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)."
#124 Re: No
Wednesday July 10th, 2002 12:57 PM
You are replying to this message
"You missed it by several orders of magnitude in the wrong direction."
I don't think so. Here is some more simple math.
Calculate, during the whole 1.2 million NIMDA accumulation period, the total number of web pages served to IE clients. Now get that number and divide it into to the total number of infected web pages served IE clients for the same period. How about for the past 6 months? The past 2 years? 4 years?
What is the number you arrive at? Again, that was rhetorcial, as I can tell you that it is an extremely small number. You don't have to carouse around the Wild Wild Web to find an article at CNET to know this.
The only thing you have demonstrated to me is that their hasn't been any significant type of worm/virus that was spread due to strictly web browsing. The ones you do site, such as NIMDA and W32.Klez, are also proliferated via email, and they do so in a manner via email even more effective than Melissa and ILOVEYOU. Do you understand this?
Despite all of that, and despite even SARC's primary labeling of NIMDA and W32.Klez as 'mass mailing worms' with payloads of 'large scale emailing' you expect me to think that the infections via web pages were significant relative to the infections via email even when you yourself admit you have no breakdown of the numbers. Yet I am, somehow, supposed to relinquish simple common sense, reasoning, and perceptional abilities and say to myself:
'Yep, a guy by the name of Subtle Rebel over at Mozillazine has determined that the infection via web page rate was 24% because that's his experience, and, of course, the folks at Mozillazine are in favor of this figure, too. Throw in a nice juicy 'expert' article from News.com and hey, I don't need a brain to think any more.'
Sorry, but I don't think that dog is going to hunt. ;)