MozillaZine

Comparatively Speaking...

Monday July 1st, 2002

Linux Online recently compared the major Linux browsers, including the Mozilla-based trio of Mozilla 1.0, Netscape 6.2 and Galeon. Reviewer Michael J Jordan praises Mozilla's stability, tabbed browsing, rendering and customisation.

As mentioned by fondacio on our forums, the International Herald and Tribune took a look at Mozilla, Opera and NeoPlanet (note that the site doesn't seem to work in some builds of Mozilla). Reviewer Lee Dembart says that "Mozilla is impressive and has it all over Opera." He especially likes the ability to block pop-ups, tabbed browsing and pipelining.

UPDATE! tuxracer writes: "I've put up a browser comparison list, comparing various features that affect usability and W3C standards compliance. It compares Mozilla 1.0, Netcaptor 7.01, Internet Explorer 6.0 (Windows), and Internet Explorer 5.x (Mac)."


#103 Re: Re: Re: Re: No

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday July 9th, 2002 3:56 AM

You are replying to this message

> "If you'll re-read my last post above you'll see > that NIMDA was both an email and browser exploit" > > I did read about NIMDA. I've read several articles > about NIMDA and its overwhelming propogation came > from that of email, not web browsing.

What exactly are you basing that claim on? I am not aware of any factual study conducted to trace the propogation of NIMDA; I would think that that would be a nearly impossible task without pervasive access to thousands of companies' servers and workstations.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have personally have dealt with over 100 NIMDA infected websites. What I did not mention was that the reason that I have dealt with so many is because I have worked with 3 different companies whose networks were brought to their knees by NIMDA and we had to spend a lot of time getting them clean. During the process we tracked NIMDA back to websites and email. One of the companies called me in after they had been infected for the second time; the first time they cleaned all their sysems and upgraded their mail server's antivirus software so that it would stop NIMDA infected email; they could not understand how they got infected the second time because they had ignored the fact that NIMDA could spread through web browsing and file sharing. In almost every case, the individual users at these companies had no clue whether they were infected by mail, web, or file share; if asked they would probably say email because they believe, like you apparently do, that worms only get spread by email.