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)."
#145 Re: Re: Re: Regardless, 86,000 in one day > 42,000 in
Saturday July 13th, 2002 9:54 AM
You are replying to this message
"Wrong. Not "a result of web browsing". You're again tryin to change the the whole discussion. "
I'm afraid that you are the one who is wrong and I'm disappointed to see that you are now starting to sound like that other guy.
Since my first post following what you just quoted, which was Friday, July 5th, 2002 at 08:24:38 PM my assertion was made quite clear:
'I assert that arielb could install the original Windows98 with an entirely unpatched IE4 and browse to his/hers hearts content without being 'compromised' in the least'
That was over a week ago. What had happened, in case you have forgotten, was the topic was shifting more and more to email (I wonder why) of which I later got things back on track.
"And I'll repeat _Every_ NIMDA exploit of a user's PC was the result of _an_ _IE_ _security_ _hole_. "
Now you are sounding like that other guy who entered the discussion late, thinking he had a clue as to what was going on.
"How about you admit that your original statement doesn't hold water or tell me that you still stand by your original claim as quoted above."
When someone starts tearing apart a statement in lieu of the point, I know they are getting desperate. The irony is, after all of this, that I don't really know if a person is more than likely to get killed in a car wreck several times over verses their system being compromised by browsing the web. The data presented has been interesting, but still nothing conclusive because it all rests on speculation via the likes of Klez and NIMDA visa vis email propogation. What I do know in regards to the point that I have made, is that a person is more than likely to get killed than have their system compromised via web browsing with IE. The ultimate point being that the 'safer browsing with mozilla' argument is a very weak sales pitch.
In case you have been wondering why the world isn't knocking on the lizards door in the name of 'securer browsing' at least now you know. Whether you, or any other mozilla advocate/user/devotee, care to come to terms with this reality is more of a spiritual issue than anything else. I can't help you there. :(
Good day, gentlemen. ;)