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)."

#24 Re: Re: Re: Re: Got that right!

by kristen

Friday July 5th, 2002 6:24 PM

You are replying to this message

"Are you counting virus infections as being compromised?"

I'm glad you brought that up. You mean like Melissa, ILOVEYOU, W32.Klez and such? The ones that people in the forums here and mozilla newsgroups love to bring up to bash OE?

Those were rhetorical questions, of course. What you won't hear from these people is that those 'viruses' required people to execute an attachment in order to wreak havoc. Some were designed specifically to target OE users by using VBScript (a language only supported by IE/OE). Those attachments could just have easily been an executable (rather than an OS specific scripting language) that scanned, lets say, an NS4 users address book and then proceeded to send itself to all of the NS4 users 'buddies'. The attachment could even be more effective by including its own SMTP engine (such as W32.Klez) to bypass the users email client all together. If something requires a user to execute it in order to wreak havoc then game over. It is no longer a fault of any given operating system, email client, web browser, etc. Especially if the user in question has administrator level rights such as in WinNT/2K/XP, Linux, etc.

You, of course, won't hear that from the 'of the people, by the people, for the people' Mozilla crew. It is sad to see these kinds of things targeted at Windows users. It makes me wonder who the people are that are making these things, where they come from, and what operating system, web browser, etc. they spend their life evangelizing.

"Telling people that they shouldn't download security updates because of the the low probability of their being attacked, compromised or exploited is irresponsible."

Agreed. I don't normally suggest to people that they don't download updates, however, arielb seemed to be irritated by having to download security updates for IE so I gave him/her some food for thought. 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.

One thing that you could do, or anyone else here for that matter, is to take a break from the IE/OE/Windows security ranting and provide arielb some worthwhile links that he/she should not visit (including all of us 'in the dark' folks), lest they compromise his/her computer and severely degrade his/hers way of life.

Of the people, by the people, for the people. Do you know what the amazing thing is? I'm sure that most of the regulars here don't even know what I'm talking about.