Kevin, Errant Atheist - Firefoxmyths.com debunking

Page Summary

08:52 pm :: Firefoxmyths.com debunking

May 2009

					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

atheist_clergy

2/13/06 08:52 pm

Leave a comment 2 comments Add to Memories Tell a Friend Link

Firefoxmyths.com debunking

I don't like being manipulated. It annoys me when people and groups think that I have to be lied to, in order to make the "right" decision. I didn't like the anti-proposition one people exaggerate how bad the anti-gay constitutional amendment will bill. I know it's bad. I also know that Google Desktop is a bad idea for my firm. I don't need the EFF blowing it all out of proportion. I also don't need the threat of WMD or terrorists either. Be straight with me.

There's a link floating around on the blogs today: www.firefoxmyths.com. I encourage you to take a look at it, and evaluate it. Here's my initial take:

firefoxmyths is full of crap. :-)

Hiding the the person behind the report (the domain is proxy-registered) and picking and choosing their sources-- all are bad form for an attempt to "bring the truth to light."

My favorite example:

"Since Firefox v1.x was released, users have been exposed to 72 security vulnerabilities and counting, 39 of which are rated as Highly Critical and 1 Extremely Critical. - Source (http://secunia.com/product/4227/)" But secunia has a similar report for IE here: http://secunia.com/product/11/

Secunia rates Mozilla Firefox 1.x an overall rating of Less Critical and IE as Highly Critical. Firefox's volume of vulnerabilities is 27 advisories 6% of which are unpatched. IE: 91 vulnerabilities with 28% still unpatched.

If you're going to fight FUD, it can't be with counter-FUD.

They are at least honest that Opera is the safest browser (http://secunia.com/product/4932/)

Comments

livinginfits

2006-02-14 02:50 am (UTC)

Reply Link Thread

i agree with what you're saying, but there was also more to that site than just security issues. it also had to do with performance and conforming to standards. everyone has their different reasons for doing something. personally, i choose to use firefox because the way i have it configured suits my browsing habits better. i don't have to rely on possibly uninformed beliefs about its security or quality.

i think that the site was taking issue with the vast amount of people who are pushing firefox just because they want to have a contender against IE domination. i would have to agree with them. i would say that unless you are an informed individual, you should list your reason for using something as choice instead of unverified hearsay... which tends to run rampant on the intarwebs.

atheist_clergy

2006-02-14 03:44 am (UTC)

Reply Link Thread

I chose to look at the security claims because that's what I know. The rest of them are pretty weak too. They claim that IE is superior because it'll run on a 66MHz 486? WTF? Requirements are so arbitrary anyway, how do you determine requirements? Is it simply executing without crashing? Or is it run-fast-enough-that-you-don't-pull-out-your-hair?

Me, I choose firefox because I can control it. Through extensions like noScript, flashblock, adblock I can keep out the garbage. I moved A. over to firefox and haven't had any spyware compromises since.