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)."


#123 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday July 10th, 2002 11:47 AM

You are replying to this message

If webpage infections were even as low as 1% of the total infections (based on the phrasing of the warnings I suspect it was considerably more than this) and we saw as many as 86,000 infections in a single day <http://216.239.35.100/sea…da&hl=en&ie=UTF-8> then given a few weeks of the worm spreading at that rate there could be 20,000 infections via webpage in less than a month. In that same period there'd only be about 3,000 auto deaths in that same period.

You said to arielb about the pain of updating for ms security patches: "Then don't. What the 'IE security bashers' don't tell you is that the probability of your computer being compromised because of an 'IE security hole' is less than you getting killed (several times over) in a car wreck. "

Disregard the fact that every PC infection of NIMDA via email or webpage was indeed and specifically "because of an IE security hole" (which pretty much destroys your original claim) and just focus on the ones that were via web browser. In order to meet your estimate of being several times less likely than being killed in a car wreck, the percentage of infections via webpage would have to be about 5/100 of 1% of the total infections in that 3 week period. I don't buy that. If it was that little then it wouldn't be featured so prominently in all of the security alerts from CERT and others.

And then there's the point I made above, in direct refutation of your comment to arielb, that _every_ NIMDA exploit of a user's PC was the result of _an_ _IE_ _security_ _hole_. That means that in the height of NIMDA (the one day of 86,000 infections) the probability of your computer being compromised because of an IE security hole was approximately 688 times more likely that being killed in a car wreck. You missed it by several orders of magnitude in the wrong direction.

--Asa