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)."
#136 Wrong again
by SubtleRebel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Friday July 12th, 2002 9:40 AM
You are replying to this message
"When compared to traffic deaths, your whole premise behind that is that those figures were a result of web browsing."
No it is not. As Asa has explained more than once, the point is that those figures are all a result of a flaw in IE. Whether they were spread by web browsing or email, it was a flaw in IE that allowed the exploit to succeed.
"You have no proof at all to show me that even 2% of that total was the result of web browsing."
Well, you have given no proof of anything that you have claimed. Your 2% figure is pulled out of thin air and has no meaning whatsoever.
As I have pointed out that if as few as 3.6% of the 1.2 million NIMDA infections were the result of web browsing then the number of NIMDA infections would exceed the number of auto fatalities for the year. When you increase the timeframe to cover the entire year and to cover all IE exploits instead of just a few weeks of NIMDA, then percentage required goes down. It is likely that only 2% of all IE exploits for the year would exceed the number of auto fatalities.
Based on my personal experiences of dealing with NIMDA infected computers, servers, and websites, and based on all the articles that I have read, and all of the online discussions that I have been a part of, the evidence seems to indicate that the number of NIMDA infections fromm viewing web pages is well above 3.6% of the total. You have presented absolutely nothing that indicates otherwise. Can you provide a link showing where SARC or any other reputable agency indicates that web browsing constitutes a lessor percentage?
Regardless though, the point still is that 100% of the infections, via web or via email, are the result of an IE security hole. Without IE on the computer, you would be safe from NIMDA, Klez, and all of the other exploits that tuxracer presented.
"This was kind of off topic, kind of not, but it was interesting to read in that article all of the 'experts' who find such cost estimates absurd, some even questioning what most of those things are beyond being a nuisance."
The cost is undoubtably off topic and is totally irrelevant. However, anyone suggesting that virii/worms are just a nuisance is a moron.
"Now that the focus is on statistics regarding being killed in a car wreck several times over, for arguments sake, what if I had said 'being killed in an accident.'"
I would say that once again you are trying to change the point of the discussion. You made a claim and it was invalid; you can not validate yourself by trying to change what you said.