73 replies to this topic

[Winnie777]

That's only because that pile of SHIT is bundled with like every new computer.

Lol, I wish Norton isn't installed. It's making pop ups and warnings every time I turn on my comp. And it's always telling me it's "performing background tasks" which makes me wonder...

No. Internet Explorer is a feature of Windows. The Manufactures didnt have to do anything. If you install windows on our own...You will still get IE.

I loved IE6 > Firefox in my opinion. 7 and 8 became too bloated

Ooh, icic. I'm an idiot when it comes to real computer technical stuff. I thought IE was an option to install or not. That's real smart of Microsoft to bundle it in like that.
My friend's been urging me to use Chrome, maybe I'll give that one a try as well since the report didn't mention Chrome as one of the more vulnerable browsers.

[Hydrogen]

Ooh, icic. I'm an idiot when it comes to real computer technical stuff. I thought IE was an option to install or not. That's real smart of Microsoft to bundle it in like that.
My friend's been urging me to use Chrome, maybe I'll give that one a try as well since the report didn't mention Chrome as one of the more vulnerable browsers.

The report is faulty when it comes to browser vulnerabilities .

[Kyuu]

I really loved IE6 before I got firefox too. I tried to use it again recently and I realized how much I loved the other features of Firefox (like tabbing... I was like wtf why isn't it tabbing...)

A good compromise between Firefox and IE6 is Avant, especially if you still have IE6 installed since I think it just imports... whatever. I don't really understand, but a friend explained it to me earlier.

I'm sticking with firefox though. I hate change... XD;;

[iargue]

The report is faulty when it comes to browser vulnerabilities .

I did read your argument, but you didn't seem to understand the paper very well.

Its a laymen termed paper. They dont list the vulnerability, but they are a security firm. If your cant take their word for it, Niether can you take Linux or Apple's word!

[Hydrogen]

I did read your argument, but you didn't seem to understand the paper very well.

Its a laymen termed paper. They dont list the vulnerability, but they are a security firm. If your cant take their word for it, Niether can you take Linux or Apple's word!

There is no such thing as a security report for a layman. That's what the article is supposed to be . I just find it strange that they went into such great detail over web application vulnerabilities, listing the various different types and providing 20+ pages of discussion on them, but only say about 100 words about browser vulnerabilities. They don't tell you the types of vulnerabilities that the browser's were tested against, and they don't even differentiate between different browser versions! The section on actual browser vulnerabilities is just a page long. It seems out of place and random that they would just stick it in there without describing more on the issue. This is probably the worst paper I have ever read .

I understood the paper in what it was trying to say. I'm not convinced of anything new by reading it. If this paper was enough to convince someone, then they must also believe me when I say that I am 18 feet tall and have laser vision. I have provided no evidence for this statement but have written a few words about it. However, that, for some, is enough to make it true. Would you believe me if I included a chart?

[iargue]

There is no such thing as a security report for a layman. That's what the article is supposed to be . I just find it strange that they went into such great detail over web application vulnerabilities, listing the various different types and providing 20+ pages of discussion on them, but only say about 100 words about browser vulnerabilities. They don't tell you the types of vulnerabilities that the browser's were tested against, and they don't even differentiate between different browser versions! This is probably the worst paper I have ever read .

I understood the paper in what it was trying to say. I'm not convinced of anything new by reading it. If this paper was enough to convince someone, then they must also believe me when I say that I am 18 feet tall and have laser vision. I have provided no evidence for this fact and have written a few words about it. Would you believe me if I included a chart?

From Apples web page

esigned with security in mind, Mac OS X isn’t plagued by constant attacks from PC viruses and malware. Likewise, it won’t slow you down with constant security alerts and sweeps. Every Mac is secure right out of the box, so you can safely go about your work — or play — without interruption.

This is accepted as a fact just as well.

I agree that they should have listed the vulnerabilities...but we have accepted much lamer things then this as fact.

[Hydrogen]

From Apples web page

This is accepted as a fact just as well.

I agree that they should have listed the vulnerabilities...but we have accepted much lamer things then this as fact.

So is this discussion about apple vs microsoft again? Come on man, it's getting old . We know you don't like Apple. Leave it.

Let's stick to the topic:

I agree that they should have listed the vulnerabilities...

That sentence, right there, shows that this report was terrible as far as browser vulnerabilities go. They had one page on it, with just 100 words on it. They had no mention of their procedure. They had no mention of the types of vulnerabilities. They didn't even differentiate between different versions of browsers. Their method was completely faulty and should not be trusted. This report changes nothing in terms of browser safety.

Now, as far as web application vulnerabilities go, this report might say something useful. SQL injection and XSS attacks are still a major problem. Web application programmers should take care when programming and make sure their code isn't susceptible to these attacks.

[iargue]

So is this discussion about apple vs microsoft again? Come on man, it's getting old . We know you don't like Apple. Leave it.

Let's stick to the topic:

That sentence, right there, shows that this report was terrible as far as browser vulnerabilities go. They had one page on it, with just 100 words on it. They had no mention of their procedure. They had no mention of the types of vulnerabilities. They didn't even differentiate between different versions of browsers. Their method was completely faulty and should not be trusted. This report changes nothing in terms of browser safety.

Now, as far as web application vulnerabilities go, this report might say something useful. SQL injection and XSS attacks are still a major problem. Web application programmers should take care when programming and make sure their code isn't susceptible to these attacks.

Do you make sure your site is safe? XD

[Hydrogen]

Do you make sure your site is safe? XD

I try my best to . There is no such thing as completely safe in computer security. The only completely safe software is no software. There is always some other vulnerable point in the software or some other new method of attacking. Furthermore, no matter how safe you make software, the people who use it are usually the weakest link in the chain of security.

Saying a system is completely secure is just a marketing ploy companies use to get you to buy their products. It's not true when Apple says it. It's not true when Microsoft says it. It's not true when anyone says it.

Are we done with the browser vulnerabilities discussion then? Do you have anything more to say on this report?

[ToxicS]

Use Chromium. It's the best

Chromium Scroll down to the latest updates. You can google it for more info. (It's basically a branch off of Chrome)

It's compatible with greasemonkey scripts so that's why I use it. I like turning coded links into real links for downloading purposes, and using greasemonkey is also convenient since there are currently no "addons" for chrome so this is the next best thing. I use admuncher (you can pm me on how to get this, because it works with ALL browsers) to get rid of all the ads on chromium since there are no adblockers for websites. Plus, you know how firefox is just one process? Chromium has a process for every page it uses, and it's extremely fast. The separate process per tab is great because some pages just naturally have high cpu usage due to unusual scripts running. Unlike firefox you would have to close the entire process and start over (sometimes closing the highest cpu usage process can cause the whole chrome to crash, but you can start it up again and chrome will give you the option to restore the tabs at lightning speed). There's also no memory leaks too. The people developing chromium update it daily, so it's really nice.

The only thing I don't like about chromium is that the onemanga greasemonkey script is not compatible with it So I have to use firefox to open up that site. Oh well. That's really the only complaint I have about it.

[iargue]

Use Chromium. It's the best

Chromium Scroll down to the latest updates. You can google it for more info. (It's basically a branch off of Chrome)

It's compatible with greasemonkey scripts so that's why I use it. I like turning coded links into real links for downloading purposes, and using greasemonkey is also convenient since there are currently no "addons" for chrome so this is the next best thing. I use admuncher (you can pm me on how to get this, because it works with ALL browsers) to get rid of all the ads on chromium since there are no adblockers for websites. Plus, you know how firefox is just one process? Chromium has a process for every page it uses, and it's extremely fast. The separate process per tab is great because some pages just naturally have high cpu usage due to unusual scripts running. Unlike firefox you would have to close the entire process and start over (sometimes closing the highest cpu usage process can cause the whole chrome to crash, but you can start it up again and chrome will give you the option to restore the tabs at lightning speed). There's also no memory leaks too. The people developing chromium update it daily, so it's really nice.

The only thing I don't like about chromium is that the onemanga greasemonkey script is not compatible with it So I have to use firefox to open up that site. Oh well. That's really the only complaint I have about it.

See, your ideal that having multiple processes for each tab is great is just an opinion. I personally dont like that, because now I'm just eating up resources (I'm a resource whore, even though I dont need to be). Each time it creates a new process, thats another browser being open. In firefox I can open 15 tabs while using the original firefox's resource load. If I use yours, I might as well run 15 browsers.

Not good in my opinion .

[Hydrogen]

See, your ideal that having multiple processes for each tab is great is just an opinion. I personally dont like that, because now I'm just eating up resources (I'm a resource whore, even though I dont need to be). Each time it creates a new process, thats another browser being open. In firefox I can open 15 tabs while using the original firefox's resource load. If I use yours, I might as well run 15 browsers.

Not good in my opinion .

Um, no? That's not how threading works . Non-threaded programs don't magically require significantly less resources .

Let's say you have two browsers: browser A and browser B. A is not enabled for threading and B is. If you have some x tabs open in A, there will be y mb of RAM required to support those x tabs. A's setup requires that all y mb will be allocated to a single process and so if a tab in A causes A to have problems, A will take all x tabs with it when the process is killed.

If you have x tabs open in B, there will be y mb of RAM required to support those x tabs as well. However, since B has allowed its tabs to run in separate threads, if a tab in B causes B to have problems, B can kill the thread itself and not have to worry about taking the other x - 1 threads down too.

In either case, you're still using y RAM. Granted, the threading option does have a certain overhead for threading, but this overhead is mostly negligible in most cases. You definitely aren't running x browsers for x tabs in a threaded browser like B.

Don't know about you, but I don't like to lose my entire browsing session just because of one bad tab .

[iargue]

Um, no? That's not how threading works . Non-threaded programs don't magically require significantly less resources .

Let's say you have two browsers: browser A and browser B. A is not enabled for threading and B is. If you have some x tabs open in A, there will be y mb of RAM required to support those x tabs. A's setup requires that all y mb will be allocated to a single process and so if a tab in A causes A to have problems, A will take all x tabs with it when the process is killed.

If you have x tabs open in B, there will be y mb of RAM required to support those x tabs as well. However, since B has allowed its tabs to run in separate threads, if a tab in B causes B to have problems, B can kill the thread itself and not have to worry about taking the other x - 1 threads down too.

In either case, you're still using y RAM. Granted, the threading option does have a certain overhead for threading, but this overhead is mostly negligible in most cases. You definitely aren't running x browsers for x tabs in a threaded browser like B.

Don't know about you, but I don't like to lose my entire browsing session just because of one bad tab .

For one, its possible to kill a single thread, you dont have to kill just a single process (I dont think firefox does this though

Like I said. I'm a resource whore . If I could take IE6 and simply add tabs, I would be in love. I hate these crappy new features of firefox. Its gone to hell now (Actually for IE6, I would need Adblock <3) It now uses twice as much memory on startup as the 2.0 version. (Plus I hate their URL bar now. This searching thing sucks balls. Half the time its not even showing up with google.com when I type googl)

[Hydrogen]

For one, its possible to kill a single thread, you dont have to kill just a single process (I dont think firefox does this though

Like I said. I'm a resource whore . If I could take IE6 and simply add tabs, I would be in love. I hate these crappy new features of firefox. Its gone to hell now (Actually for IE6, I would need Adblock <3) It now uses twice as much memory on startup as the 2.0 version. (Plus I hate their URL bar now. This searching thing sucks balls. Half the time its not even showing up with google.com when I type googl)

I know it's possible to kill a single thread. That's what my entire post was about above . Firefox doesn't starts its tabs in threads as far as I know. I think their development team has plans for this though. I'm not a huge fan of Firefox either. I'm definitely not a fan of IE6 . I'm surprised you are considering how its the one browser that is so far behind in standards adoption that it makes web developers pull their hair out. They support it though because so many people don't know better. I would have imagined that you would have though .

[iargue]

I know it's possible to kill a single thread. That's what my entire post was about above . Firefox doesn't starts its tabs in threads as far as I know. I think their development team has plans for this though. I'm not a huge fan of Firefox either. I'm definitely not a fan of IE6 . I'm surprised you are considering how its the one browser that is so far behind in standards adoption that it makes web developers pull their hair out. They support it though because so many people don't know better. I would have imagined that you would have though .

Of course IE6 is behind in standards. Its OLD! . But, I love its resource usage and respondability. Its the single fastest browser I have ever used. Thats why I love it so much. It lacks tabs. It lacks up to date html/php/etc rendering. But its free from the hundreds of laggy features. IE7/8 takes 3 seconds to "connect" to a blank page when you open a new tab, firefox is slightly faster. RSS feeds and other things slow down todays browsers so much. I yearn for the simplier times, when I didnt haev 200 features I will never use that slowed down my computer.

[Hydrogen]

Of course IE6 is behind in standards. Its OLD! . But, I love its resource usage and respondability. Its the single fastest browser I have ever used. Thats why I love it so much. It lacks tabs. It lacks up to date html/php/etc rendering. But its free from the hundreds of laggy features. IE7/8 takes 3 seconds to "connect" to a blank page when you open a new tab, firefox is slightly faster. RSS feeds and other things slow down todays browsers so much. I yearn for the simplier times, when I didnt haev 200 features I will never use that slowed down my computer.

I don't use IE so I'll go off of your opinion. One of the principles of good software engineering is that software should get no less efficient as features are added. If it does, it means the developers didn't adequately plan and think through their design. If IE is getting more and more bulky as features come in, that's a sign of bad programming.

[iargue]

I don't use IE so I'll go off of your opinion. One of the principles of good software engineering is that software should get no less efficient as features are added. If it does, it means the developers didn't adequately plan and think through their design. If IE is getting more and more bulky as features come in, that's a sign of bad programming.

Agreed.

Same thing happened for Firefox as well. I guess Open Source failed us

[swerving2win]

So did this thread turn into IE vs Firefox?

[Hydrogen]

Agreed.

Same thing happened for Firefox as well. I guess Open Source failed us

Wait, you agreed that IE had that happen to it but suddenly jump to how all of open source failed us because Firefox feels that way too? You do realize that Firefox is but one piece of software in tens of thousands which are open source, right? Do you feel that Microsoft has failed us because IE 6 sucks?

[iargue]

Wait, you agreed that IE had that happen to it but suddenly jump to how all of open source failed us because Firefox feels that way too? You do realize that Firefox is but one piece of software in tens of thousands which are open source, right? Do you feel that Microsoft has failed us because IE 6 sucks?

IE 6 doesnt suck . And, I do believe strongerly that Microsoft failed utterly in IE7/8.

I'm not saying Open Source failed completely. I'm saying in this single instance, the ideal of Open Source failed. Someone should have seen the performance loss and fixed it . That is, unless the adding of those features resulting in unprevenable performance loss. Which would make me even sadder.

So did this thread turn into IE vs Firefox?

No. I dont like IE 7/8. I use firefox . Hydro doesnt use IE, or Firefox.

[Waser Lave]

IE 6 doesnt suck .

I stopped reading after this part, I couldn't possibly take anything else you said seriously.

[iargue]

I stopped reading after this part, I couldn't possibly take anything else you said seriously.

Lol. Please inform me of what sucked about it?

[Waser Lave]

Lol. Please inform me of what sucked about it?

It was fine in its day but things have moved on now. The sheer amount of headaches which IE6 gives to web developers is proof enough of its (now) suckiness.

[iargue]

It was fine in its day but things have moved on now. The sheer amount of headaches which IE6 gives to web developers is proof enough of its (now) suckiness.

I know. But thats like saying Windows 98 sucks. It does now, back then people where like. OMG.

IE 6 was great during its lifetime. Just because its no longer supported, does not mean we can reach back in time and declare it to suck.

[Waser Lave]

I know. But thats like saying Windows 98 sucks. It does now, back then people where like. OMG.

IE 6 was great during its lifetime. Just because its no longer supported, does not mean we can reach back in time and declare it to suck.

It does suck, it didn't used to but it does now in comparison.