http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/2011/11/04/converting-a-chrome-user-to-firefox/

What I'm trying to say is that, when you present alternative choices to someone, you must make sure you let them know what one offers, that the other doesn't.

The security aspect (built-in security) was left out of the equation. Maybe if the guy did mention that Google Chrome has a sandbox, and what it is, what it does, and the benefits it brings, maybe his relative would stick to Google Chrome.

Who knows if she would have found Google Chrome, even without a perfect ad blocking functionality (at least for now), to be the best browser, considering all aspects?

The guy simply didn't put all cards on the table. He did that, because it's something that Firefox doesn't even remotely provide on its own, and that you can't achieve even with all the add-ons you add.

Simply putting, if it's to make a proper comparison, then one should reveal all the facts. The security fact was left out of the equation on purpose, I'm pretty sure.

 

Once again though, I have to state that it shouldn't matter one iota what browser one uses. Sure, he could have explained all the sandbox stuff and isolated processes. But, I have very serious doubts that this woman would have still had a somewhat firm brain in her head. It probably would have looked like it just got caught in the shock wave of an Arc Light bombing run once he got through explaining it.

So he was a bit biased perhaps, what do you think happens when a Microsoft employee gets asked about browsers by friends and family? I really don't think we need another Firefox vs Chrome comparison here. One, it gets mentioned here often enough, two it just leads to the same old, tired out back and forth.

 

I think that the choices were self-evident though.

Well, considering most people think that a sandbox is something that the cat goes to the toilet in, it would probably have meant nothing to her compared to something like the concept of the non-profit nature of Mozilla's Firefox. As an example, there are a variety of reasons that I personally prefer Firefox to Chrome, none of them are to do with security, but about functionality & customisation. Plus Chrome breaks more pages for me than Firefox, maybe it was the same for the woman in question. Or maybe she just preferred Firefox's better spellchecker.

Obviously she didn't though.

I don't know about that. Fx has a lot of security/privacy extensions, six hundred & sixty five in all I believe. Chrome may well be safer out of the box, so to speak, but for most users, Firefox with a few extensions is as good as most people need. The best security anyone can have online is to use their 'brain.exe'.

I doubt whether Mozilla devs are quite that dastardly. Surely if they were, they would be working for Google?

 

You could ask on his blog page.

 

What the guy told the girl... it's not that important. What I find ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ of an excuse is the article itself. Like the choice of a browser relies only on some aspects, while hiding the other aspects. And, saying some people wouldn't care about it, because they wouldn't understand... it's not an excuse either. Facts should be on plain view for anyone interest to find more about them. They clearly were left out of the equation... for some reason...

Come on... if this was in fact a non-distorted article, and make by an individual with more knowledge than the average Joe and Jane, which clearly is the case, then this person would write an article mentioning the main features of each browser. Google Chrome's sandbox is its main feature.

The guy tries to make Firefox the best. It makes sense. He works/worked in it. Maybe still works for Mozilla. I don't really know, but it's not the point either.

Microsoft does it... Maybe Google does it as well... Heck, I don't use Google Chrome. I don't hunt down what Google says.

Anyway, I suppose we all have our different views of how the article should be viewed... I just expressed mine, that's all. I see it this way...

 

I gotta agree with m00nbl00d, this is a clear example of noob abuse.

 

I never thought of Chrome's sandbox as its 'main' feature. Does anybody?

 

I bet she wasn't as innocent as she made out to be.

 

Definitely not, lol. At first, comparing Chrome 1/2/3/4 to the other browsers, speed/snappiness was the main feature, now it's just a handicapped browser in many perspectives.

 

Well, there you go, what we see as main features differs from what others see as main features. For me, in Google Chrome, the sandbox is the main feature.

Which is why all facts should be provided, and not kept in the dark.

For example, did the guy mention that Firefox's malicious domain blacklist comes from Google, and that Google Chrome has it, of course? Did the guy mention that Google Chrome also has a list against malicious files?

I simply can't see how one browser (whichever browser) can be seen as "something", and another has "something else", if we aren't explained about the browser's main features.

Anyway, it's just how I see it.

-edit-

And, by features, I mean security, functionality, usability... Is there anything else?

 

I'd argue that the sandbox is all that Chrome has..but then I'd be contributing to a thread that's beginning to look a whole like numerous others

 

Yes, I think that Chrome's shortcomings are becoming more apparent as things are progressing. I must admit that I always thought Chrome's main feature was its almost Zen-like minimalist design & simplicity. Although, to be fair, I have actually used Iron for a lot longer, not that there is that much difference between them.

 

I think that that's why Dr Evil's cat, Mr Bigglesworth likes it LOL!

Yeah, you don't wanna do that ...

 

Younger Americans and probably most of those outside the U.S probably won't get this, but when I first saw this "Zen-like minimalist design", I thought to myself "Where's the beef?"

 

Just wait some minutes, Hungry Man will come soon I'm sure and the argument will start.

This thread has the potential to overpower the https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=310260

Because it isn't restricted in the security perspective like that one

 

De gustibus ....

Even if he did, would it have really made a difference?

 

Actually, Hungry has some lost some love for Chrome as well. We discussed it just last night. He'll definitely argue for the security of Chrome.

 

I'm not a fortune teller. But, if the guy had put everything out in the clear, at least I could see it as conscious choice, if she had still picked Firefox.

She did pick Google Chrome at some point. She switched to Firefox because of the non-profit thing and a functional ad blocking add-on. But, who knows if she was told about the sandbox (properly explained in plain English) and other security features, maybe she would have kept Google Chrome. Who knows...

 

I respect your opinion, M00n, but I disagree that this is such a big deal. I mean, the worst thing the guy did was write an article and publish it. That just lead to what we have going on here. On his own time, in his own personal life with a family member, who really cares what he left in or out? She's not going to get hacked simply because she used Firefox, no more than I would get hacked the moment I put IE 6 on my system (that will be a cold day in Hades, but I digress).

 

I'll let others argue lol I made my opinions clear in the other topic in regards to security. Performance at this point is really similar in both Firefox and Chrome and it's impossible to accurately weigh the performance because of different features:
1) Firefox has Cache in RAM (potentially)
2) Chrome has prefetching
3) Firefox surpasses Chrome in 2D WebGL
4) Chrome surpasses Firefox in 3D WebGL
5) They are both apparently quite evenly matched in terms of typical Javascript

As DW said I have issues with Chrome. The ones I talked about last night are only a few of what I see.

 

Well, I kind of figured what you meant, but the Urban Dictionary always comes in useful in these instances.

 

Thinking about the whole story a bit more...

What if her system already had sufficient security measures in place? We just don't know.

Anyways, that wouldn't probably make a difference. Non-profit nature is a strong "guarantee" for some.

 

I'm sorry m00nbl00d, but I just don't see this as being some kind of a devious ploy by a Mozilla developer to convert someone to the dark side & use Firefox. It's not like he used Rohypnol or Jedi mind tricks or something to convince this woman to switch from Chrome to Firefox LOL.

... or did he?

 

Precisely... I totally agree... I truly don't care what the woman uses... She could IE6, for that matter. But, the guy did have to make an article about it, didn't he? Somehow, I can't stop thinking but to believe the intent was a totally different one than letting everyone else know what his relative likes or dislikes. The guy wanted to make it look like average joe and jane will be better off with Firefox. This was nothing but marketing.

The guy just remembered to write an article about a browser he worked/works on, that he suggested to a relative... using already a competitor browser.

What I argued is not what he told to his relative (I do wonder if she would still use Google Chrome, knowing all the facts, but that's another topic.), but what he left out of the article itself. He could have provided more information - as a side note - about more differences between both browsers. That would make it a more interesting article. But, it would be asking too much...

Because, if he really wanted to target a broader audience, then why not give more info about each browser, such as functionality, usability, etc. Then say something Pick the one that fits your needs..

 

Honestly, I could tell most people "Hey, switch to Firefox I'll set it up and it's got blah blah blah and better" or the same for Chrome and most people would listen to me purely because I'm a comp sci major and they know nothing. If I were a Firefox dev and I told people the same thing of course they'd listen.