Firefox Browser

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Jan 25, 2005.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    ExoBus: I was wondering... how many of you use or have tried the Firefox internet browser?
    I heard it doesn't get pop-ups and stuff.
    Can anyone enlighten me on it? :mellow:
     
  2. mistergrasso

    mistergrasso Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    All over the place
    I use Firefox on a Macintosh computer. I also use Safari, Apple's own browser. Theyare both pretty damn good at preventing pop-ups. I almost never experience pop-up ads using either of these.

    MG
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    ExoBus:
    I use Firefox on a Macintosh computer. I also use Safari, Apple's own browser. Theyare both pretty damn good at preventing pop-ups. I almost never experience pop-up ads using either of these.

    MG
    [post=277208]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    Thanks for the info.
    Are there still problems with accessing some sites? You know, that aren't fully compatible with Firefox?
     
  4. mistergrasso

    mistergrasso Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    All over the place
    Thanks for the info.
    Are there still problems with accessing some sites? You know, that aren't fully compatible with Firefox?
    [post=277213]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    I have not run into that yet. But when I have while using Safari I just switch to Explorer. But basically its fine. I'm using it now.
     
  5. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'm a Firefox user, too, primarily because of its security and anti-pop-up features. It hasn't given me too much grief. There are only a couple of quirks: (1) since most Internet web page providers still assume that IE is the most popular browser, it's faster to access some multimedia technology (i.e. avi, mpeg) with IE; and (2) it lags a little more than I would like with Java programming (chat rooms).

    That, and I can't surf Launch at Yahoo. Minor setback. You can work around a lot of it and it's not a big deal. I prefer Firefox.
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    ExoBus:
    I appreciate the feedback. I'm looking into trying it out.
     
  7. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been with Firefox ever since 0.5, back when it was still called Firebird. The minor inconveniences (and they are very minor) are far outweighed by the increased stability and security.


    Firefox is easily my favorite browser now.
     
  8. ericbear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,118
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    239
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Santa Ana (CA, US)
    It will be interesting to see what happens to Firefox now that the lead developer, Ben Goodger, has gone to work for Google. The story is reported here:

    http://www.vnunet.com/news/1160756

    By the way, Firefox is not as imune to security problems as some people think. One of the big things it has going for it is that it is not popular enough at this point to be a serious target for hackers, but that will change if more people start using it. Over its history, it has had a load of known security problems, which are documented here (scroll down to see the whole history):

    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/k...es.html#Firefox

    Of course, these are fixed, but new bugs are being discovered, too. (For example, do a google search on phishing firefox and you will get a quarter million hits about the latest one.) It's sort of disapointing that a browser developed after Microsoft's problems were well known still has security problems of its own.
     
  9. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll agree only slightly here -- Firefox has had some security issues; those sorts of things are almost inevitable if you want to create a browser that can support HTML, FTP, Java, Flash, embedded media, SSL, etc. How likely is it that every possible combination of events can be foreseen ahead of time? Not very likely at all.

    One thing differentiates Firefox from MS is that because Firefox is open source, people can read the source code and discover these security holes /before/ they are exploited; moreover, the response time to exploited holes can be much faster because the size of the community working on solving the problem is much much greater.

    I believe it's misleading to compare Firefox and IE in the way you did in the last sentence; the security differences between the two browsers are at least an order of magnitude.
     
  10. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I use Opera. No popups at all. It's basically in all ways better than Idiot Exploiter. (Of course, everything is.) Haven't seen any Opera-compatible scumware yet, though the free version is adware. (Adware's different from spyware; adware doesn't browse your system.)

    But then again, I don't use Windows, so I really don't have the same cracking experiences the Windows people do.
     
  11. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    KTownBlondy: ppl always tell me to use firefox, but i would rather just have internet explorer

    i dont want to stop people's popups unless they are like porn or viruses

    ppl have to pay for every page view i use up on their websites right, like transfer or something whatever its called, and popups are how they pay for it, so i dont take money from ppl.... know wut i mean? lol i dont know the technical terms for the website stuff since i never rlly got into it, but i know the concept of it, and if the masses start using popup killers before the advertisers think of new ways to advertise, theres gunna be a lot less websites on the internet...

    blah ok im done ranting lol
     
  12. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well, look on the bright side, KT. I agree with companies wanting to generate revenue on the Web. It's a big deal, you know, and there's a lot of potential and money to be made in it. At the same time, advertisers are just going to have to get smarter and creative with their marketing. Current research suggests that, well, getting blitzed by pop-ups doesn't work. Something less invasive? Maybe Google's got the right idea with AdSense. But anyway, point is, what's so wrong with... you know... getting advertisers to speed up the creative process. I don't think the Internet is in financial danger just yet.
     
  13. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    KTownBlondy: it's not really the COMPANIES i'm worried about stealing from, it's the webmasters who are just regular guys and girls either making a living off the internet or trying to make some money to help out or are barely breaking even on the hosting/server bills which i contribute to by viewing pages on the website
     
  14. ericbear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,118
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    239
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Santa Ana (CA, US)
    It wasn't my intention to compare the two browsers at all. As you point out, they are not comparable in performance. (On the other hand, the degree to which they have been attacked in the field isn't comparable either, due to the vast differences in installed base.)

    I was actually expressing a mild disapointment in the software development process in general. My point was that the well-known failures of IE should have provided a good practical lession about specific exploit mechanisms to be strictly guarded against. Yet, in reviewing the bug history for Firefox, I see a lot of the same classes of problems that were exploited in IE. I'm not talking about complex things with esoteric interactions of embedded media, Java, etc, but rather mundane things like buffer overflows, heap overruns, and similar lack of basic exception handling allowing exploits.

    However, I'm not being critical of anyone in particular. Developing good, reliable software is quite difficult, and I am lamenting that we still have a long way to go. I design medical equipment for a living, and as medical devices have come to depend increasingly on software/firmware, the need for improved development procedures has become increasingly evident.

    One traditional, and I believe seriously flawed, method of ensure quality software has been extensive formal testing. However, this fails to achieve perfection for several reasons. It is impossible for a finite set of formal tests to completely explore all possible failure modes of very complex systems. Unit testing of smaller chunks of the system is often used to improve this situation, but complex interactions are generally not exhaustively tested. Further, if the programmers who write or maintain the code are aware of how it is tested, there is a tendency to code to pass the tests, but not necessarily to perform well in general. In some industries in certain parts of the world, quality systems attempt to prohibit developers of critical code from knowing how their code will be tested, in an effort to avoid this. However, this prohibition quickly breaks down when bugs are found and have to be fixed. When software fails, people often cry out that it wasn't adequately tested. But, as system complesity increases, the test requirements increase so fast that formal testing is no longer an efficient tool for finding bugs. What is necessary is a preemptive mechanism for preventing bug in the first place, not testing them out later.

    The second traditional tool, which I believe to be better at finding obscure problems and preventing problems in the first place, is the code review. The open-source concept (as is used in Foxfire, Linux before people got greedy, etc.) amplifies the effect of the code review, by in effect allowing the code to be reviewed by much larger groups of people from more diverse backgrounds. (An interesting article mentioning this, and other observations about software failures, appears on pg. 45 of January's Embedded Systems Programming magazine. One of the points in the article is the failure to learn from past mistakes; this is what made me think of the Mozilla bug list echoing some of the same faults as IE.) However, there are limitations of the review process, and cases where the open source model is inapplicable, or where plausible arguments can be made that in certain cases it actually does harm, not good. (A lot of these came up during the public debate over electronic voting; I'm not sure I agree with them, but some do have credibility.) For example, the public availability of sendmail source made it very easy for hackers and spammers to understand and exploit its vulnerabilities, but getting patched versions actually installed on mail servers proved much harder. It could be argued that had the code been closed source, distributed as binary only, the vulnerabilities would have been discovered at a slower, and more managable, rate.

    Modern software development concepts, like new languages, OOP concepts, CASE, etc, etc, have been helpful as well, in theory making it harder to write bad code. Yet, I have seen badly unreliable systems built this way, too.

    We all like to beat up on Microsoft, but it must be remembered that many of their products have roots to times when computers and the web were used very differently than today. At the same time as they had to adapt to changing needs and security risks, they had to deal with their legacy as well. For example, I was critical about the lack of exception handling above. Yet, in the days of slower processors and smaller memory, exception handling was often intentionally omitted (despite the fact that this was known to be bad practice), because it was better to have a product that ran at an acceptable speed, and fit in an amount of memory that your users could afford, than one that was bulletproof, but useless because it was too slow. In some ways, newcomers have it somewhat easier, because they lack a lot of the legacy issues, and can start fresh building on the experience and failures of what came before. Yet, they often still struggle, because until there is some revolution, good software doesn't come easy, and takes a rare breed to make it happen.
     
  15. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    My understanding is that Firefox does not use ActiveX, which is one of Microsoft's technologies for sending certain data between servers and the browser. By avoiding this, Firefox has a lot fewer holes than IE, but it also prevents ActiveX-dependent websites from working correctly. I use Firefox and Safari (Mac-only) as my primary browsers and only use IE on those rare occasions when it's necessary. The pop-up blockers are a godsend for visiting commercial sites and especially porn sites.

    One warning: occasionally you'll come across a site that requires you to do something with a pop-up window. If you're blocking all of them, you won't see it and the page may not work right. If it seems to not work right, you can always disable the blocker.
     
  16. yaoifun

    yaoifun New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    ive used firefox before, and IE...i really have no preference. I like IE because on my computer its faster, but firefox blocks popups. its a tossup.
     
  17. mistergrasso

    mistergrasso Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    All over the place
    Jon,

    Are you one of those guys who runs open source software on an open source operating system on a computer you built yourself?
     
  18. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, I run open-source, but I didn't build it myself.

    The nice thing about open-source is that you can check for bugs. Microsoft still denies that they even produce any bugs. (And I don't mean denying that their code has all the bugs people say: I mean denying that their code has ANY bugs.)
     
  19. mistergrasso

    mistergrasso Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    All over the place
    Well, microsoft is just a mess. Even when its running well its ugly and uncoordinated. I use Apple and love it. I run a tremendous amount of music software and couldn't possibly go to open source. But I would if I could.

    So where did you get your operating system? What happens when its not running right? Who do you call? Or do you rely on user forums for help?

    MG
     
  20. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I use Linux. Its system requirements are minimal.

    Apple's pretty good, if you can afford all the compatible hardware. LOL
     
Draft saved Draft deleted