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)."
#128 Re: Re: No
by SubtleRebel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thursday July 11th, 2002 9:00 AM
You are replying to this message
"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."
You are misrepresenting what I said.
I explained how I determined that AT LEAST 24% of the NIMDA infections that I have dealt with were DEFINITELY NOT spread by email. I also stated that I could NOT determine the rate of infection via web page viewing because part of that 24% probably were not from web viewing and part of the other 76% probably were from web viewing; all that I can say for sure is that the 24% were not from email.
Ignoring facts presented is bad enough, but misrepresenting them is worse.
Also, your "simple math" is totally irrelevant. You stated said :
"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?"
Even if someone could simply calculate the total number of web pages served, it has no bearing on the discussion. If you came up with a ration between the number of web pages viewed by IE and the number of security compromises encountered then you would also have to calculate a ratio between the number of fatal car accidents and the total number of miles driven by everyone in the United States. Hardly simple math, but I'd be willing to bet that it would still show your claims to be invalid.
"Yet I am, somehow, supposed to relinquish simple common sense, reasoning, and perceptional abilities..."
It is rather obvious that you have already done that. You have your belief and you will continue to defend that belief despite common sense or reasoning, and to help in your defense you have choosen to disable any perceptive abilities that you might have and ignore the information that we have provided.
A logical argument consists of presenting facts and the logical implications of those facts. However you have not presented facts; instead you make claims based on your opinions, pose "rhetorical" questions that you do not want the real answers for, and make implications that you do not even attempt to give a basis for. There is no logic in an argument that continuously tries to redefine what the argument is about, but that is what you keep trying to do. There is no logic in an argument that misrepresents the opposing position in order to "prove" it wrong.