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)."
#27 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got that right!
Friday July 5th, 2002 9:58 PM
You are replying to this message
"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) "
But they weren't, were they? And I think you're confused. There have been and are Outlook virii which reqire only that the user open the message. Some did require executing and Outlook does everything it can to make that easy for a user to do. The point still remains that if you use that software you are going to be subject to that attack and if you don't use that software you won't be subject to that attack. The point is that Mozilla and other applications _are_not_ the target that Outlook is. Same goes for IE.
"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. "
If you really wonder why these attacks are targeted at windows then I'll help you out. Microsoft makes it easy. Targeting MS apps and OS is much easier than targeting Mac or Unix apps and operating systems. It's not a a difficult concept. If I leave my door unlocked I am more likely to be burgled than if I don't. Microsoft has left the doors unlocked.
"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. "
Feel free to assert all you want but the truth is that the less secure you are the more likely you are to be compromised. You've got a 50% greater liklihood of dying in a car crash if you don't wear a seatbelt. It's not that complex a concept.
"take a break from the IE/OE/Windows security ranting and provide arielb some worthwhile links that he/she should not visit"
The two are orthogonal and I'd argue that arielb should feel safe reading any mail that arrives in the inbox and should feel free and safe to surf to any URL on the Web without worry that user data could be easily compromised. With Mozilla arielb _is_ safer reading any mail that arrives in the inbox and is safer surfing even malicious websites. That's the result of Mozilla's better security and privacy as well as the fact that Mozilla isn't the target that IE and Outlook are (both because it is a more difficult target and a less desirable target because of a smaller userbase).
On more thing, and if you respond at all please respond to at least this question. Why are you reading and posting at mozillaZine and can you explain how your comments fit in to this website's overarching topic, "Mozilla News and Advocacy"? Are you a Mozilla advocate? Are you providing Mozilla news?