Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Headlines Double-standard

0 helpful
8 replies

by gsquared

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Of course there's a double-standard! We're talking about "MicroSucks" here!

If anyone actually points out that Firefox has more security issues than IE, which is true, it's likely to result in being burned at the stake!

After all, this isn't about technology! It isn't about security! It's about fashion and "making a statement".

It's nerdy to use Firefox. It's plebian to use IE.

After all, if you're using Firefox, you're unique, rebellious, highly intelligent and non-mainstream. Just like everyone else you hang out with. (Like the t-shirt says, "Why can't you be unique, like everyone else?")

People who use IE are boring, normal, mainstream and so on.

After all, it's much more important what brand of tools you use to get a job done than what the end result is.

(Or am I being too ironic/sarcastic in all of this?)

8 replies

by oneamazingwriter

with the kindling and matches, could you point out to me some of those security issues? I only know what I read here, and I can only read so fast.

Besides, I'm one who believes that most people about to die will tell the truth!

(Should I start a bucket brigade?)

Beth

by gsquared

(I guess that's the right title for this reply.)

See my reply to another post below for further data on quantity of known security issues, and for further clarification of my post.

(I thought I was over-the-top enough and disclaimery-enough [new word?], but apparently not.)

As to my auto-da-fe, make sure to bring hot dogs. I'll count that as a final request. :)

by ontheropes

From Secunia.com:

Mozilla Firefox 1.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories and is rated less critical.

Currently, 2 out of 28 Secunia advisories are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

and

Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated moderately critical.

Currently, 19 out of 99 Secunia advisories are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Hmmm. Let?s see, moderately critical vs. less critical. Two of 28 unpatched advisories vs. 19 of 99 unpatched. I can?t quite decide which is better for me to use.

I don?t think you?re being too sarcastic or ironic though. To me it?s kind of much to do about not much.
I use FF for some stuff, IE for other stuff. I must be a highly intelligent, mainstream kind of person.
I posted some stuff about browsers once and learned that there are many more browsers than I?d ever heard about.

by faradhi

But I have looked at the time it takes to get a patch when one is found.

All software has it's problems. However, Mozilla releases corrections to patches much faster than Microsoft.

Now understand, I am not a Microsoft basher. This is just a fact. It usually takes over a month to get a patch from microsoft. Mozilla is must faster.

So you are right that some people approach technology like a religion. Most do not. Most have very good reasons for using what they do.

Finally, All software has their benefits. Foxfire gained in popularity not by being more secure. It gained because it is a better product. It has all the features of IE, PLUS tabbed browsing and IMHO it is easier to configure.

by jdclyde

Ok, I am being sarcastic.

Tell us and please site your source of where it shows that FF has more security issues than IE.

Also, please include the turn around for patches to the issues.

While your at it, how about the severity of the issues?

Do we also blame FF for a SUN JAVA exploit that someone might choose to add in, or is that a SUN exploit?

Brand of tools, it is important that the tool works.
FF does not bring in the ad/male/spyware that IE does.

I EAGERLY await your sources, so I will know once and for all what is going to be more secure and save me lots of time in cleaning systems.

by gsquared

Sources? We don't need no stinkin' sources! (Okay, I'll try to restrain the urge to rip off Blazing Saddles in the future.)

(The whole point of my post was to be over the top.)

Seriously though, the only source for anything in my post was the article I was replying to. The article had a huge number of assumptions built into it, most with no back-up data to support them at all.

The article had no valuable data, no news (i.e.: new information), nothing that helps in getting any job done, etc. So, I thought the only appropriate response to an empty, valueless article was an empty, valueless post with matching rants and such.

Also seriously, the sheer number of security issues in Firefox versus the number in IE is well documented on a number of security sites. Secunia, for example, lists 29 advisories for Firefox, with 3 unpatched, and 99 for IE with 19 unpatched. So, I have no idea where the author of the original post got that data. I was making fun of the whole thing.

As to who to blame for scripting language exploits, I don't personally believe "blame" has any value to anyone. Responsibility lies with the person/group with the best ability to fix the situation. So, on Java exploits in Firefox, I'd say the responsibility for fixing those lies with whichever group can fix it. Blame, if I had to say, lies with the criminals who are creating the exploit code.

by oneamazingwriter

Three guys whose opinion I have come to trust just arrived without matches. The problem with that is I now feel like a woman scorned...for I chose FF, not because it was perfect or trendy, but because I, too, read Secunia and wanted something that was safer. Once I downloaded it, I found it extremely user friendly, and liked the idea of customizing it to meet my personal need.

I thought you knew something that I didn't know!

The guys can afford to be kind. They've known what they were doing all along. Me? I'm the one who came here to learn, and I do not like being called names simply because I made a wise choice. People who use IE are not necessarily boring. Many are uninformed, and some like Active X controls. People who use Firefox are not necessarily trendy or rebellious. We simply like practical efficiency.
If it's rebellious to like improvement then count me in the Great Rebellion.

I've got a lighter here. Anyone got some straw? :D

It's not nice to try to fool a lady!

edit: because if you spell uninformed without the second n that puts all IE users in uniforms!

by jardinier

In three words: Firefox is good, better and best when compared with IE.

As for security updates, Firefox ALERTS me when there is a patch available and invites me to download it. Perhaps IE does this also if you are setup with automatic updates. I wouldn't know. Automatic updates with Windows XP are simply unviable with a dial-up connection.

A mega advantage with Firefox (or any other non Windows browser) is that you can UNINSTALL IT. I am stuck with two machines running 98 SE with defective IE 6 which CANNOT BE UNINSTALLED and there is far too much software including a lot of downloaded software to even begin to consider a reformat and reinstall.

Fortunately as I use AOL it can access IE readily without the glitch.

Anyone who hasn't tried it might consider Netscape 8.1 which is similar to Firefox but with additional features.

This discussion is closed to new replies.