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)."

#99 Re: Re: Re: Re: No

by asa <>

Monday July 8th, 2002 10:29 PM

You are replying to this message

"Let me get this straight then. We should all use what isn't used much in order to best protect ourselves? I'm detecting a catch-22 in this. ;) "

Given a choice between a lesser used product with fewer holes and a more well known product with a lots of holes I'll take the lesser know one and recommend others do the same, especially when the feature sets are comparable. If the balance ever shifts and as user base grows it becomes more of a danger then an alternative with comparable features then maybe I'll move to some other app and recommend others do the same. I don't think that's the whole of it though. That it isn't used as much isn't the only reason that it isn't as succeptible to attack. It's fundamentally more secure. It was designed with security in the foundation, not tacked on as an afterthought (my opinion). I believe that given equal marketshare and equal contempt from crackers and other doers of malice that Mozilla would still be less succeptible to attack than IE.

"How about some sensible user education, use of av software, and maybe even firewalls instead? Maybe even better server side protection? I don't believe there is a product in the world that can replace all of that. "

Probably a good idea. Is my mom going to get much more of an education, purchase and install and then keep up to date an AV app to protect her free web browser, purchase, install and configure a firewall (or pay others to), demand better server-side protection from her ISP? I doubt it. Maybe she'll install some AV software. She'd do well to do everything you suggest because she does have mounds of proprietary and valuable data on her PCs (she runs a small publishing house). Doing all of those things would be good. Doing even some of those things would be good because if you have valuable data on your systems or you can't afford disk-full downtime or lost bandwidth or DOS attacks, then everything you can do to protect yourself is good. Everything including replacing insecure client apps like IE and Outlook.

--Asa (have we hit 100 comments yet?) :)