|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2005 03:47:10 PM · #26 |
Firefox "elitism" is a manifestation of the ABB (anybody but bill) syndrome; if it allows windows peopel to escape the perceived tyranny of Microsoft, they basically will love it to death and proselytize it everywhere they can.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 15:47:37.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 03:48:08 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...by the way, you're the only one that doesn't sound like he works for Mozilla in this thread! |
Too funny : )
I'll leave you to figure out why. |
Tell me Tell me! I'm too dumb to figure it out...does he work for Mozilla? Do you? Does everyone here?
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 03:48:39 PM · #28 |
| Being in the software industry, I am always glad to see competition. It keeps us employed and develops better products. The fact that so many pop-up blockers were being developed and plugged into IE is the reason MS developed their own. The same goes for their Security piece in SP2 and their latest Spyware Beta. In the future, these will all be bundled in the OS and they will be able to charge more. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:10:00 PM · #29 |
Yup, the only reason it doesn't happen to IE is they haven't got around to writing support for it yet...
Microsoft has not implemented support for IDN yet, so its IE browser is not vulnerable to the flaw.
I'm sure they'll catch up with their vunerabilities sooner or later. Probably the next service pack..
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 16:11:14. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:11:55 PM · #30 |
What's IDN, and do you work for Mozilla?
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:13:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by NovaTiger:
Does anyone know how to access hotmail via thunderbird and/or firefox? Hotmail.com tells me that I need to enable cookies whenever I try to visit it with firefox even though I DO have cookies enabled and have "allowed" the site. Thunderbird just tells me it can't connect. Whenever I ask someone else about the problem, they're just like "Pssh, it's Microsoft." Wha? Are they saying that the site has some extra security feature that disallows non IE browsing or what? |
I access Hotmail all the time with Firefox. Works fine--never had a problem. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:14:36 PM · #32 |
Until they get a patch out you can just go to the about:config page and change the entry network.enableIDN to FALSE. This should fix the problem... |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:17:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
What's IDN, and do you work for Mozilla? |
Internationalised Domain Names. The 'firefox exploit' that ZDnet mention is really a 'flaw' in the standard. It is only a flaw if you consider being able to use accents on letters such as a and e is a flaw. It certainly is a problem if English speakers aren't careful about the URLs the click on and does allow easier spoofing of addresses such as paypal.com with páypal.com and similar exploits.
To the second point, no, nobody really does, which I assume was Bod's point. It isn't a company in the traditional sense.
Mozilla, firefox, thunderbird, linux etc, have mostly been written by people in their spare time.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 16:27:35. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:26:09 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
What is it with the Firefox elitism anyway? It's like Mac vs. PC...or black rebel vs. silver rebel... |
Yes, it's very strange. If you tell someone you don't use it or don't think it to be as nifty keen as they think they start acting like 16th century Catholic missionaries in the Brazilian jungle. |
It's not necesarily 'Firefox elitism' so much as taking a look at the design decisions and technical merit that went into the development of a software product, in this case a web browser.
Personally, if the next version of Internet Explorer offered up many of the features that Firefox currently has, such as the plain HTML bookmarks file, cross platform compatibility, true support for W3C standards and no fear of ActiveX controls running amok (better yet, no ActiveX period), then I would have no problem with using it. In fact, on Windows based PCs I wouldn't even bother 'replacing' it.
I just look at this way:
People using MacOSX or Linux running PCs aren't always yammering about getting hacked, having malware installed or other bad things happening to their PCs. People using Windows (behind a firewall) using Firefox, also don't complain about pop-ups or spyware hitting their machines.
I hear about people running Windows machines with no firewall getting hammered by malware. I hear about people using Windows with a firewall, but surfing the web using Internet Explorer, also getting hit with malware. Are all these people simply clicking on everything all the time? I don't think so, but yet they still get these issues.
Take that as you will, personally it seems pretty straightforward. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:30:25 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
It's not necesarily 'Firefox elitism' so much as taking a look at the design decisions and technical merit that went into the development of a software product, in this case a web browser.
Personally, if the next version of Internet Explorer offered up many of the features that Firefox currently has, such as the plain HTML bookmarks file, cross platform compatibility, true support for W3C standards and no fear of ActiveX controls running amok (better yet, no ActiveX period), then I would have no problem with using it. In fact, on Windows based PCs I wouldn't even bother 'replacing' it.
I just look at this way:
People using MacOSX or Linux running PCs aren't always yammering about getting hacked, having malware installed or other bad things happening to their PCs. People using Windows (behind a firewall) using Firefox, also don't complain about pop-ups or spyware hitting their machines.
I hear about people running Windows machines with no firewall getting hammered by malware. I hear about people using Windows with a firewall, but surfing the web using Internet Explorer, also getting hit with malware. Are all these people simply clicking on everything all the time? I don't think so, but yet they still get these issues.
Take that as you will, personally it seems pretty straightforward. |
There's also a lot of security in the relative obscurity of Firefox, Linux or Mac usage. There just aren't enough users of any of those 3 products to be worth the trouble of trying to exploit, when there are such a higher number of badly secured windows and IE systems out there.
Mac, linux and firefox exploits exist, but they don't pay of so well.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:39:00 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by chuck:
Until they get a patch out you can just go to the about:config page and change the entry network.enableIDN to FALSE. This should fix the problem... |
Coincidentally, Microsoft released a patch for a very similar vulnerability today:
//secunia.com/advisories/13482/
It took nearly 2 months to fix. Acceptable?
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:43:41 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's also a lot of security in the relative obscurity of Firefox, Linux or Mac usage. There just aren't enough users of any of those 3 products to be worth the trouble of trying to exploit, when there are such a higher number of badly secured windows and IE systems out there.
Mac, linux and firefox exploits exist, but they don't pay of so well. |
That's partially a logical fallacy.
If that was true, then the most hacked web server would be Apache, since it runs roughly half of ALL web sites on the Internet, with the rest ran by various other platforms, including Microsoft Internet Information Services (which runs less or around 25% of web-sites).
In reality, it's those small number of sites running Microsoft's IIS that are *the* most hacked and cracked web servers on the Internet. The real kicker is that most all of those cracks (and there has been more then a few nearly every year) end up compromising the entire machine that the web server is installed upon.
With Apache, there has first been far fewer cracks available and the last I remember, only one single 'root-level' crack in more then a few years. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:43:54 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's also a lot of security in the relative obscurity of Firefox, Linux or Mac usage. There just aren't enough users of any of those 3 products to be worth the trouble of trying to exploit, when there are such a higher number of badly secured windows and IE systems out there.
Mac, linux and firefox exploits exist, but they don't pay of so well. |
I guess we'll find out quite soon if Firefox is merely secure because of its (up till now) obscurity, or if it really is a better, more securely coded browser. Since the launch of 1.0 it has been anything but obscure.
//it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/08/1541241&from=rss
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:49:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
What is it with the Firefox elitism anyway? It's like Mac vs. PC...or black rebel vs. silver rebel... |
Yes, it's very strange. If you tell someone you don't use it or don't think it to be as nifty keen as they think they start acting like 16th century Catholic missionaries in the Brazilian jungle. |
Yes. Just like if you tell someone you have a Canon camera they start asking why you'd buy a camera from a copier company..
There was a funny story I once heard - Forgive me if I paraphrase (and no offence meant to anyone of a particular religion).
A Guy is dangling off a cliff, hanging on to just a branch. Another guy walks by, asks if guy #1 needs help. Of course, guy #1 says yes, so guy #2 rescues him.
Guy #2 then asks "are you christian?"
"Yes"
"Me too! are you catholic or protestant?"
"Protestant"
"Me too! Are you Methodist or Baptist?"
"Baptist"
"Wow, so am I! Are you reformed or born again"
"Born again"
"Pre or post schism of 1882?"
"Post"
"What an incredible coincidence, so am I! Are you for or against Bob Robert's interpretation of Matthew 4-17"
"Against" replies Guy #1
So Guy #2 says "Oh, then die!" and promptly pushes him off the cliff.
There's a moral in there somewhere that relates to idealogical wars of all senses.
However, if you ask me, I think Konqueror's pretty nifty, but keep Firefox around to open pages that are completely braindead. IE hasn't touched any of my computers since the early 90s when banished Microsoft operating systems to the hell they deserve.
The rest of you lot, of course, are free to use whatever OS you choose.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:50:28 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Firefox "elitism" is a manifestation of the ABB (anybody but bill) syndrome; if it allows windows peopel to escape the perceived tyranny of Microsoft, they basically will love it to death and proselytize it everywhere they can.
|
I agree with this to an extent, in that there are people who will champion anything that does not come from or in any way goes against Microsoft; I am not essentially one of these, but I have no love for the practices of that company, and can't particularly fault such people. This "elitism" is much like the current and pre-election American political climate, and I'm not going to explain that to anyone who can't draw the parallel.
However, there is more to the elitism than simple hatred of Microsoft. The people who have adopted Firefox are often fans of all things opensource and, in general, non-commercial. Unfortunately, many of those things have gone commercial (ie Linux) in recent years; Netscape has changed, and only recently has Mozilla come out in its own right and gained such broad support. I was a Netscape supporter a decade ago, and already I was pretty much in the minority (thanks to Win95); I remember when IE was crap, and it didn't stop being crap until it essentially took everything from Netscape, put the massive Microsoft team to work on making proprietary features, and crushed the competition by way of sheer saturation. Everyone with Windows had and still has IE; it is no surprise that many companies began to design their sites to its particular specifications, using its unique tools and scripting methods. That Firefox has become any sort of competitor now is fantastic proof that people genuinely like the browser and think it's worth taking the time to download.
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Download manager built into FireFox. This one is a non-issue for me as I don't need a DL manager. I can see where this would come in handy though for all the warez kiddies.
Pop-up blocking. The few sites that I do visit that have pop-ups don't bother me. Then again, I don't visit porn, joke of the day, and warez sites, in other words, sites that tend to have a lot of pop-ups.
|
I take mild offense to both of these. I am a downloader - I like to try new programs, games, etc.; I am also a beta tester, and this often involves downloading massive patches, CD images, and so forth. The everyday person also downloads at least on occasion, even if it is only to get new things for games or updates for programs. The generalization of downloaders is pretty unfair. I'm still happy to have download resuming, and that's been around in some shape or form since the mid-90s - but I recall quite clearly trying to download tiny, floppy-sized games on BBS @ 2400 baud and getting cut off right before the download was finally finished. Similar things went on with dialup, and there are still many, many people who use dialup.
Also, about pop-ups... I don't really use this either, but MANY legitimate places, including stores and anything that has promotions, have popups. Also, many free sites, like online journals, image hosting, and so forth, will pop-up ads. Again, your generalization is unfair.
All of this said, I'm a Firefox/Thunderbird person who uses IE only when I have to (whether for IE-proprietary sites or to check and make sure one of my designs looks right in it). I love having the extensions, I like having a skinnable browser, and I would suffer immensely without tabbed browsing because I am a multitasker, and I don't like a bunch of windows open. I think the download manager is awesome. Etc., etc., etc... either way, it's all a matter of personal taste. To each his own (1946, Olivia de Havilland, seen it? Good movie.) :) |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:51:57 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Firefox "elitism" is a manifestation of the ABB (anybody but bill) syndrome; if it allows windows peopel to escape the perceived tyranny of Microsoft, they basically will love it to death and proselytize it everywhere they can.
Robt. |
Untrue.
I think Firefox is orders of magnitude better than Internet Explorer.
I also think Microsoft Office is out-of-bounds for crap like OpenOffice.
Disclaimer: I dont work for mozilla, but do volunteer at mozillazine
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 16:53:51. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:52:43 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's also a lot of security in the relative obscurity of Firefox, Linux or Mac usage. There just aren't enough users of any of those 3 products to be worth the trouble of trying to exploit, when there are such a higher number of badly secured windows and IE systems out there.
Mac, linux and firefox exploits exist, but they don't pay of so well. |
That's partially a logical fallacy.
If that was true, then the most hacked web server would be Apache, since it runs roughly half of ALL web sites on the Internet, with the rest ran by various other platforms, including Microsoft Internet Information Services (which runs less or around 25% of web-sites).
In reality, it's those small number of sites running Microsoft's IIS that are *the* most hacked and cracked web servers on the Internet. The real kicker is that most all of those cracks (and there has been more then a few nearly every year) end up compromising the entire machine that the web server is installed upon.
With Apache, there has first been far fewer cracks available and the last I remember, only one single 'root-level' crack in more then a few years. |
Yup, and I wasn't talking about Apache at all. Compare and contrast with sendmail if you feel like it. Anyway - the majority of browser vunerability is caused by the nature of the product - a browser isn't a server. There is a user sitting clicking things, being spoofed, loading things that aren't what they say they are and so on.
Yes there are other vunerabilities, things that shouldn't happen and so on, but they exist in all browsers (witness the various Firefox XPI spyware and malware attacks)
Just because you can click on something, doesn't mean you should - but that doesn't stop a lot of users.
Similarly linux is full of holes, with new ones popping up each week. yes it is probably more secure, in part because most of the users know how to secure their boxes, but there are plenty of vunerabilities and exploits to go around if someone really wanted to, including quite a few in the newer 2.6 kernels and yes, if you are on top of things, you can patch these more quickly than having to wait on Microsoft to release a service pack - but you still have to actively manage these, or at least run apt-get or equivalent.
//www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118183/150/ for a round up of new fixes in the last few days for example.
if 99% of the desktop market was linux, many more of these would be used than currently are - when all those badly secured, vunerable windows boxes are out there, it is just not worthwhile.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 17:20:51. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:58:51 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's also a lot of security in the relative obscurity of Firefox, Linux or Mac usage. There just aren't enough users of any of those 3 products to be worth the trouble of trying to exploit, when there are such a higher number of badly secured windows and IE systems out there.
Mac, linux and firefox exploits exist, but they don't pay of so well. |
I guess we'll find out quite soon if Firefox is merely secure because of its (up till now) obscurity, or if it really is a better, more securely coded browser. Since the launch of 1.0 it has been anything but obscure.
//it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/08/1541241&from=rss |
Oh, I believe it is a better, more securely coded browser. It also has a much faster response to new threats. But there is a much bigger pay off in attacking IE and Windows, certainly until Firefox gets more than about 10% of the installed browsers (I think it might be about 5% now) Mozilla has about 10%
So if you are going to bother trying to spoof users, phish or try and exploit vunerabilities - do you go after 89% of the potential targets in the world, or 5% ?
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 17:02:22. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:13:00 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Oh, I believe it is a better, more securely coded browser. It also has a much faster response to new threats. But there is a much bigger pay off in attacking IE and Windows, certainly until Firefox gets more than about 10% of the installed browsers (I think it might be about 5% now) Mozilla has about 10%
So if you are going to bother trying to spoof users, phish or try and exploit vunerabilities - do you go after 89% of the potential targets in the world, or 5% ? |
Heh, your figures changed while I was off looking for stats to debunk them : )
I think 5% (or 23 million downloads - more than AOL) is enough to get the crackers interested. Firefox has targetted 10% by the end of this year. Personally I think they'll hit it a lot sooner.
If Firefox does turn out to be anywhere near as hopeless as IE I'll jump ship in a second. I've got Konqueror, Epiphany and Galeon sat in reserve.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:17:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Oh, I believe it is a better, more securely coded browser. It also has a much faster response to new threats. But there is a much bigger pay off in attacking IE and Windows, certainly until Firefox gets more than about 10% of the installed browsers (I think it might be about 5% now) Mozilla has about 10%
So if you are going to bother trying to spoof users, phish or try and exploit vunerabilities - do you go after 89% of the potential targets in the world, or 5% ? |
Heh, your figures changed while I was off looking for stats to debunk them : )
I think 5% (or 23 million downloads - more than AOL) is enough to get the crackers interested. Firefox has targetted 10% by the end of this year. Personally I think they'll hit it a lot sooner.
If Firefox does turn out to be anywhere near as hopeless as IE I'll jump ship in a second. I've got Konqueror, Epiphany and Galeon sat in reserve. |
Yup- it is certainly gaining momentum. Personally though, I use Firefox because it is a better user experience. I also still use IE for some non-standards compliant web sites. I used IE for years, up until Firefox 0.8 or so without any spyware, malware, adware or viruses infecting my machines. No pop-ups, no phishing - nothing. The user is a big part of any vunerability - so I expect as firefox moves more and more mainstream, the problems will start to appear too.
and yes - my firefox stats have dynamically adapted :) |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:21:45 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by mocabela:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Download manager built into FireFox. This one is a non-issue for me as I don't need a DL manager. I can see where this would come in handy though for all the warez kiddies.
Pop-up blocking. The few sites that I do visit that have pop-ups don't bother me. Then again, I don't visit porn, joke of the day, and warez sites, in other words, sites that tend to have a lot of pop-ups.
|
I take mild offense to both of these. I am a downloader - I like to try new programs, games, etc.; I am also a beta tester, and this often involves downloading massive patches, CD images, and so forth. The everyday person also downloads at least on occasion, even if it is only to get new things for games or updates for programs. The generalization of downloaders is pretty unfair. I'm still happy to have download resuming, and that's been around in some shape or form since the mid-90s - but I recall quite clearly trying to download tiny, floppy-sized games on BBS @ 2400 baud and getting cut off right before the download was finally finished. Similar things went on with dialup, and there are still many, many people who use dialup.
Also, about pop-ups... I don't really use this either, but MANY legitimate places, including stores and anything that has promotions, have popups. Also, many free sites, like online journals, image hosting, and so forth, will pop-up ads. Again, your generalization is unfair.
All of this said, I'm a Firefox/Thunderbird person who uses IE only when I have to (whether for IE-proprietary sites or to check and make sure one of my designs looks right in it). I love having the extensions, I like having a skinnable browser, and I would suffer immensely without tabbed browsing because I am a multitasker, and I don't like a bunch of windows open. I think the download manager is awesome. Etc., etc., etc... either way, it's all a matter of personal taste. To each his own (1946, Olivia de Havilland, seen it? Good movie.) :) |
I honestly have no idea why some people are offended (even mildly) by the things I wrote. The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine. I did not imply that anyone had to agree with me. All of what I wrote came down to there is, again, to me, little difference between using one browser vs. another. If you or anyone else gets use out of a dl manager, great, use one. I have no need for one so if a browser had one or not wouldn't interest me in the least. If you are annoyed by the pop-ups on the sites you visit use whatever you like. I see them rarely and I'm not annoyed so a built in blocker matters to me very little. The same goes for tabs or any other feature you feel is great that I don't care for or care very little about.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:24:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I honestly have no idea why some people are offended (even mildly) by the things I wrote. |
I think it is because you implied (either by accident or not) that anyone who would want a download manager was busily copying software illegally and that anyone who found a pop-up blocker useful was sitting at home watching porn all day.
Just a guess. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:25:58 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I honestly have no idea why some people are offended (even mildly) by the things I wrote. |
I think it is because you implied (either by accident or not) that anyone who would want a download manager was busily copying software illegally and that anyone who found a pop-up blocker useful was sitting at home watching porn all day.
Just a guess. |
I can't help what they identify themselves with.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:26:52 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I honestly have no idea why some people are offended (even mildly) by the things I wrote. |
I think it is because you implied (either by accident or not) that anyone who would want a download manager was busily copying software illegally and that anyone who found a pop-up blocker useful was sitting at home watching porn all day.
Just a guess. |
I can't help what they identify themselves with. |
You asked why you offended people - it is after all what you identified these features as useful for. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:29:45 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I can't help what they identify themselves with. |
You asked why you offended people - it is after all what you identified these features as useful for. |
Actually, I didn't ask. I also don't think people should be offended but I guess I can see how the thieves and perverts might have been offended. ;)
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 17:31:34.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 11/16/2025 01:00:32 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/16/2025 01:00:32 AM EST.
|
