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)."
#76 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not my exp
Sunday July 7th, 2002 8:06 PM
You are replying to this message
You did considerably more than tell a single distressed person. You posted nearly a dozen comments all suggesting that people were overly concerned about security.
I can't point you to a single site that compromises your security. That's not the point. The point is that there is a better chance of being a victim if you're using insecure software like Outlook or IE.
If security isn't really a problem, like you suggest, then to what do you attribute the estimated $1.6 trillion that security attacks, virus and worm attacks, and associated downtime cost in 2001 <http://220.127.116.11/sea…us&hl=en&ie=UTF-8> . $2.6 billion for cleanup of RedWorm alone doesn't seem like a non-issue to me <http://18.104.22.168/sea…us&hl=en&ie=UTF-8> . If security isn't a problem then why are corporations predicted to up their computer security budgets from 0.4% of revenue to 4% of revenue in less than a decade <http://22.214.171.124/sea…us&hl=en&ie=UTF-8> ? Individuals and companies spending $4.8 billion a year on security software because their application and OS software is full of holes doesn't seem like a non-problem to me <http://techupdate.zdnet.c…n/0,14179,2845627,00.html> . You can find more good reading on the costs and difficulties of setting up and maintaining a secure computing environment at <http://edtn.bitpipe.com/data/rlist?t=soft_10_136_2> .
"should take comfort in the fact that they are more likely to get killed in a car wreck (several times over) than to come across a web site that compromises their security."
Even if you've got statistics to back that up (did you post something and I missed it?) that's just not the point. I can't point you to a location where you are guaranteed to be involved in a car wreck but that shouldn't stop you from taking precautions like wearing a seat belt and not driving a vehicle drunk (or one which has a good chance of rolling over if you take evasive action).
Computers are attacked. Data is stolen or otherwise compromised. Computing is disrupted, bandwidth is lost and systems are destabilize by virus, worm and DOS attacks. To deny these facts is as silly as to deny that tens of thousands of people are killed each year in automobile accidents. Taking steps to avoid being a victim sounds like reasonable behavior to me.