Firefox Myths [Archive] - Wilders Security Forums

se7engreen

February 2nd, 2006, 04:32 PM

Article (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html)

-{ Quote: "Myth (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. While Firefox is a decent Web Browser, there are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding it. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these.

We have all seen these banners before or heard people say "Firefox is Faster, Firefox has Lower Requirements, Firefox is Secure, Firefox defends me from all Spyware, etc." How misleading is it? Read on." }-

While I think there are some valid points in this article, some parts are debatable. Nonetheless, it's an interesting read.

TNT

February 2nd, 2006, 04:40 PM

-{ Quote: "Article (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html)

While I think there are some valid points in this article, some parts are debatable. Nonetheless, it's an interesting read." }-I'm sorry. That article is complete trash. To vaguely claim that Internet Explorer 6 has better support of W3C Standards than Firefox is laughable for anybody like me who works as programmer for web applications. And it shows right there that they have no idea what they're talking about. Firefox has MUCH better support of CSS, HTML and XHTML standards. MUCH better, and a lot of times it gets painful to tweak a site to work in Internet Explorer while maintaining W3C standards support. And to clear the path from some dumb replies, I've been working in this area for 8 years.

Also "15% of web sites aren't completely compatible with Firefox"... where do these numbers come from?

"Web sites that depend on ActiveX or were only tested in Internet Explorer (which there are many) will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers"... oh, I see. Well, I've got news for you, ACTIVEX IS NOT A W3C STANDARD... nor a 'standard' of any kind... duh! This is like complaining that a Mac doesn't work properly if it doesn't run a Windows executable. It's laughable, simply laughable rubbish.

"Web site features such as Menus, Web forms or other content may not function or behave differently then intended"... this is COMICAL... what does "than intended" mean? You mean "than with Internet Explorer", right? So this site actually believes that everybody's intention is to build sites so that they show right in Internet Explorer and nothing else. This is insultingly stupid. Also, worth noticing the "may"... you know, possibly Firefox shows them like they really should look like but hey, it's different than what it looks like in Internet Explorer so be afraid, very afraid.

"In a recent study by a UK based web testing firm SciVisum, 1 in 10 UK web sites failed to work properly with Firefox"... well, I got some news for you, if some lazy developers were wise enough TO TEST IT ON MULTIPLE BROWSERS and TO FOLLOW W3C STANDARDS, this wouldn't have happened. Of course, no words about the sites that don't render right in Internet Explorer. But I see, they tested in on the incredible amount of no-less than 100 sites!!!. Wow, I browse more than that during the course of an evening, and apart from some badly designed "personal web pages" every someting like a month , I never encounter a problem at all with Firefox. I must be very lucky.

se7engreen

February 2nd, 2006, 05:04 PM

Did you click the "source" link in that article? It looks to me that the source the author links to claims that FF has better W3C compatibility than any of the popular browsers.

That kind of contradiction makes me question the validity even more.

TNT

February 2nd, 2006, 05:19 PM

-{ Quote: "Did you click the "source" link in that article? It looks to me that the source the author links to claims that FF has better W3C compatibility than any of the popular browsers.

That kind of contradiction makes me question the validity even more." }-It's clearly made by someone lacking technical knowledge or with an agenda, or possibly both. I'm not even going to discuss the rest of the article, as it's not worth it. I'm not even a fan of Firefox, and I appreciate criticism when it's well done. But this is just rubbish, in my opinion. :dry:

kinky

February 2nd, 2006, 10:38 PM

While I think there are some valid points in this article, some parts are debatable. Nonetheless, it's an interesting read.

Name one valid point.

Alec

February 2nd, 2006, 10:49 PM

Hmm... I don't know if I really want to get drawn into yet another pointless Internet debate over Firefox and Internet Explorer... however, to be somewhat fair I should point out that I do not recall seeing one of the article's "myth" points directly compare the standards compliance (or lack thereof) between the two browsers. I believe the two points most directly at issue are:

Myth - "Firefox fully supports W3C Standards"; and

Myth - "Firefox fully supports the most important W3C Standards"

While I understand that some might view this as inferring some sort of competitive position with respect to IE, that nevertheless does not invalidate them as true myths. (Hmm, not sure if that is worded correctly, but I think you get the point.) It is, in fact, a true statement that Firefox is not fully compliant with the W3C standards. Many people either don't know that and/or don't want to admit it, but as of now it is a fact. Granted, I would largely agree that IE is "more out of compliance" (so to speak) than Firefox, but that is not the actual myth point stated. Also, I would agree that the 2nd myth point listed above is a little vague because of it's reference to "most important" standards. The author probably should have just left it at the first point and called it a day on that issue.

It is true that the article on the whole has it's faults. But I believe it is also true that the article does raise some valid points. Too many people seem to think that Firefox is the perfect web browser with no faults, no standards compliance issues, and no security vulnerabilities outstanding or potentially to be discovered. Firefox has indeed taken on mythic proportions, and I'm not even precisely sure why when I would tend to argue that Opera is in many ways the better browser. Moreover, I would also tend to say that IE is overly villanized and demonized; when, in fact, I feel it was pretty innovative in it's day. In my humble opinion, IE's only real fault is that over time it has become an old and largely neglected codebase (well, that, and I would also agree that ActiveX could have probably been implemented in perhaps a stricter and/or more controlled manner by default). You must remember, though, that until about a year ago Microsoft had virtually ceased all development on IE for around 4 or 5 years.

WSFuser

February 2nd, 2006, 11:14 PM

-{ Quote: "I'm sorry. That article is complete trash." }-
+1 i also dont like the other myth articles either.

FluxGFX

February 3rd, 2006, 08:48 AM

Hi peeps,

All have to say on this is that I agree with TNT, being that I am un this business and have been for a few years.

Regards,
fluxgfx.com

sukarof

February 3rd, 2006, 09:38 AM

-{ Quote: "Too many people seem to think that Firefox is the perfect web browser with no faults, no standards compliance issues, and no security vulnerabilities outstanding or potentially to be discovered. Firefox has indeed taken on mythic proportions" }-

Shure, I agree that some of us Firefox fans, like most Linux and mac fans with their OP´s, do sometimes exaggerate the benefits with this browser. In my experience Firefox is not faster (with all the extensions I have, but without them it is pretty fast and gives IE a good match) But the extensions and the configurability is the **** with Firefox for me. It gives me freedom. Contrary what the article says firefox (atleast mine) do block every known popup.
But even if some do exaggerate Firefox still is safer than IE. I mean, try to get a BHO installed without your knowledge into Firefox. Try to get any malware installed via Firefox and a proper extension (noscript and java off). I still havent found any place where I can put FF to the test. If anyone has a link to a site that does something harmful or something that i dont want to to my version of Firefox, please pm me with it so I can get rid of this "misconception" that I am invunerable with firefox. Until that happens I will still say that FF is a better choice than IE.

Mastertech

February 5th, 2006, 09:37 AM

Interesting. No where on the page does it say IE is more standards compliant or more secure than Firefox. Jumping to conclusions are we?

TNT

February 5th, 2006, 09:50 AM

-{ Quote: "Interesting. No where on the page does it say IE is more standards compliant or more secure than Firefox. Jumping to conclusions are we?" }-No. I'm not jumping to conclusions, apart from "the article is complete trash". Period.

Mastertech

February 5th, 2006, 09:56 AM

You are jumping to conclusions if you come to those two, since the article makes no mention of either. As for "trash" try reading the sources, all the facts are there.

stapp

February 5th, 2006, 10:00 AM

Is there no peace online these days?
It's Sunday, not a day for myths and legends.
All your waking thoughts Mastertech must be about myths,... how sad

TNT

February 5th, 2006, 10:18 AM

-{ Quote: "You are jumping to conclusions if you come to those two, since the article makes no mention of either. As for "trash" try reading the sources, all the facts are there." }-Hahahaha... right. But hey, if you're convinced those presented are "facts", good for you. I'm not going to waste any more time on discussing this. Have a nice day.

Mrkvonic

February 6th, 2006, 02:24 AM

Hi,
I agree with TNT, furthermore to strengthen his point:
Chuck Norris ought to come and roundhouse-kick the author of the article in the nuts, cause he's talking bullshiat.
Mrk

TNT

February 6th, 2006, 02:49 AM

-{ Quote: "Chuck Norris ought to come and roundhouse-kick the author of the article in the nuts, cause he's talking bullshiat." }-Chuck Norris never even patched his Windows: nobody sends viruses and spyware to Chuck Norris. Nobody.

Mrkvonic

February 6th, 2006, 03:10 AM

Hi,
His tears could also cure cancer... Alas, he never cries.
Mrk

P.S. I heard Chuck is using Steven Seagal anti-spyware...

Mastertech

February 6th, 2006, 07:08 AM

-{ Quote: "Hahahaha... right. But hey, if you're convinced those presented are "facts", good for you. I'm not going to waste any more time on discussing this. Have a nice day." }-We wouldn't want to educate ourselves when we could just blindly believe propaganda right? None of this could be true because what? www.spreadfirefox.com says otherwise? Please try doing some research.

Nick Rhodes

February 6th, 2006, 07:51 AM

Interesting thread on Ars:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/558005957731

Mrkvonic

February 6th, 2006, 08:10 AM

-{ Quote: "We wouldn't want to educate ourselves when we could just blindly believe propaganda right? None of this could be true because what? www.spreadfirefox.com says otherwise? Please try doing some research." }-

Hi,

Who says?

Reply from a guy whose web standards support was used as source:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php

Experience and 800 extensions that can turn Firefox into Chuck Norris clone. You even have extensions that make Firefox behave like Firefox.

Seriously, you can run IE from within Firefox, you can get updates on Homeland Security, you can use gesture, block javascript, block ads, block cookies, spoof referers, clear private data, enhance tabs - protect them and undo closing them, time zones, dictionaries and another 600 or so.

Firefox is getting patched wihin hours rather than months, more vulnerabilites are being found and patched due to the open community, making Firefox ever more secure.

Firefox can run from a usb key, taking only few Mbs.

Firefox does not come preloaded and enmeshed in the system files, so it does not do chains of damage when malware is triggered; it does not allow malware to run, due to its very no-drive-by-download nature. Firefox waits to be called rather than eating constant memory like IE; Firefox is not slow; it's merely sleeping.

Firefox follow international standards unlike other other browser.

And so forth blah blah blah.

I read lots of posts by this guy (Andrew?), and usually he offered good advice to people. I do not understand why the sudden passion to bash Firefox.

Mrk

P.S. Can someone write a Chuck Norris / Texas Ranger extension. One that asks you: "Want a roundhouse kick?" You got Chuck's face there and the light theme of the Texas Ranger in the background.

And you can also ask the extension icon "What time is it?"
And Chuck extension icons says: "2 seconds till..."
And then you, being noob, say: "2 seconds till what?"
And then Chuck roundhouse kicks you in the face.
Do not ask Chuck any questions. Ever.

NexusHelm

February 6th, 2006, 06:52 PM

It's a pretty interesting page. I think, and I actually feel the same way, he's just trying to kill some of the complete overhype Firefox has received - and unfairly I believe. Opera already existed, doing what Firefox does and better, and it never got this kind of hype. Okay, it wasn't free. It is now, and it's certainly lighter and faster than Firefox.

1) Performance Myths

I agree with those. Firefox isn't the fastest browser, and I'm tired of its memory leakage. Open 20 tabs, close 20 tabs, memory is still at something stupid like 50MB of ram or more. It never handles memory properly, and this has been well debated. You can close Firefox completely and start it up again to clear out memory, but I wouldn't really say that's how any software should have to work. It's not a feature, it's a bug they refuse to properly acknowledge and fix. Wouldn't it be great if all other applications worked the same way? "Oh, you've used it and kept it open for a few days and it's taken all your ram? Well, you just have to close it and open it again". Some fix. I can run other software and have my PC on for weeks at a time, why can't Firefox be the same way? But, well, it can't. Just life. Less problems with Opera.

2) Market Share Myths

I agree they are also totally inaccurate. I've downloaded Firefox at least 10 times due to PC reinstalling, etc. Maybe others haven't done it quite as much, but still. It seems you can stick a counter on a page and claim download/usage numbers. In reality, someone could download, or never install. Download multiple times. Download and uninstall.

3) Security Myths

I disagree with some of the points in this section. I believe Opera is more secure, but Firefox has certainly helps over using IE, which seems to suffer the most serious exploits.

4) Feature Myths

I'm split on these. Again, I believe Opera's support is even better. In fact, I'm sure I remember someone once saying to me that someone from the W3C proclaimed Opera as the most accurate rendering engine. I have no idea if this is true, I am not claiming it to be fact. I find they both have rendering bugs.

Actually, as someone who makes websites on a freelance basis, I have even more split feeling over the W3C issue anyway. The W3C aren't really high in my favour list. Sure, they tried to standardize things, but sometimes I feel like what they're doing isn't of greatest benefit to us. Just think, if every browser had always stuck strictly to what the W3C said, maybe things like iFrames wouldn't have come about, amounst other features. IE does need better rendering and W3C compliancey though, I'm not disputing that. Wanting to use something like max-height in CSS, and you get complete headaches.

Don't get me wrong, I like Firefox. I like Opera too. I just think Firefox is overhyped. It's like Firefox was the second coming of Jesus. All these glorious things no-one has ever before seen. Firefox will take back the web! "I have a problem with IE" "Solution: http://www.getfirefox.com " and all that kind of smart-ass comments from people haven't really helped me favour wanting to support Firefox.

Opera always gets my vote, for features, being lightweight, and better handling of memory. Just my two cents.

ErikAlbert

February 6th, 2006, 10:37 PM

This one-sided article isn't objective and it's only talking about Firefox in stead of comparing pros and cons with the rest of browsers, but that was probably too much work for the author.
I've read enough websites that praise Firefox into heaven OR break Firefox down into pieces.
It's like reading a thread about NAV, the first post start with "NAV is a top notch AV" and ten posts later I read "NAV is crap". Very objective and very enlightening. Pffft. NAV doesn't deserve such remarks, neither does Firefox.

Firefox is #1 for me, because I like it in many ways.
I don't love Firefox, because I will ditch it immediately when I find a better browser.
I still use MSIE, because I can't get rid of it, but two browsers is enough for me.

Opera is at this moment probably the safest browser until it's compromised and has more security holes than Firefox and what then ? Switch back to Firefox ? Not me.
Opera isn't an interesting target for the bad guys, just like Firefox WAS in the past. :)

Devil's Advocate

February 7th, 2006, 09:17 AM

-{ Quote: "It's a pretty interesting page. I think, and I actually feel the same way, he's just trying to kill some of the complete overhype Firefox has received -
" }-

Someone who says that obviously isn't familiar with the history of 'Mastertech' .

As for the rest of your post, despite what you say, you are clearly jealous of firefox , because you are a big opera fan. It's dripping all over your post, the way you keep mentioning Opera.

bigc73542

February 7th, 2006, 09:46 AM

Well I am not jealous of firefox. I have both FF and opera. I have used opera for quite a few years and in my opinion FF has not surpassed Opera at all. I like FF but until they fix a few bugs I will keep Opera as my default browser. This is not a world shaking event, you just use the browser you prefer and the heck with what everyone else is useing. If someone wants to use IE that is alright also so I really don't see the reason for all the hype towards any browser.

bigc

Devil's Advocate

February 7th, 2006, 11:39 AM

bigc73542 I did not say all opera users are jealous. I certainly didn't say you were.

But your posting in this thread might change my mind. ;)

Typical display of Opera jealousy towards firefox

In a thread only about firefox

posts

1. Things that are bad about firefox (even if true)

2. Constantly brings up Opera, and says Opera is better. (Even if true is irrelevant, since it's a thread about firefox)

3. Tries to throw us off the scent by saying he doesnt hate Firefox, and like firefox but opera is way better and is his choice. (probably false but doesn't matter even if true)

Just kidding

Mastertech

February 7th, 2006, 12:53 PM

-{ Quote: "Hi,

Who says?

Reply from a guy whose web standards support was used as source:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php" }-Every single point has been refuted over and over. That page is full of conjecture, rhetoric, excuses and opinions but no facts and no sources.

-{ Quote: "Firefox does not come preloaded and enmeshed in the system files, so it does not do chains of damage when malware is triggered; it does not allow malware to run, due to its very no-drive-by-download nature. Firefox waits to be called rather than eating constant memory like IE; Firefox is not slow; it's merely sleeping." }-Ah you didn't even read the page. OS intergration relating to security is a Myth. You walked into that one. Drive by downloads are due to security expliots that are unpatched to even further harden this SP2 added even more protection with an enhanced download warning system. These simply do not happen on a fully patched SP2 system. As for the memory argument you may want to do some research on Firefox's memory leak problems.

-{ Quote: "Firefox follow international standards unlike other other browser." }-Not fully and IE does follow some of the standards as well.

-{ Quote: "I read lots of posts by this guy (Andrew?), and usually he offered good advice to people. I do not understand why the sudden passion to bash Firefox." }-To stop the spread of Myths, it is not bashing but informing.

Mastertech

February 7th, 2006, 12:57 PM

-{ Quote: "This one-sided article isn't objective and it's only talking about Firefox in stead of comparing pros and cons with the rest of browsers, but that was probably too much work for the author." }-That is because it is about MYTHS!!! It is not comparing pros and cons. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

Mrkvonic

February 7th, 2006, 01:18 PM

Hello,
Mastertech - I assume you're the author of the article ...
This is like a debate about religion - no winner.
Let's do something instead.
A comparison test.
You check all the points you state vs. IE and Opera.
Run actual tests and show results online.
For instance:
Fastest browser
Setup several machines - win98, xp and let's say suse with emulator - try them all.
Rendering
Ask people at wilders here for 10 pages randomly and test them, plus some official standard pages.
Security
Ask people here for 10 pages checking vulnerabilities, including drive-by-downloads, various javascript exploits etc, and test them.
Write down all exploits discovered in FF last year, their severity and how quickly they were patched.
Write down all exploits discovered in IE / Oper last year, their severity and how quickly they were patched.
And so forth.
One on one analysis.
Cheers,
Mrk

NexusHelm

February 7th, 2006, 03:17 PM

-{ Quote: "Someone who says that obviously isn't familiar with the history of 'Mastertech' .

As for the rest of your post, despite what you say, you are clearly jealous of firefox , because you are a big opera fan. It's dripping all over your post, the way you keep mentioning Opera." }-

Not really. I'm just giving another point of view. But it seems whenever you give another point of view that doesn't suit theirs (or yours), people can't handle it. I'm just giving points I believe the hype around Firefox isn't really just.

Am I huge Opera fan? Do I have wild fantasies about it? No, I actually use Firefox more than Opera. Shock horror. I prefer its interface, but I also used to like the Mozilla Suite, so perhaps I'm crazy. But that doesn't mean the hype over FF isn't wearing thin on me. It's an okay browser. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not doing anything amazingly new.

If someone asks me about an alternative to the IE browser, I'll recommend both Firefox and Opera. Choice is good. People don't have to share my views. But I'm not sure how people can think that all the hype Firefox has received is fair. It really hasn't taken back the web for me, and it really hasn't been the fasted browser ever.

Mastertech

February 7th, 2006, 07:07 PM

-{ Quote: "Hello,
Mastertech - I assume you're the author of the article ...
This is like a debate about religion - no winner.
Let's do something instead.
A comparison test.
You check all the points you state vs. IE and Opera.
Run actual tests and show results online." }-This is already done. Anyone can reproduce the test results here (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed), they are fully documented.

Mrkvonic

February 8th, 2006, 12:57 AM

Hi,
That's only one point out of 10 or so.
Anyhow, for anyone interested, this is a part of the conclusion of the comparison test mentioned in the above link:

I will bold out parts I find interesting:

Firefox and Mozilla are clearly optimised for Linux, and Opera is clearly optimised for Windows. These optimisations are mostly obvious with the loading times, although there is also a little difference in the cache handling on the different operating systems. However, Opera seems to perform admirably well on most tasks, on any platform. When it comes to page rendering (tables, CSS or images), most of the major browsers perform very fast, with very little to distinguish between them. When it comes to scripts, Opera clearly holds its head above the others, nearly twice as fast as the others. The only one that comes close is Safari 2.0, but that is tied to the Tiger release of Mac OS (currently in preview).

Opera also is a clear winner using history. In fact, on Linux it is faster than Mozilla and Firefox for all except starting time. On Mac and Windows, Opera is faster than Mozilla and Firefox for all tasks. Surprisingly, Mozilla is now faster at most tasks than Firefox (please don't send me any more emails about this line, I am well aware of why it is faster). Internet Explorer on Windows was either as fast as - or faster than Mozilla and Firefox for most tasks, with the exception of scripts, where it took over twice as long. Of course, its poor standards and security clearly make it a much less attractive prospect. The Moox Firefox install is actually slower than the standard Firefox versions distributed from Mozilla.org, even though it is supposedly optimised for my particular processor. The Mac optimised version is a bit better, but trades performance in one area for performance in another, making little or no difference overall. The performance of K-Meleon and Epiphany was similar to the performance of Mozilla and Firefox on the same platform. The new Netscape Browser preview (based on Firefox) was clearly suffering from bloat caused by the AOL add-ons.

Mrk

ErikAlbert

February 8th, 2006, 06:29 AM

-{ Quote: "That is because it is about MYTHS!!! It is not comparing pros and cons. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?" }-
I don't do in MYTHS. What have myths to do with software (browsers in this case) anyway, these are just computer programs, nothing more than that and every homepage praises its software into heaven as being the very best software on earth.
I prefer the objective approach based on knowledge, scientific proof, tests, experiences, ... but no myths, no hype, no religion, no feelings.
Every software has advantages and disadvantages and if can live with the disadvantages, than you found a software, that can be used by YOU and the rest of the world doesn't matter.

They call even software sometimes intelligent and/or intuitive, which is also BIG NONSENSE.
Only people are intelligent and intuitive and that's why people can see the difference between a false positive and a real threat, because a scanner is too stupid.
Each software has an I.Q. of a rock and does only what has been told by programmers and nothing more.
Only computers in SF-movies are intelligent and intuitive, but that's NOT real. ;D

Mastertech

February 8th, 2006, 07:05 AM

-{ Quote: "Hi,
That's only one point out of 10 or so.
Anyhow, for anyone interested, this is a part of the conclusion of the comparison test mentioned in the above link:" }-Which you will notice doesn't coincide with the results.

-{ Quote: "Firefox and Mozilla are clearly optimised for Linux, and Opera is clearly optimised for Windows." }-Really? That is why Opera is faster than FF in everything but CSS here? It doesn't matter though the Myths page is not discussing Linux. This is made quite clear at the top and I could care less about Linux.

-{ Quote: "Internet Explorer on Windows was either as fast as - or faster than Mozilla and Firefox for most tasks, with the exception of scripts, where it took over twice as long." }-Actually it was faster in everything but script speed. Which is why it is stated IE is faster than Firefox OVERALL because it is. Thanks for proving my point.

As for the other "points" they have nothing to do with the page. This is NOT a comparison guide but a page debunking Firefox Myths - Period. Firefox supporters always seem to miss this.

MrFlibble

February 8th, 2006, 08:38 AM

I think this thread needs a dose of Firefox Fables:

-{ Quote: "Fable (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology, usually widely believed but possibly just pulled out of one person's butt. While Firefox is a decent Web Browser, there are numerous Fables I spread around the Internet regarding it just so I can debunk them. Hopefully if I advertise this on every technology-related message board on the Internet under a dozen or so different names (listed at the top of this page), enough people will click on my ads to make me filthy rich." }-

-{ Quote: "Notes - This page is in no way affiliated with Microsoft or Comcast. This page is NOT an endorsement for any web browser dispite my endorsement at the bottom and it is NOT a Comparison Guide dispite the comparisons. It is designed to debunk the most common Fables heard on the Internet about Firefox - Period. Now hopefully you won't notice that the actual content of this article contradicts these notes." }-

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/images/firefox_fables.gif (http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/)

Mastertech

February 8th, 2006, 08:57 AM

Hey its my #1 Fan = Freewheelin Frank! Don't hate the truth.

ronjor

February 8th, 2006, 09:09 AM

The most important fact about Firefox is that it exists. By existing, it opened the playing field forcing other browsers to rethink their stategy on usability, features, safety, and numerous other points.
In the end, the browsers are better and the real winners are the users.

MrFlibble

February 8th, 2006, 09:13 AM

"Half a truth is often a great lie," as one of your countrymen once said.

Mastertech

February 8th, 2006, 09:32 AM

Too bad it is the WHOLE truth. Did you see v1.1.1 Frank? Good Stuff.

beetlejuice69

February 8th, 2006, 09:37 AM

-{ Quote: "The most important fact about Firefox is that it exists. By existing, it opened the playing field forcing other browsers to rethink their stategy on usability, features, safety, and numerous other points.
In the end, the browsers are better and the real winners are the users." }-

And that`s the whole truth.

MrFlibble

February 8th, 2006, 09:44 AM

-{ Quote: "And that`s the whole truth." }-

Amen to that.

Mastertech

February 8th, 2006, 09:47 AM

Mrkvonic

February 8th, 2006, 12:45 PM

Hi,
Like Ronjor said, it opened up the market.
It does not matter if firefox is the ...est ...est or ...est (fill in whatever you want), it is a solid, mature alternative, and it comes with 3,000,000 extensions that allow just about anything - except maybe eternal life.
Mrk

Devil's Advocate

February 10th, 2006, 07:08 AM

-{ Quote: "Not really. I'm just giving another point of view. But it seems whenever you give another point of view that doesn't suit theirs (or yours), people can't handle it. I'm just giving points I believe the hype around Firefox isn't really just. " }-

Strawman bashing is a fun game, I play it too sometimes. But the ones most jealous about FF's popularity and visit these threads are Opera fans. You could have easily made the same points without mentioning Opera several times in a thread about FF. :)

-{ Quote: "
Am I huge Opera fan? Do I have wild fantasies about it?
" }-

Well let's see if you are a big opera fan shall we.

-{ Quote: "Just life. Less problems with Opera." }-

-{ Quote: "
I disagree with some of the points in this section. I believe Opera is more secure, " }-

-{ Quote: "
I believe Opera's support is even better.
" }-

-{ Quote: "
In fact, I'm sure I remember someone once saying to me that someone from the W3C proclaimed Opera as the most accurate rendering engine." }-

-{ Quote: "
Opera always gets my vote, for features, being lightweight, and better handling of memory. Just my two cents." }-

Opera, Opera, Opera, Opera..... :)

-{ Quote: "
No, I actually use Firefox more than Opera. Shock horror. I prefer its interface, but I also used to like the Mozilla Suite, so perhaps I'm crazy.
" }-

Indeed, you must be crazy or lying given the ringing endorsement you gave about how Opera always get your vote.

-{ Quote: "
But that doesn't mean the hype over FF isn't wearing thin on me. It's an okay browser. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not doing anything amazingly new." }-

Yes , nothing new because Opera existed a long time ago right? :) Please come out and say it. LOL

The thing you opera people don't get is, until fairly recently, Firefox was the only alternative to IE because it was free and the masses expect browsers to be free. The adversion of Opera was unacceptable.

Even now, as good as opera is, it's still not positioned as an alternative to firefox because it's too complicated to use for the masses. The transition from IE to FF is still easier for most people.

-{ Quote: "
If someone asks me about an alternative to the IE browser, I'll recommend both Firefox and Opera. " }-

So would I. But that doesn't stop me from recognising that a lot of threads about FF are joined in by big Opera fans, who are jealous about FF's success.

-{ Quote: "Choice is good. People don't have to share my views. But I'm not sure how people can think that all the hype Firefox has received is fair. It really hasn't taken back the web for me, and it really hasn't been the fasted browser ever." }-

Because of Opera.. Sigh... Opera, Opera, Opera, Opera..

Mrkvonic

February 10th, 2006, 07:19 AM

Hi,
Here's a link to another thread.
This links to a new study report on spyware.
Please read through especially about drive-by-downloads and security in general, ff versus ie.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=119515

Mrk

Happy Bytes

February 10th, 2006, 07:21 AM

Well... On a mac laptop (i have this problem on iBook and PowerBook) after 15-20 min surfing the fan is running. However, this is one of the reasons why i do not use Opera. Blowing Battery Time just in the fresh air ::)

LIW

February 10th, 2006, 02:53 PM

-{ Quote: "Even now, as good as opera is, it's still not positioned as an alternative to firefox because it's too complicated to use for the masses. The transition from IE to FF is still easier for most people." }-

Hi Devil's Advocate,

First when FF (ver 1.0) came out, I downloaded it and added quite a lot of extensions to it. The sad thing is when ver 1.1 came out most of the extensions (nearly all) were not functioning. I have to go and search and install the extensions i wanted again. To me its a bit troublesome. Since that incident, I've stick with Opera till now. Please be informed, this is only my experience. (Pardon my poor English) Thanks.

Regards,
Liw

Notok

February 11th, 2006, 02:49 AM

I can't really say I understand the need to debunk myths surrounding Firefox. Fact is that these claims have shown true on my machine.. although I certainly recognize that it's not going to work the same way on everyone else's. I like Opera, too.. I use it for work so that I can keep my million extensions installed with Firefox, but without the extensions Firefox performs just as fast, if not faster, on my system.

IMO, just because it doesn't live up to your percieved expectations doesn't mean that it didn't for anyone else.

-{ Quote: "They call even software sometimes intelligent and/or intuitive, which is also BIG NONSENSE." }-Just FYI, ErikAlbert, "Intuitive" in this context means that the program is organized in a way that the user can easily learn how to use the program with intuition alone.. not that the program itself mimics any intuition. It's opposed to software that is counter-intuitive, that doesn't make any sense without studying the manual. ;) I agree with the rest of your post :)

NexusHelm

February 11th, 2006, 09:06 AM

-{ Quote: "Indeed, you must be crazy or lying given the ringing endorsement you gave about how Opera always get your vote." }-
Well I used to support Firefox in Opera threads, but my point of view changed over time. Sorry that's too much to understand ::)

-{ Quote: "Yes , nothing new because Opera existed a long time ago right? :) Please come out and say it. LOL" }-

So did Netscape, so did the Mozilla browser. I'm pretty sure I remember them having tabbed browsing features and such too, security was better but people made less of a big deal about it then. Not as early, but eventually (back 2002).

-{ Quote: "The thing you opera people don't get is, until fairly recently, Firefox was the only alternative to IE because it was free and the masses expect browsers to be free. The adversion of Opera was unacceptable." }-

Wrong, I do get it. I firmly remember IE vs Netscape wars. Unfortunately IE won, but once upon a time it used to be 50/50. I get it pretty well, believe me. Surely you forget the history of how the net built up if you don't remember Netscape was one such a popular free alternative, along with the Mozilla browser. Firefox isn't the first alternative to IE, not by a long way.

-{ Quote: "Even now, as good as opera is, it's still not positioned as an alternative to firefox because it's too complicated to use for the masses. The transition from IE to FF is still easier for most people." }-

I'm even happy to agree with that point. Opera could benefit from improving the interface.

-{ Quote: "So would I. But that doesn't stop me from recognising that a lot of threads about FF are joined in by big Opera fans, who are jealous about FF's success." }-

No, I'm not jealous of Firefox, which is the second time you've tried to claim this point. Incidently, I'm aware that Netscape was based on the Mozilla browser but I don't remember it needing the same overhype claiming things like "Faster browser", etc, to get popularity. Maybe I just remember incorrectly?