More reasons to switch to Firefox?

I think Michael Horowitz is being a bit harsh (and I'm guessing that's his entire schtick in a nutshell), but Mozilla's Asa Dotzler summarizes this argument a bit more agreeably, in my opinion. First, the Horowitz bit:

If you surf the web on a Windows computer, you are safer using Firefox as opposed to Internet Explorer.

On June 26th at ZDNet Ryan Naraine wrote about a new bug in Internet Explorer for which Microsoft has no fix/patch. A few days later, he documented how the bad guys were exploiting this bug. That story starts with "Another day, another gaping hole affecting fully patched versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser." We've been down this road before.

Wow. Sensational.

But let's be serious. IE is in use on over 70 percent of the world's computers and people aren't actually contracting malware as a result in any massive numbers. (Put another way, if they are, they're idiots.) I understand that the iCabal crowd can't let a Microsoft dig go by, as they're genetically predisposed. But come on.

So here's Asa's more mature take. And he's from Mozilla.

It's pretty basic reasoning. If you take it as given that all complex software has bugs (and browsers are some of the most complex consumer software available,) and all complex, network-connected software has security flaws, then there are basically only two measures that really matter when you're trying to stay safe using a web browser. The first is how hard does the software vendor work to find and fix those flaws. The second is how quickly and effectively can the software vendor get an update in place on your machine.

With Firefox, you can actually see how much work is done finding and fixing flaws. You really can't say that about any of the other vendors -- Microsoft, Apple, and Opera only disclose the flaws found by third-party security researchers so you really have no idea whether or not they're even trying to find flaws in their own software. I sure hope they are, but it's their policy not to say anything about this in public so there's really no way to know for sure.

With Firefox, you get updates as soon as they're developed and tested

OK, it gets a bit self-serving, but whatever.

Here's my off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts about this issue.

Internet Explorer 7. There is absolutely nothing wrong with IE 7. In fact, on Windows Vista, it's arguably the safest Web browser there is. I don't "love" IE 7, and in fact choose not to use it. (See below.) But I'm OK with real people using it because it will keep them safe. And it finally has enough features that's it's not lacking in any meaningful way.

Firefox 3. Mozilla's browser is my favorite, by far, for two reasons. One, it has an incredible extensibility model that has created a cottage market of useful add-ons. You can be really silly with these things and overload the browser, yes. But if you're looking for some key bit of functionality that's not built into Firefox, there's an add-on out there for you. And you can change the UI dramatically with skins, many of which are high quality. The second reason is security. While I do feel that IE 7 is as secure or more secure than Firefox, Firefox does benefit from a pair of things: Hackers love it (and Mozilla) and are thus less likely to target it, and becuase it's used less often than IE, it's less likely to be a target. (This last bit benefits Mac OS X as well.)

Safari. At this point in time, you'd be crazy to use Safari on Windows. Apple is a black hole and I don't trust this software or the way they foist it on people. The only thing seems dishonest to me.

Opera? I know there are fervent Opera supporters out there because they email me every single time I write anything about Web browsers. "When you are going to review Opera [insert version number here]?" "It does [this] and [this] and is better than [Firefox | Safari | IE] at [this] and [this]." Ah, right. I have the same reaction to Opera I've always had. I don't get it. I don't get why people install this thing and I don't get why they like it. I know, I know. That's just the way it is, sorry.

So we can get all partisan and stuff, but the reality is you're OK with either IE or Firefox (and maybe Opera, I really don't know). Just choose the one you like more and browse the Web in a mature, eyes-open fashion and you'll be fine.

Discuss this Article 29

weedmonk
on Jul 7, 2008
I had my first experienc with Safari this weekend as I was tinkering with a hackintosh kalyway install. I didn't realize they didnt have drop down menu listing recent sites on their address bar. WOW...whatta feature just single click and no true maximize. The back/fwd didnt even have site listings. Thank god for FireFox or people using OSX would be SOL.
nutmac
on Jul 7, 2008
As a Mac fan, I think Safari is great browser on Mac OS X. But it feels distinctively awkward in Windows, much like earlier versions of Firefox on Mac OS X. I think Safari for Windows exists to serve developers test websites for Mac/iPhone without having to buy a Mac. As for Internet Explorer, I find non-standard user interface (looks very odd with menu bar set to always display) and slow startup (and opening new tab) to be bigger nuisance than security issues.
johnbaxter
on Jul 7, 2008
Well, it's a true Macintosh maximize. And it makes sense on the modern huge wide-aspect monitors--you simply don't need a browser window the width of a large monitor (less sidebar if you use it--I turn Vista sidebar off). Macintosh maximize is "full screen or as large as makes sense for the window content". But it is "surprising" to Windows users, and it may well not have made sense for Apple to do it (or at least do it without a setting to be more Windows-like). It's not the only Windows app that doesn't go full width--maximize Command Prompt some time, but that's hardly mainstream. As to Opera, back in the day we got our Windows (3.1 or older) users connected by shipping them a floppy with a TCP stack from someone in Australia and the Opera browser. (We had a similar floppy for Mac users, with NCSA Mosaic.) I rather like Opera, but I don't have it installed anywhere (Mac or Windows) because I don't want both music and a P2P client on my machines, and I'd like to keep the music.
Waethorn
on Jul 7, 2008
"I have the same reaction to Opera I've always had. I don't get it. I don't get why people install this thing and I don't get why they like it." Opera just gets PC users tuned in because they currently sell their browser to mobile and device manufacturers. There's a lot of device software-branding going on with Opera, so it gets PC users excited over it. I sure wish the PS3 used it (like the Wii), instead of Netfront. If you want to see a PoS browser, that's certainly it.
Waethorn
on Jul 7, 2008
Ok, speaking about the PS3 (yes, yes, I know it's off topic)....take a look: http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/Games/Soulcalibur_IV/?DCMP=ILC-HP_1102... (watch the entire vid) I mean, WTF??!? LOL!
Snakedoctor1
on Jul 7, 2008
I lost interest with this brilliant comment.... "and browsers are some of the most complex consumer software available" as opposed to what, calculator???? I would bet that Word has 5x the lines of code that IE does. Sorry its a simple fact that Windows for Joe consumer is a malware magnet. Joe consumer is not a geek/IT person, and I have seen hundreds of infested Windows PC's, that were easier just to format and re-install. True its the user's own actions 98% of the time, but it just does not happen to OS X, and to be honest I dont see it happen with Vista either, then again I dont know too many people that use Vista. I do believe that Vista, with its standard users is way better at this, than previous versions of Windows than defaulted to users being Admin's on their boxes.
DRWAM
on Jul 7, 2008
Snake, I heard you were dead! But I feel as you about Vista's better security, and will either replace the old computers or upgrade them to at least Vista Basic. I'm leaning toward replacement, but I just want to wait until the kids are a little older. As far as browsers are concerned, for XP, I prefer IE 6, for Vista, IE7. I am using FF 3 on Leopard, but don't care for the look, as it looks too much like Safari to me, and I don't like Safari on Leopard. I prefer the look of FF2x. Yeah, I know. What kind of Mac user am I since I dislike iTunes and Safari? You guys probably think that I'm full of BS, but I really do own all the hardware that I claim.
Waethorn
on Jul 7, 2008
"Sorry its a simple fact that Windows for Joe consumer is a malware magnet. Joe consumer is not a geek/IT person, and I have seen hundreds of infested Windows PC's, that were easier just to format and re-install. True its the user's own actions 98% of the time....and to be honest I dont see it happen with Vista" You should make the distinction that you're talking about XP here - Vista IS Windows too, after all. Most of the issues I've seen on Windows Vista on computers that come into the store, are from a user trying to install a piece of hardware using the CD that came with it, and it's old enough to only have drivers up to Windows XP. Of all of the [many] malware-infected systems we've had in, only 1 was a Windows Vista computer. I don't know the exact count but excluding pirated copies of Windows (which fail the WGA - and don't get serviced until the user legitimizes it), I would peg more than 90% of computers infected from malware are from people (or their kids) that try to download stuff illegally, either from pirate Bittorrent sites or music and other goodies from P2P software. I like to cite the new software piracy law in Canada which states that users caught downloading stuff illegally can now be fined $500. If they're caught sharing copyrighted works, as is the case with P2P software - which shares all of your downloads automatically - it's a $500-$20,000 fine PER ITEM SHARED. Likewise, if they break any kind of digital lock or DRM and/or post information on how to do it, it's also up to a $20,000 fine. This stuff has never been legal before. Now they're just enforcing it with harder laws. I have no pity for anyone that downloads illegally or flippantly breaks the law doing so.
Waethorn
on Jul 7, 2008
"As far as browsers are concerned, for XP, I prefer IE 6" That's kind of like saying "For XP, I prefer the RTM version", or "I love Welchia". ;)
RunTimeError
on Jul 7, 2008
"I don't get why people install this thing and I don't get why they like it." I don't use it any more, but back in the day Opera had tabbed browsing and pop up blockers before any other browser on the market. It used to be small and fast, fast, fast and had enough killer features to make it enticing. Now it's a bloated piece of crap.
DRWAM
on Jul 7, 2008
Yep, agreed, At least 99% of the infect PC's that I have seen, have had P2P software on it. The virus that I downloaded was in an app called HDD repair v2, so I did not think that it was pirated, but a free utility. But oops, it was virtumonde virus/trojan. Other friends with numerour [>150] virus/malware infections used Kazaa, Morpheus or something else. Mostly, it was theri kids. Just once, I got a trojan notice after my sister-in-law was surfing for a deal for a flight to China, or the wife was downloading pics of her nephew at bootcamp. I'll never know if it was real, but just real scary, for my ultraclean computers.
lotsamystuff
on Jul 7, 2008
I ran this through the "reality translator" and it returned the following: "I understand that the WinJihadist crowd can't let an Apple dig go by, as they're genetically predisposed. Hence another mention of the iCabal." The back/fwd didnt even have site listings." What? Mine does. What version are you using? I don't like Safari on Windows either (I use Firefox on both the PC and the Mac), but at least be honest in your critique.
techboy2000
on Jul 7, 2008
A few more important facts. FireFox add-ins are based on XUL which runs in a scripting language and have the same permissions as javascript (safer). A potential bad FireFox add-in can do less damage than ActiveX malware. ActiveX is essentially a freaking scary executable that has free reign on your system if you agree to add it. ActiveX add-ins are much more difficult or impossible to remove while FireFox add-ins are easy to remove.
BrightrevCarl
on Jul 7, 2008
"IE is in use on over 70 percent of the world's computers and people aren't actually contracting malware as a result in any massive numbers. (Put another way, if they are, they're idiots.)" Wow, that's really, really wrong. Vista is certainly a lot more immune to malware than XP, but the number of XP users with malware is INSANE. Massive, massive numbers. I'd guess (completely out of thin air) that at its worst, half of home user PCs were infected with malware. It got so bad that I would avoid people's computers when I was at their homes, because I *knew* they were infected with malware. So yes, I have to disagree strongly with that one. As to whether people are "idiots," well - I work in technology for a living. Ask me to hang a ceiling fan, run electrical wire, etc. - I'm an idiot. As me to work on your car - I'm an idiot. Ask me for legal or medical advice - I'm an idiot. If people are idiots, it's because they don't *do* technology. I think people have a responsibility to learn a little bit about tech, but malware is more a problem with technology than it is with "idiots."
Waethorn
on Jul 7, 2008
"I think people have a responsibility to learn a little bit about tech, but malware is more a problem with technology than it is with "idiots."" You mean the millions of people that click on ad banners that say "Your computer is infected. Click here to fix it"? Is that a problem with technology? More than likely it's because they were at a webpage that they weren't supposed to be that was serving up that ad. That's not technology doing that. Sure, it's so easy to blame the hammer....
lotsamystuff
on Jul 7, 2008
"More than likely it's because they were at a webpage that they weren't supposed to be that was serving up that ad." You've gone completely off the rails, Wae. "a webpage that they weren't supposed to be"? Your finger-pointing is amazing. Brightrev had it right, but you got it wrong again. As usual.
Flenser
on Jul 7, 2008
"FireFox add-ins are based on XUL which runs in a scripting language and have the same permissions as javascript (safer). A potential bad FireFox add-in can do less damage than ActiveX malware." Not true, JavaScript add-ons run with Chrome privileges and could do plenty of damage to your system. That said as long as you only install add-ons from addons.mozilla.org you should be safe as they are all reviewed before they are made available to the public.
DRWAM
on Jul 7, 2008
techboy2000, some of us must use Active X for work. That is why I need IE 6 with XP. The hospital still has not updated our PACS [GE Centricity] software to prevent incompatability problems with IE 7, although the patch has been available for over a year. I was getting a perpetual installation continuous loop of the GE Active X software with IE7. I played with the settings and ignore the pop up to install and it will work. Other guys just can't get it to work. Either way, we need Active X or we can't use the browswer to view images [CT, MRI, ultrasound, Nuclear medicine, and x-rays].
Snakedoctor1
on Jul 7, 2008
"More than likely it's because they were at a webpage that they weren't supposed to be that was serving up that ad." You've gone completely off the rails, Wae. "a webpage that they weren't supposed to be"? Your finger-pointing is amazing. Brightrev had it right, but you got it wrong again. As usual. I agree you are way off base Wae. Its not only pirate and porn sites. Its lots of stuff. A google search for something and a click on one of the returns could be your doom for a XP user. My wife will get emails from some internet scum that look like totally legit Bank of America emails. Sure I have shown her how to hover over the link and notice it comes from Russia or wherever but Joe User would click once on the link...and that is all she wrote for an XP box, god forbid they actually end up giving up real info. Anyhow no matter how you cut it, it really comes down to running as a full admin on your XP box, and the user somehow saying "YES PLEASE BEND ME OVER RIGHT NOW" by some action they take. OS X, Linux and Vista (if you are NOT STUPID enough to turn off UAC) dont allow this type of scenario. I applaud MS/Vista for finally catching up the rest of the world in this area.
Waethorn
on Jul 7, 2008
""a webpage that they weren't supposed to be"? Your finger-pointing is amazing. Brightrev had it right, but you got it wrong again. As usual." So I have to wonder if you click on every ad banner claiming to have the cure for a small penis....
simongoldring
on Jul 7, 2008
I find Opera to be incredibly useful - it's the bittorrent client not banned by my school!
Mum
on Jul 7, 2008
At this point in time, you'd be crazy to use Windows on pc's. Microsoft is a black hole and I don't trust this operating system or the way they foist it on people.
Dude1313
on Jul 8, 2008
Firefox + Adblock + Filterset G = better then any browsing experience of the last ten years bar none. Safari, pffffttt. IE? hahahahhahaha don't even get me started on that dog. Firefox utilization goes up, Internet Explorer utilization goes down. It will be interesting to see if the Mozilla team can keep up the track record of being secure and on top of things. So far they have done alright by me.
DRWAM
on Jul 8, 2008
FF has acted erratically with Flash add-on/plug-in at some sites for my kids [using XP]. This has happened with two of three computers where the sound is missing during some games at kids sites. I won't mention the sites as it may lead to multiple pings, if you remember what happened last time I did so. IE 6 and 7 ran smouthly at the same sites with the same Flash add-on.
Snakedoctor1
on Jul 8, 2008
"So I have to wonder if you click on every ad banner claiming to have the cure for a small penis...." Waethorn.....I had some small respect for you, until that comment above. If I look up J@ck@$$ at wikipedia it says "see Waethorn". Anything you say after that comment is completely irrelevant IMHO.
Waethorn
on Jul 8, 2008
"I had some small respect for you, until that comment above." LOL!....coming from the that said: "YES PLEASE BEND ME OVER RIGHT NOW" Hey, if you're feeling guilty now because you thought the proverbial finger was pointed at you, that's your problem. Like it or not, my last comment proves my original point - if you go to a site like that, you're just asking for trouble. "Anything you say after that comment is completely irrelevant IMHO." Funny, but your comments don't require any lead time to become irrelevant.
Mum
on Jul 8, 2008
"Like it or not, my last comment proves my original point - if you go to a site like that, you're just asking for trouble." Why should anybody have to worry about what site they go to? That's just stupid.
Waethorn
on Jul 8, 2008
"Why should anybody have to worry about what site they go to? That's just stupid." It's stupid to think that the world is a holly jolly place too. The world is bad. Get used to it. The internet is no different.
subzerohitman721
on Jul 9, 2008
I actually want to switch over to Firefox but after I get some newer hard drives. Unfortunately with gas prices as they are, I've had to freeze any upgrades to my PC's. After the $4 a gallon price gouging began, I've cut back a lot of my expenses. If I want to go through the process of deleting IE7 and starting over with Firefox 3, I really want more space and plenty of time to do that. Just a personal preference.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use