Firefox Myths

[se7engreen]

Article

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]

Originally Posted by se7engreen

Article



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]

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]

Originally Posted by se7engreen

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TNT

I'm sorry. That article is complete trash.

+1 i also dont like the other myth articles either.

[FluxGFX]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mastertech

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mastertech

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mrkvonic

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]

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

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

[Mastertech]

Originally Posted by TNT

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.

[NGRhodes]

Interesting thread on Ars:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/grou...m/558005957731

[Mrkvonic]

Originally Posted by Mastertech

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...efox-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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by NexusHelm

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]

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]

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