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)."

#28 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got that right!

by kristen

Friday July 5th, 2002 11:33 PM

You are replying to this message

"Feel free to assert all you want"

Thanks, I will. ;)

"The point is that Mozilla and other applications _are_not_ the target that Outlook is. Same goes for IE."

Of course not. If I wanted to do damage, wreak havoc, and cause problems with the highest degree of success, I certainly wouldn't bother making a program that read address book info from the latest mozilla nightly build. I'd make something that goes with what's the most popular and widespread at the time.

"With Mozilla arielb _is_ safer reading any mail that arrives in the inbox and is safer surfing even malicious websites."

How is that I wonder? In OE I can have scripting and attachments completely disabled. How exactly does Mozilla surpass this?

"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)."

Small user base being the keyword. Like I said earlier, the email 'viri' that are so frequently brought up could just have easily been an *.exe file that a mozilla user could have chosen to execute. You're in quite a catch22 there: Too small for hackers to care about, yet at the same time evangelizing.

"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?"

Hmmm. Earlier you told me to feel free to assert all I want. I must have misread that.

To answer your first question as to why I am reading and posting at Mozillazine, the answer is simple: Because I can. If this a no-no then maybe a security upgrade is in order. ;)

Am I a Mozilla advocate? I'm not quite sure what you mean there. Do I have it installed on my own computer? Yes. Is it my primary browser? No. Do I preach it to other people? No.

Am I providing Mozilla news? Kinda. A different and practical point of view is more like it. If you're seeking to have a small community of people that hang around and agree with each other all day long then I suggest you do follow up with the earlier suggestion and get that 'Blind Mozilla Faith Only' security patch applied. ;)

Still waiting for those links. ;)