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)."

#109 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No

by asa <>

Tuesday July 9th, 2002 8:33 PM

You are replying to this message

"All you, and others, have done are site examples that involved email in one form or another."

Wrong. I cited NIMDA, <http://www.mozillazine.or…le=2329&message=84#84> repeatedly, and estimated financial impact as well as estimated numbers of infections. This was a worm that affected Outlook and IE and didn't require user execution. _It_ _is_ _a_ _worm_ _that_ _affected_ _IE_ _via_ _webpages_ _and_ _doesn't_ _require_ _user_ _execution_.

" Now imagine the consequences of something that only requires a person to view the email."

I don't have to imagine and neither do you. Look it up. Read my post at <http://www.mozillazine.or…le=2329&message=84#84> "NIMDA, one of the costliest and most widespread worms in the history of MS Windows computing (more than 1.2 million infections in the first couple weeks it existed with as many as 120,000 infections in a single day (LINK)"

"The point is, Asa, that you have made no case in refuting my initial statement to arielb."

If arielb wants to avoid getting and spreading NIMDA from visiting an infected webpage then applying MS security updates is the next best thing to not using IE. I don't see where that falls short of a refutation.