Firefox Clone?

[knate5000]

Just looking at the new IE7 (I haven't downloaded it yet) it looks like a clone of FireFox!

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx

 

Do you think they get mad if you visit microsoft using firefox? You think they track the number of FF users?

[stevevan]

*shiver* It's still Micro$oft, right? Like any other MS product, I'll wait a year or two until a lot of the bugs (I'm sorry..."undocumented features") are worked out before I'll try it.

[TCH-Thomas]

Do you think they get mad if you visit microsoft using firefox?

It´s possible they check their stats to see how many visited them using this or that, but I doubt they would get mad.

 

However, since some stuff on microsoft sites uses MS only stuff (like activex etc), the page might not be presented the way its supposed to and you might miss some important info.

[Steve Scrimpshire]

What's this "Microsoft" thing everyone is talking about?

[TCH-Andy]

What's this "Microsoft" thing everyone is talking about?

something to do with viruses and spyware I think

[JTD]

I have IE7. Which I only use if I am on a site that only allows certain parts to be accessed with IE only. 99.9% of the time I use FF. But when I do use IE7 so far no bugs. And yes it is a FF wannabe.

[makaveli]

i seen this new IE ages ago and it to be honest annoyed me to the max that MS have as i said "ripped off mozilla"

 

still ill stick with firefox unless its a "Must see" in IE

[Deverill]

I love firefox and use it almost exclusively, but I ran across the Firefox Myths site and if you look at it with an open mind and not get immediately defensive, it will make you consider Opera. (please read the site before saying how you tried Opera years ago and don't like it. )

[TCH-Bruce]

Interesting read Jim. Thanks for that.

 

I still use IE sometimes, have Opera on my machine but rarely use it. Firefox is still my choice of browser.

[TCH-Thomas]

Thanks Jim.

 

I too have all 3 installed but uses Firefox primarily. Interesting read though.

[JTD]

I disagree with part of that. For example. FF loads for me 3 times as fast as IE 7 does.

[Deverill]

Remember that they are talking about the first time you start it up. Any additional loads will work from a cache and your mileage may vary.

 

Also keep in mind it depends on things like what your homepage is set to. If, for instance, FF is faster at Java and your homepage has a lot of Java it could throw off your speed comparison experience.

 

IE 7.0 is also still in beta/rc state. It could change based on what switches they had thrown on that particular build.

 

Everyone is going to have a preference, I just wanted to make sure it was based on solid information. As I write this I'm using FF. I also have an Opera session running with about 8 pages open for CSS reference stuff. Even though FF may be less safe, I've not experienced problems so I'm more likely to use it. It is, after all, based on all appearances, the best-developed-for as far as extensions go.

[carbonize]

You will notice that if you download either the IE7 beta/rc installer or the WMP11 beta installer it will perform a windows verification but it does not use the WGA you already have installed but instead uses one built into the installer.

[Kaula]

I love firefox and use it almost exclusively, but I ran across the Firefox Myths site and if you look at it with an open mind and not get immediately defensive, it will make you consider Opera. (please read the site before saying how you tried Opera years ago and don't like it. )

 

 

Good read, It's nice to know not everyone has followed the herd. I do use FF as my primary browser, but it's out of preference not because everyone else uses it (which is plain retarded, reminds me of gentoo or ubuntu actually). I've had some issues with Opera with certain sites that I have to access along with a dislike of widgets, but otherwise it is a very good choice as a browser.

 

I've read a few recent articles regarding Open Source softwares security track record (its not pretty).. maybe Opera or IE7 is the way to go.

 

I doubt I will ever switch back to the Mozilla/SeaMonkey line (hey they dont even have a go button ), but I'm always open to Opera or IE7, whenever that might be finalized.

[carbonize]

I read the myth page and most of it is rubbish. I cannot access the page as works proxy blocks it but the one myth that sticks in my mind is where they state it's a myth that Firefox is 100% W3C compliant. Bascially they are editing the reports to suit their ends. Nobody ever said Firefox was 100% W3C compliant. They said it is MORE compliant than IE, which isn't saying much.

 

They also say about Firefox not displaying all web pages correctly. Wrong. Firefox displays the pages correctly according to the W3C standards. The pages don't render as they writer wants because they only tested he page in IE and we all know IE allows sloppy HTML/CSS.

 

Opera is the most secure browser. This is for the same reason that there are only a handful of viruses written for Linux. People who write viruses and look for exploits do so to get fame/infamy. They write viruses for Windows because it is the most used OS out there. They find exploits in IE because it is the most used browser. They find exploits in Firefox because it is open source but atleast the people who find viruses in Firefox do so and then (usualy) report the problem to Mozilla. Nobody bothers to find any exploits in Opera due to the fact it has a very very very small userbase.

Edited October 10, 2006 by carbonize

[Deverill]

it's a myth that Firefox is 100% W3C compliant. Bascially they are editing the reports to suit their ends. Nobody ever said Firefox was 100% W3C compliant. They said it is MORE compliant than IE, which isn't saying much.

So to say it is 100% W3C compliant would be a myth. (btw, there are people out there saying it, just none of them work on the FF project.)

 

They also say about Firefox not displaying all web pages correctly. Wrong. Firefox displays the pages correctly according to the W3C standards. The pages don't render as they writer wants because they only tested he page in IE and we all know IE allows sloppy HTML/CSS.

So the Acid 2 test by The Web Standards Project is not correct in how it checks standards ?

 

Opera is the most secure browser. This is for the same reason that there are only a handful of viruses written for Linux. People who write viruses and look for exploits do so to get fame/infamy. They write viruses for Windows because it is the most used OS out there. They find exploits in IE because it is the most used browser. They find exploits in Firefox because it is open source but atleast the people who find viruses in Firefox do so and then (usualy) report the problem to Mozilla. Nobody bothers to find any exploits in Opera due to the fact it has a very very very small userbase.

I have used this argument in MAC vs PC before, but it is flawed in at least one area. How much fame would a person get to be the one who was the **FIRST EVER** to exploit the inpenetrable, uncompromisable, incomparable Opera!?! You gotta admit, the draw of being the first would be enough to entice SOMEONE to try. By the way, Secunia says Firefox has 32 open, unpatched flaws. Using your argument and the current browser market shares, Firefox would be safe from hacks too because it's only a tiny percentage of the market.

 

I'm not firefox bashing, I use it and love it. I just don't like it when people buy into the hype about something being the next perfection piece and it's not. Everything has flaws.

 

If you read the site with an open mind and follow the links you'll see that even if it is exaggerated in places, it's not total rubbish. The guy does back up his claims and evidence (which must be evaluated for it's merit) from others.

[carbonize]

Don't get me wrong I'm a Firefox user but not a Firefox fanboy I just hate half truths and misquoting. I know FF is not perfect. I'm also aware that there are things that Opera doesn't handle properly and I'm sure you could write a different acid test that Opera would fail on if you really wanted to.

 

I used to be an Opera user back around version 6 and I do like it but I don't find it intuitive and it's options can be obscure. I prefer Firefox because it's cookie handling options are simple. I also think Opera 9 is a bit to flashy for it's own good. But still Operas options are better than IE's.

 

I was reading a comparison of browsers somewhere and the guys only complaint about Opera was how it handles pop up windows by putting them inside the main container. Now thats a fanboy.

 

My argument about people not exploiting Opera due to it's poor userbase is true. I'm sure there have been exploits found in Opera in the past so nobody would be he first now. To find exploits in something like Opera or IE requires research and disassembly but to find an exploit in Firefox just needs you to read the code (and spend a few hours working out what does what). Nobody is going to waste the time trying to find an exploit in Opera given the effort it would take. I would guess that most people who find exploits in Firefox are Firefox users just trying to make it safer (and get a name) because there would be little point in implementing a FF exploit on your site given the low number of people you would catch.

[Steve Scrimpshire]

...but to find an exploit in Firefox just needs you to read the code (and spend a few hours working out what does what).

 

That's a myth about Open Source...the same as "If Linux had as big a user-base as Windows there would be just as many viruses for Linux."

 

Ok, so you read the code and find an exploit...before 20 people have read your blog, it's patched by some other 'hacker'.

 

And, sure, you could write a virus that may wipe out my home directory in Linux, but my OS is safe, unless you know my root password. Also, Linux users are a lot more security-conscious than Windows users. Email attachments don't just execute on their own...you'd have to convince them to chmod +x the file and execute it...not saying email attachments are the only way to send viruses, but a popular one. It would require a little more research into how Linux operates to make claims like that.

 

(Sorry for going OT a little.)

[carbonize]

And, sure, you could write a virus that may wipe out my home directory in Linux, but my OS is safe, unless you know my root password. Also, Linux users are a lot more security-conscious than Windows users. Email attachments don't just execute on their own...you'd have to convince them to chmod +x the file and execute it...not saying email attachments are the only way to send viruses, but a popular one. It would require a little more research into how Linux operates to make claims like that.

 

Yes most Linux users do know better (there are a few stupid ones though). But my argument holds true. If Linux was the mainstream OS then it would have the same number of stupid users Windows has now. I personally believe that people should have to take lessons then pass a test before they are allowed to own a PC.

[Steve Scrimpshire]

But my argument holds true. If Linux was the mainstream OS then it would have the same number of stupid users Windows has now.

 

I still disagree, but that's OT