MozillaZine

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)."


#30 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got that right!

by Dobbins

Saturday July 6th, 2002 3:03 AM

You are replying to this message

"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'."

If the Virus was an exe or com file rather than a VirusBasic file most Windows users would remain clueless about it's nature because Microsoft's default setting is to hide file extensions making it easy for a Windows Virus writter to include a "checkout this picture" message in the message that goes with the attached Windows Virus. This is a known security flaw, yet MS still hides the extensions by default in XP.

"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. "

First, 'nix has a habit of warning it's users about the dangers of using the root account for anything except routine maintance. For example if you use Gnome you get a popup warning that you are accessing it as root and that you can damage the system in this mode. One of Linux's IRC clients actulayy has a popup telling you that you are accessing IRC as root and that it's "stupid" to do this.

You failed to mention Windows 9.x where EVERY user has admin access making ALL 9.x boxes a security hazzard. Another example of MS's slipshod approach to system security. The real problem is MS just dosen't get security, the concept is alien to the company, (and it seems to many of it's users).

Most of the Viruses and security exploits use KNOWN holes in Microsoft Programs. The ease of writting Office Viruses has been well known for years. Nothing was done to plug these holes, not a patch for older versions, and the problems remain in Office XP. Outlook is part of Office and Shares all of the Office flaws. IE has several new exploits crop up each month, yet MS refuses to even consider looking at it's security model. IIS has one hole after another discovered

Microsoft Exploits remain open for months after they are discovered and announced to the public. Security patches have undone earlier patches reopening old holes, or failing to correct a problem giving MS Users a false sense of security.

Sorry, using MS products is like driving around in a Pinto with Firestone tires and no seatbelts. You might drive for years without an accident, ignoring the hundreds of burned out Pintos littering the sides of the roads and on the news reports, but it sure as hell isn't as safe as junking the Pinto and getting a car with some safety features built into it.