"SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>>>I forgot about Firefox years ago.
>>
>> What's wrong with using Firefox? I've found that for typical sites,
>> it performs better, and it certainly has a better security record.
>
> Nothing's wrong with using it. I just didn't care for it when I used it
>and went back to IE.
>
> I have never had a security issue with IE, or Windows in general. I've
>been on line using various flavors of Windows since 3.1 came out, and
>various browsers before IE, and the only virus I ever had was from a floppy
>disk that I got from someone at work, and the only reason I got that one was
>due to negligence on my part. I still contend that most complaints from
>people and companies about security holes in Windows and IE is from lack of
>protection and/or the means/knowledge to implement it. Like having
>unprotected sex with strangers, surfing an internet of strangers can be
>fatal, albeit computer-wise and, sometimes, financially.
With regard to Windows itself, I wholeheartedly agree - the
pronouncements of insecurity are hyperbolic (at best). With IE,
though, I think there's a certain risk of unknown security problems
(as well as known ones, depending on one's configuration, and which OS
it's running under, etc.).
I do use IE for certain well-known (and thus trusted) sites, where it
has a performance advantage over Firefox (heavily scripted/graphical
sites), but in general, Firefox seems to perform better.
> I also believe that if there were as many PC's using the other operating
>systems and browsers, they would be under attack just like Microsoft. The
>malware authors would pursue holes in those systems just like they are with
>MS. They always go where the money is, and right now that's with the MS
>owners.
Absolutely - there have been serious security vulnerabilities in
Firefox, and non-Windows operating systems, and they should be taken
just as seriously. I guess the issue with IE, to me, is that it seems
to be impossible to keep up with them - and we (including Microsoft)
may not even know about all of them that are known to the bad guys.
> That's just my opinion; yours may vary, and that's fine by me (but I'm
>sure not by some ).
It's not unreasonable - as much as IE has been something of a security
fiasco, that should *not* delude anyone into thinking other browsers
are inherently safer (even though they probably are safer in
practice). They all need to be updated, and used with care.
--
Joel Crump