Favourite browser (January - June 2011)

Discussion in 'polls' started by 3GUSER, Jan 3, 2011.

?

Which is The Browser (January-June 2011)

Poll closed Jul 2, 2011.
  1. Internet Explorer 9

    7.3%
  2. Internet Explorer (older version)

    6.1%
  3. Mozilla Firefox 4

    22.2%
  4. Mozilla Firefox (older version)

    18.0%
  5. Opera 11

    16.5%
  6. Opera (older)

    0.8%
  7. Google Chrome dev/beta

    4.6%
  8. Google Chrome (stable)

    18.0%
  9. Safari 5

    0.8%
  10. Safari (older)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. Other (which one?)

    5.7%
  1. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Safari 5 has One vote (Me)....what's wrong with you people:rolleyes: :p :D

    PS > Not meant as an offensive comment!
     
  2. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Interesting thoughts, in the very least. What security benefits does Firefox browser offer? There's been a long time since I last used it... Perhaps, 3 years ago. What sort of security measures did the Mozilla team introduced? Protected Mode (low integrity level) for Windows Vista/7 users? Sandbox features alike Chromium based browsers?

    Please, note that I'm asking about Firefox security benefits... not extensions or accessories as you call them.

    Well, don't forget every automobile is prone to accidents. Mostly, due to the driver. ;)
     
  3. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,941
    Location:
    USA
    When you used speed as a metaphor, John, expect us to believe you are saying it is the fastest.
     
  4. John Bull

    John Bull Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    London UK
    Page, I apologise for my lack of definitive English. Let me say now, that ALL my comments are NOT intended to infer that Firefox is the fastest browser. FF has a very reasonable SPEED, but apart from that, I could not care less. My entire waffle is supposed to indicate "luxury" and my analogies show that theme.

    I feel that I have participated enough in this very topical, enjoyable and interesting thread. I have made my points best I can and anything further would be counter-productive. So I am backing out with this last post. Many thanks to the OP for raising a most popular thread and my hopes are that it keeps going.

    John
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2011
  5. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    I'm sorry to interrupt in this dialogue but I wonder why extensions can't be considered as a factor when we mention security benefits. I've seen a number of such comments by IE/Chrome fans who are heavy on criticizing Firefox while insisting on praising the "built-in" security benefits that those 2 have. Why?

    I won't dispute the argument that those features are good in enhancing overall 'security' of a browser (esp. to prevent access to the system) and that Firefox may want to consider including them in future releases...

    However, the IE Protected Mode and Chrome Sandbox is based upon the use of integrity levels within the OS itself. In this case, this mainly benefits Windows Vista/7 users. How does Windows XP users benefit from those features? What about the other platforms beside Windows such as Mac OSX or GNU/Linux? In other words, how are they really 'built-in' security benefits??

    I'm suspecting that some would jump in and claim that Chrome/IE currently also offer "built-in" security/privacy features (e.g. Javascript, cookie control, etc) but let's be objective here - while Firefox may not have those, it provides the API for developers to build add-ons for them...some of which may be seen by some users as having more 'convenience' or 'usability' compared to the ones provided by the other 2 browsers. Heck, even those browsers have now 'ports' of these known Firefox extensions (e.g. NoScript port)

    You might disagree and say that it's pointless but that is nothing more than an individual assessment/opinion. Is there a need for the harsh treatment towards the word "extensions" - just because you don't like them doesn't mean others follow your mindset, right?

    Some might steer away from the likes of NoScript and say "that's not important for me or it's freaking annoying". That is very understandable. But same goes for Protected Mode and/or 'sandbox' - a person can also say that those aren't important to him/her.

    My point is security features/benefits are only perceived as right/just as what the individual decides/wants it to be. Instead of 'attacking' another person's browser preference by questioning its security credibility or trying to prove one browser's superiority over the other, why can't we just let the user decide which route he/she wishes to go with?;)
     
  6. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Chrome's sandbox isn't only the low integrity level.

    In the link you pointed:

    I guess you could read the rest. ;)

    The thing is, Firefox by itself provides no security, IMO, either by itself or by making use of what the operating system offers. IE and Chrome do.

    Tell me, what if some user using NoScript whitelists a website? Then what? What security benefits does Firefox offer that could prevent exploits?

    So, if it's OK to talk about Firefox security extensions, then it makes no sense to say IE, even in Windows XP is insecure, because people have EMET, Sandboxie, etc... So, it doesn't matter the browser, and it's useless to say IE is insecure, because people can make use of such applications to make it secure. Same for Firefox with its extensions, and Sandboxie, etc.

    So, John Bull was wrong in his assessment:

    My reply had in mind also that part "Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.

    Right, it's a joke. Is it a joke not to make users dependent on extensions to make them secure? (Users want extensions, fine... But, regarding Chrome's security, not needed. It's my opinion.)

    Chromium based browsers do offer security to their users, even in Windows XP, as the link you mentioned points out.

    So, I ask: Without the likes of NoScript, what is there left to protect Firefox's users?
    Also, has you said, not everyone can handle/gets annoyed with something like NoScript, which cripples user experience.

    It's the browser that should be hardened with means that can be used by every user. The problem itself are not the extensions; I got no problems with them. I'm glad they exist for Firefox users. But, Mozilla should harden their browser, by making use of what the O.S already offers.

    That's what Google did.

    I know that I can have my relatives use Chromium (I prefer this flavor :D), without killing browser experience with javascript disabled, and that they're covered by Chromium's sandbox and low integrity level, which in case of an infection, nothing bad could happen, because it couldn't do nothing much or provoke damage.

    I wouldn't feel so confident leaving them with Firefox, without NoScript, which they would freak out with it.

    As you said:

    So, John Bull couldn't expect to make the assessment he made without others replying back about what IE and Chrome truly have to offer, and in case of Chrome also in XP.
     
  7. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    I have. Please note the word "mainly" that I used above.;)

    How do you define security? Based on feature sets? Firefox "by itself" provides security features and the fact that it doesn't support ActiveX helps too.

    Just because those doesn't appeal to you or that it lacks a certain XXX feature that the competitor has doesn't equate it to none. That is unfair comparison imo.

    One can argue the point that both Chrome and Firefox leverages the help from a 3rd-party in order to enhance the browser's 'security'. Firefox with its extensions and Chrome with the inclusion of IL provided by the OS (which comes from MS).

    I can question the same for IE and ActiveX...what happens if some user allows the ActiveX control? (assume the admin hasn't disabled or put the right restrictions to it)

    Since it's going to be a long post, I have posted the answer to the NoScript misconception here. Please take time to read it. :)

    Right. It makes no sense. The "security" of a browser is subjective. How you achieve the "security" you deem necessary to your environment is up to you. Built-in vs extensions shouldn't be the debate imo.

    And why are you confusing the term 'extensions' (that 'extends' a browser) with an installation of an application on the system that encompasses more than just the browsero_O

    That's your opinion but not everyone subscribes to that.

    Who says Firefox users are "dependent" on extensions to make them secure? That's an inference you make, not necessarily a fact. I find it ironical here that it is "a joke" to be dependent on extensions but it is alright to be dependent on 'built-in' security...

    And what security are you talking about to be precise? Are you referring to exploits and drive-by downloads? Chrome and IE's "built-in" security help to mitigate by a degree but are you going to place full dependence on them?

    Chrome offers security, but it doesn't cover every single hole out there. Hardly anything does. Others may not need those and gain no advantage from what Chrome offers. So, what would you say to them?

    Extensions or even choice of a browser can't "make them secure". No matter how 'secure' a browser is, be it 'built-in' or with extensions, what can possibly stop PEBKAC? Social engineering is a problem and where does Chrome or Firefox for the matter help in this case?

    Question yourself this: Without IE Protected Mode and without Chrome 'sandbox', either by the user turning it off (some do) or is "bypassed" in an exploit or a vulnerability, what is there to left to protect the users?

    I need to ask this: Is that statement based on experience or based on what others have stated? You stated that you have not used Firefox for 3 years.

    Talking about crippling user experience, that differs from one to another. Some find NoScript annoying (most do) while others find that it makes the web 'better' by silencing down things like flash, ads, etc. NoScript can be set not to interfere that much....it's up to you how you go about using it to suit your browsing patterns.

    Right. Absolutely agree there. I didn't argue otherwise either. Hence, why not give the Mozilla team some time to do that?

    However, I must say that I notice that it's becoming much of a trend/hype whereby when IE introduced Protected Mode and Chrome offers sandbox, people question what Mozilla is doing?

    So, what happens in the future if another browser comes along and introduce a new 'security feature'? Chrome and IE will become useless too? Do browser developers need to constantly rush through with the introduction of XXX because another has done so?

    Disabling java-script is not a necessity per se. You don't need NoScript with Firefox. However, if one has decided to disable Javascript and handle white-lists (on a per-domain basis), the combo of Firefox with NoScript can be more 'usable' if compared to what Chrome offers 'built-in' and more so than IE. That's my opinion, based on my own experience...

    And speaking of confidence, I wouldn't be confident leaving them with any browser, be it Chrome/Firefox/IE/Opera/Safari if I hadn't set policies or alternative means of protection on the OS itself in the 1st place.

    Summary:

    Main point is simple and clear-cut. Let's just leave the browser security issue alone since it's going to be an endless debate. I have no interest at all on attacking one browser over the other since I'm aware of the pros and cons of each. I'm not a blind fanboy by all means. I use Firefox because it serves me well, not because it's 'security' is better than the rest. Whatever I've stated above are only to open up thoughts to be pondered over and not to be mistaken as if I'm anti/against any browser.

    @moondblood

    If anything, PM me...I don't wish to derail this thread further. Browser preferences involves more than security aspects. I don't know why it has led to this. It's a poll thread whereby the OP asks for "favorite" browser.
     
  8. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    @ safeguy

    No need to PM you.

    Allow me to re-mention the following.

    My comment was towards John Bull's statement/affirmation, who said:

    My comment was only meant towards him, in a way that, if he considers this, with what information o_O, then anyone else, including me, is free to say the same regarding Firefox.

    I just pointed out that Google Chrome, or better yet, if I'm allowed, Chromium based browsers aren't a joke, due to the security implementations it has. Chromium/Chrome are far from being a joke.

    And, since this is a "Favourite browser" thread, then I can add that I can say Firefox is a joke, because I enjoy Chromium's simplicity... fast loading... etc...

    It doesn't make it OK to say Firefox is a joke, though. I just don't like it. Period.

    I simply do not understand the claim John Bull made. Is it based on what?

    My comment was done in a way, as saying: OK... you dislike it... I dislike Firefox... others like Opera... others IE... others Kmeleon... etc

    But, when one says xyz browser is a joke, then for sure something more is needed to be explained... otherwise is just a vain statement/affirmation.
     
  9. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    @moonblood

    I know all that...you don't have to repeat lol:p I agree that John Bull put on such a bold statement without stating explicit reasons or acknowledge it as his opinion initially. My comment was meant for you and has nothing to do with what you've stated against John Bull. I just found it weird the choice of words and tone you used

    It sounded to me in the beginning as if you were mocking upon the use of extensions. That is why I had to 'interrupt' upon your dialogue. Anyway, just forget all of these...:D
     
  10. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Oh... Not, at all. I actually mentioned in some other post after that one that I'm glad the extensions exist, otherwise what would Firefox users have helping them achieve a better security, right?

    That was not the case. When I said "Please, note that I'm asking about Firefox security benefits... not extensions or accessories as you call them.", I already had in mind that Chromium based browsers already provide better security without the need to for extensions. Something, I know for sure, it fits way better to people like my relatives... and not only... unlike Firefox with extensions like NoScript.

    With Chromium based browsers all the user has got to do is keep it updated, and in case of Chrome the update is automatic, I believe, without having to worry with extensions updates as well. Chromium based browsers make use of what the operating system has... it's already there; the user has nothing to do or setup.

    I find this, as I mentioned, a better approach for folks like my relatives. Obviously, other users... and I'm one of them... enjoy the simplicity, etc... whatever is there more, about Chromium/Chrome.

    Basically, with my comments I meant to show why Chromium based browsers aren't a joke.

    Anyway... enough said to exhaustion. This matter is dead and buried. :D Let's move on to next "whatever matter". ;)
     
  11. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    AFAIK Chrome extensions don't automatically update. I update Chrome extensions manually anyway. I didn't think they updated automatically like Safari & Opera. In fact, I have discovered that I can drag & drop the 'jigsaw piece' icon from 'recently opened' to the toolbar & 'rename' it with no name so just the icon itself is there with my favicons. I do this with Downloads & others. It kind of makes this Chrome extension a bit redundant I think.
     
  12. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I mentioned Chrome, itself. Not extensions. Chrome, AFAIK, updates by itself.
     
  13. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Oh, OK. You had me worried there, I thought there was some way the extensions updated automatically that I didn't know about. It would be nice if Chrome flagged you when an extension needs updating though. Even SeaMonkey does this! :)
     
  14. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I keep giving Safari a chance, it has extensions that actually work properly, unfortunately Safari keeps letting me down. I thought it would work much better on my powerful desktop, it does to some degree, but I miss Safari 3. :'(
     
  15. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Yes, it would be nice. In fact, if it's possible to have extensions, then the web browser should alert the users when new updates are available, IMO.

    Maybe in a near future...
     
  16. ExtremeGamerBR

    ExtremeGamerBR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Posts:
    1,351
    1. Mozilla Firefox 4 Beta 9 [Adblock Plus + NoScript]
    2. Google Chrome 8 [WOT + Adblock Plus]
    3. Internet Explorer 9 [Waiting for the RC]
     
  17. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,934
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I have Safari 5 on my Comp. I use it as my secondary browser. Opera is my Primary
     
  18. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,531
    Location:
    British Columbia
    SRWare Iron - smooth and "blistering fast"! ;)
     
  19. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I don't particularly fancy visual metaphors using women, but Chrome isn't exactly skinny or anorexic: on my old laptop it uses almost twice the memory compared to IE8. It is still my browser of choice as in terms of speed it outperforms any other browser I've tested on my computers (4 laptops).
     
  20. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Good to know i'm not the only Wilderer:rolleyes: that uses Safari 5!
     
  21. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Apparently there are more than 100,000 members at Wilders; of these 10,000 are active, and in this poll perhaps around 100 members have cast a vote so far. The results are an indication at best within a very small group of security oriented people.
     
  22. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I have used Iron since the first #2 series. It would have been my fave if it wasn't a tad buggy. However, I still use it sometimes on my laptop as I can watch Channel 4 (UK) shows without commercial breaks by courtesy of Iron's internal adblocker. Now ... you can't do that in Chrome! :cool:
     
  23. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,841
    Location:
    KEEP USA GREAT
    Internet Explorer Eight
     
  24. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I guess you got a point there;)
     
  25. ExtremeGamerBR

    ExtremeGamerBR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Posts:
    1,351
    EDIT:

    1. Google Chrome 8: Adblock Plus
    2. Mozilla Firefox 4 BETA 9: NoScript + Adblock Plus
    3. Internet Explorer 9 [Waiting for the RC]
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.