Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It's a valid argument - the DIA* statement. FF's main claims were no-popups, tabbed browsing, and ad-blocking. Touted as "it's more secure than IE."
The answer from most IE users was "IE is used much more than FF, if it were the other way around, FF would be the target." Well, FF *is* being used more, and now it's the target too. It's also not "more secure" it was just a MUCH smaller target. Again, security by obscurity.
**I'm not claiming IE to be better, more secure or whatever than FF** Both have +s and -s.
It's bizarre to me that you would use the "Security through obscurity" argument against FF, in favor of IE, and yet, for years now, the code behind Firefox has been
open-source, whereas the code for IE has
not, and yet, where are the major holes in FF that allow having your machine be "0wn3d" like IE can. Oh wait, FF was designed from the ground-up with security as a major factor in the design. Contrast that to IE, in which security admittedly wasn't even a real concern. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and a secure design actually leads to better overall security! (Imagine that - facts could get in the way of marketing FUD. I bet that boggles most IE fanboy minds, doesn't it?)
Btw, for the record, the recent issue of popups is due to Flash, not the browser itself. Disable flash and you won't get any of those popups either.
Sure, as FF gains a larger installed-base, the marketers will consider it a viable part of the market to target for their marketing efforts, I'm not denying that. But in terms of "serious exploits", FF has had far fewer than IE, and yet FF and IE5+ have been around for around the same length of time as far as the actual codebase goes.