heck does "pwned" mean anyway?:rolleyes:

[followme]

damn, I got suckered into reading this. The author is probably nothing more than an IE fanboy, who is use to M$ ways and can't figure things out unless spoon fed.

Personally, I'm glad there is a large moving target (IE) out there for script kiddies to claim 1337'ness and pwn'ship (I don't think I'm even using this properly, HA!) to focus their target on. Which leaves a better alternative for us to use without the constant fears of security risks.

When and if firefox becomes the large moving target, I'll just switch to Opera as my main browser, hell, I can always use Dillo!!!!!

[BWF89]

The author is probably nothing more than an IE fanboy, who is use to M$ ways and can't figure things out unless spoon fed.
The author of that article (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols) is an open-source fanboy and writes most of his articles about Linux and open source stuff.

[Lord Illidan]

Ah, well, there is always links2

[mpa]

Typical.
Very typical for people in online forum to vilify the whistleblower instead of concentrating on the real issue.

First off Stevan Vaughan-Nichols is a big proponent of Linux and Open Source movement, check his columns, he has done a lot of linux advocating.

Nevertheless, I am not sure he is a good judge to whether Firefox is in trouble or not. He's neither a firefox developer and I dont he's ever manage / involved in a large software development before. In fact, I rather suspect he's not even very good at administrating a linux box (see his review of Ubuntu (http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3134398543.html). He could have read the manpage of sudo and be done with it.)

That said (gee, I focused on the whistleblower as well), could it be that Firefox developers are eating more than they can chew ? Considering Firefox's popularity which will also attract developers, though the strong hacker community might take a while to build, and that Google is there to back em up, I think there's no need to panic.

[aysiu]

I think the article made some valid points... for Firefox 1.0.1 an entire year ago.

Most of those things don't apply any more.

I can't remember the last time Firefox's servers were overloaded.

NoScript takes care of all pop-ups--Javascript- and Flash-based ones.

As of Firefox 1.5, you don't need to redownload the entire installer to update.

Firefox is looking in a good place right now in March 2006.

[Lord Illidan]

Only thing firefox needs is to get slimmed down, imho.

[Brunellus]

that's what epiphany is for.

[Bandit]

I am with Brunellus.
We need Epiphany beefed up with its own engine instead of depending on Mozilla engine. Konqs got a good web browser engine. Lets take theirs :-D

[mustang]

Be careful with your topic titles. Don't try to purposely bring attention when it isn't needed.

[bonzodog]

I am with Brunellus.
We need Epiphany beefed up with its own engine instead of depending on Mozilla engine. Konqs got a good web browser engine. Lets take theirs :-D

um, Bandit: I do believe you will find (correct me if I am wrong), that Konquerer is mozilla based.....

[Brunellus]

um, Bandit: I do believe you will find (correct me if I am wrong), that Konquerer is mozilla based.....
I thought Konqueror used KHTML and not gecko; if it used gecko, then firefox, epiphany/galeon, seamonkey, flock, etc would all pass acid2

[BWF89]

Be careful with your topic titles. Don't try to purposely bring attention when it isn't needed.
I made this a year ago when acted more noobish.

[John.Michael.Kane]

@bonzodog http://www.konqueror.org/features/browser.php
(Konqueror uses a very capable HTML rendering engine called KHTML)

[bjweeks]

Whats with all the old threads getting dug up?

[Jucato]

oh great... another resurrected thread with an open invitation for M$ bashing... oh well...

Konqueror is based on KHTML (on which Safari is also based, but they almost never contributed back, but that's another story). However, it still needs a bit (or maybe a lot) of work to be a decent web browser. Don't get me wrong. I'm using Konqueror 99% of the time. But I'd prefer if that 99% turned into a 100%. :D

[fuscia]

firefox is pretty. ie is not. case closed.

[followme]

The author of that article (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols) is an open-source fanboy and writes most of his articles about Linux and open source stuff.

I admit that I got suckered in and didn't read the link. *bows head down in shame* I was just flaming. *starts digging hole*

[Jucato]

Ok, now maybe we can finally let this unfortunate thread rest in piece. (intended misspelling)

[mstlyevil]

Since this thread is over a year old and it is old news I am going to do the original poster a favor and lock the thread.


I made this a year ago when acted more noobish.