I can honestly say that I do not even remember if Mozilla has ever crashed on me before, which is a good thing. I can remember Netscape x.x crashing on several occasions though.
I can honestly say that I do not even remember if Mozilla has ever crashed on me before, which is a good thing. I can remember Netscape x.x crashing on several occasions though.
Same here. It's never crashed on me and I rarely come across a page that doesn't render properly. My work pc has had mozilla open for 3 weeks now and not a problem. No memory leaks, no performance issues. IE6 on the other hand tends to crash with my overactive browsing. I only use it when I absolutely have to.
>if yours isn't that's fine but don't sh!t on every Mozilla thread with your meaningless banter and statistics.
The only other time I ever talked in another Mozilla thread was one that I had started myself.
did I come here IE crapping.... NO
did I ever mention in this thread that IE was better..... NO
and by meaningless banter do you mean like FACTS
I was replying to someone who said that "Mozilla had FEW and I mean FEW bugs"....
This is like the blind leading the blind. Please don't take my word for it but like MozillaQuest said... "bugs are cropping up faster than they are being fixed without any quality assurance" and those are the plain facts of this Mozilla project. The debate here was never between IE or Mozilla and I don't want to make it that. But when someone says that Mozilla has 'few' bugs..... I know that some of you are mentally fogged by anti-microsofism and trying really hard to believe that you are using 'quality' software but C'mon facts are facts people.
>better security track record make Mozilla win hands down for me.
LOL... well if that's what you believe then you go right ahead.
>both still have tons of bugs
I agree that both have their problems and bugs... But people, Mozilla is no Internet Explorer
The only other time I ever talked in another Mozilla thread was one that I had started myself.
did I come here IE crapping.... NO
did I ever mention in this thread that IE was better..... NO
and by meaningless banter do you mean like FACTS
I was replying to someone who said that "Mozilla had FEW and I mean FEW bugs"....
This is like the blind leading the blind. Please don't take my word for it but like MozillaQuest said... "bugs are cropping up faster than they are being fixed without any quality assurance" and those are the plain facts of this Mozilla project. The debate here was never between IE or Mozilla and I don't want to make it that. But when someone says that Mozilla has 'few' bugs..... I know that some of you are mentally fogged by anti-microsofism and trying really hard to believe that you are using 'quality' software but C'mon facts are facts people.
>better security track record make Mozilla win hands down for me.
LOL... well if that's what you believe then you go right ahead.
>both still have tons of bugs
I agree that both have their problems and bugs... But people, Mozilla is no Internet Explorer
Quoting bugzilla numbers is completely meaningless without some metric as to the severity & uniqueness of the bugs.
For a little perspective on this, I did a query on bugzilla.
- assigned & reopened bugs (this is some indication that it is a real, confirmed bug)
- all platforms (consider the problems that IE has and it only supports two platforms)
- all OS
- Priority 1 & 2
- Severity: blocker, critical and major
I come up with 130, of which 33 were critical.
A quick scan of the list didn't show anything that appeared to be security related. Some seem relatively trivial given my search criteria:
Folder Loading performance
make -j4 randomly fails on NSPR (you wan't see one like this with IE!)
Improve message display performance
wrap for spellchecker
Content widgets with wrong font
etc...
Compare that to this list of unpatched IE security holes
I don't use IE cuz I don't use Windows. So I can't comment directly. But I know I here about far more IE security holes then I do Mozilla.
Can you link us to any unresolved, remotely exploitable security holes in Mozilla? I don't know of any at the moment, so I'd be interested if there are.
I just linked you to 20 for IE.
And thank god for that!
And you wouldn't know facts if they were delivered by lawyers in a Microsoft deposition.
Look, while you're right that saying Mozilla has "few" bugs is too generous, you continue to cite MozillaQuest, which is by MOST objective accounts, a Mozilla FUD web site. Your MozillaQuest quote alone is a strong indication of their journalistic integrity. Sure, criticism/dissent is a key part of objective reporting but cutting across the grain alone doesn't assure quality journalism. For starters, apparently you don't have a software development background and feel that simply querying a bugbase for a record count can lead to a reliable measure of quality.
To specifically rebut your argument, the users in this thread report first-hand knowledge of their Mozilla usage over time (and also some awareness of official security problems). Have you done the same? How are you in any position to state that Mozilla is not a quality product due to a bug count?
By your own accounts, you have to run NIS, a separate 3rd-party product that requires periodic signature updates to run a secure IE client platform. On the other hand, while Mozilla isn't perfect, it alone (without any separate product) is a reasonably secure product. Since WXP's IE6 launch alone, there have been no less than 4 security "roll-up" (or cumulative) patches, which encapsulate a whole slew of actual bugs, many labeled by Microsoft as critical. The only good thing to be said about the situation is that MS is now taking security more seriously and releasing patches for most problems (longtime Win9x users will realize that this is not an entrenched policy for them).
So how you wind up concluding that IE is a secure product (which you've been on the record as stating) is absolutely absurd.
You mean it's not a browser that sometimes shuns open Web standards with a spotty security track record at best? Oh no, what a tragedy. Note I haven't argued which is a better browser (which is highly debatable and definitely not definitive) but your conclusion that IE is more secure than Mozilla really has very little basis in fact.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Few is a relative term, you can't determine whether 5 or 5,000,000 is a small or huge amount without other similar things to compare it to. To me having a few dollars on me may mean $100 when for you it means $3, it's totally relative and non-factual.
IE could have 5,000,000 open bugs in MS' bug tracking database and that would make Mozilla look nearly perfect, but you have no idea how many open isses MS has known about IE because there's no way in hell they'd release that information. Win2K was released with 65,000 known bugs, does that mean Win2K is bug ridden and shouldn't be used by anyone?
More like statistics. Statistics != facts.
You believe everything you read? Sure you can't argue that bugs are being found, but no QA? One of the biggest and most important aspects of Open Source software is that the development is in the open, everyone is part of the QA team. If you don't want to be part of the QA use the 'stable' builds, not the alpha or beta ones. Not that they're bug free either, but they're your best bet. And if you call what MS does QA you've never used their software or seen patches posted and pulled the same day or Q articles rewritten without any notice. MS does just enough QA to cover their ass, because they can shove half-assed software down your throat and it's ok to say "Download the latest patch from Windows Update" when it finally breaks in your face.
If you sense a little bitterness it's because I have to support and use their software daily because everyone's afraid to move away from it. Actually IE is one of their better products, but I've still seen it do enough stupid things and break in stupid ways that I'd rather use something else.
Considering there's practically no other products to compare it to, it's hard not to make it that. If you want s/IE/Opera/g, they're both closed source and you have no idea about their current state of development. IE is just picked because it's the most used, currently.
I point you to my previous "few is relative" statement. Have you ever programmed? Do you know what 'few' bugs for a project the size of mozilla is? Didn't think so.
Facts are only important when they are convenient for you, eh?
Right, Mozilla isn't IE, it's fast, it's Open Source, it's cross-platform, it follows standards, it's not buggy. It's everything IE's not, and it rocks.
Too right! I work as a network admin/comp tech and MS software gives me the most headaches. I always try not to use MS software where possible becuase in most cases, it works better, faster and doesn't give you weird error messages which appear nowhere in MS' KB.
Yep, I just viewed that list. Here are some samples:
"11901 blo P1 All justdave@syndicomm.com ASSI Change Bugzilla comments line-wrapping policy"
"51139 maj P1 All joki@netscape.com ASSI ESC/Stop needs to stop javascript"
"147479 maj P1 All mbarnson@sisna.com ASSI Remove all redundant generated doc files before release"
"66911 cri P1 All nitot@netscape.com ASSI nwolb.com[deny] - Blocking NS6/Moz" <-- The guy submitted a bug because a website blocked his browser.
"88913 cri P1 All nitot@netscape.com ASSI postoffice.co.uk - UK Post Office refuses access to Mozilla" <-- Here's another from the same guy, both listed as "critical".
"124174 blo P2 All bbaetz@student.usyd.edu.au ASSI processmail should be a package" <-- Here's another "critical" bug
"145220 cri P2 All bugzillamat@free.fr ASSI citefutee.com - only NS4 and IE4+" <-- And another
I would think, that as someone who has been using this browser for well over a year and has experienced VERY few bugs, that my opinion would count for as much as MozillaFUD's.
Look, I have no problem admitting that Internet Explorer is a fine browser, and if it weren't for Mozilla, I'd probably use it (Unfortunately, Opera crashes too much on this system), and if you prefer IE, then fine. But if you're trying to say that Mozilla isn't quality software, and are backing up that opinion with misleading and more or less irrelevent (since we have nothing to compare them to) statistics, then I can't help but wonder if you are mentally fogged by MS propaganda and MozillaFUD.
They have some pretty weird bugs in the database indeed...
98491 blo -- All gagan@netscape.com REOP Vending machine on the 2nd floor has raised prices by $0.05
98491 blo -- All gagan@netscape.com REOP Vending machine on the 2nd floor has raised prices by $0.05
>it's Open Source, it's cross-platform, it follows standards, it's not buggy.
Again I'm not going to bring IE in here. Ok it's open source, Ok it's cross-platform but to say it's not buggy is comical to say the least. If you want to use Mozilla then fine go ahead and I really don't have anything against those using it.
When all the smoke and fog clears, when you look at the bigger picture and in the most simple of terms, what this ultimately boils down to is this. Bugzilla... I mean Mozilla is buggy, it will continue to be buggy and before anything improves it will get even more buggy. Because Mozilla is primarly used by anti-microsoft zealots and because it is not targeted yet, it still has not been proven to be hacker/cracker proof unlike other browsers that have sucessfully been proven to be. Mozilla's problems lay at it's core, being that there is little or no quality assurance going into the product, each new release will create more serious problems that for the most part will likely never be fixed. And as the Mozilla lead project director Mitchell Baker has said "Not too much will change. But the work of those who contribute to the project remains quite similar." and this is the plague that will eat at Mozilla's core problems in the future.
I sincerely hope and wish that things will/would improve with Mozilla but that's just not what the reality is with this broswer. Things will get much worse before they get better.
Again I'm not going to bring IE in here. Ok it's open source, Ok it's cross-platform but to say it's not buggy is comical to say the least. If you want to use Mozilla then fine go ahead and I really don't have anything against those using it.
When all the smoke and fog clears, when you look at the bigger picture and in the most simple of terms, what this ultimately boils down to is this. Bugzilla... I mean Mozilla is buggy, it will continue to be buggy and before anything improves it will get even more buggy. Because Mozilla is primarly used by anti-microsoft zealots and because it is not targeted yet, it still has not been proven to be hacker/cracker proof unlike other browsers that have sucessfully been proven to be. Mozilla's problems lay at it's core, being that there is little or no quality assurance going into the product, each new release will create more serious problems that for the most part will likely never be fixed. And as the Mozilla lead project director Mitchell Baker has said "Not too much will change. But the work of those who contribute to the project remains quite similar." and this is the plague that will eat at Mozilla's core problems in the future.
I sincerely hope and wish that things will/would improve with Mozilla but that's just not what the reality is with this broswer. Things will get much worse before they get better.
Originally posted by: ElDonAntonio
They have some pretty weird bugs in the database indeed...
98491 blo -- All gagan@netscape.com REOP Vending machine on the 2nd floor has raised prices by $0.05
LOL
>you totally ignored everyone's counterpoints and if you truly believe what you're typing I feel sorry for you.
LOL your not going to insult my body parts next are you ?
LOL your not going to insult my body parts next are you ?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I do find it highly entertaining how you still havn't even acknowledged that anyone has replied to your posts, especially the ones that dispell nearly all the myths you seem to believe about Mozilla and it's development.
No, I'm going to go to sleep because it's late and I have work in the morning. Anyway, it would be really hard to insult your appearance considering all I've seen of you is the icon you chose for this forum.
No, I'm going to go to sleep because it's late and I have work in the morning. Anyway, it would be really hard to insult your appearance considering all I've seen of you is the icon you chose for this forum.
Nothinman, I think everyone said what they had to say in this interesting debate, but to ask someone on these forums to post something like "ok, I admit you guys are right, and I'm wrong" I asking way too much.
>"ok, I admit you guys are right, and I'm wrong" I asking way too much.
Well that's why they call it a debate... everyone has their own style, beliefs and opinions. Sometimes it may be a little heavy but I still respect everyone's right to their opinion.
>By your own accounts, you have to run NIS, a separate 3rd-party product that requires periodic signature updates to run a secure IE client platform
Uh?? I use NIS primarily as anti-virus protection, firewall and for privacy issues. Viruses, Trojans, Malicious and non malicious scripts are poping up everyday and that's why I need signature updates. The IE platform on it's own is secure, it's the 3rd party software that I'm afraid of. For example, the other day I was using a Video Editing program and on it's own tried to connect with it's mothership without telling me, it had nothing todo with IE platform at all.
>especially the ones that dispell nearly all the myths you seem to believe about Mozilla and it's development
>Facts are only important when they are convenient for you, eh?
>MozillaQuest, which is by MOST objective accounts, a Mozilla FUD web site. >You believe everything you read?
What's there to acknowledge, and what myths, MozillaQuest is a Mozilla supporting website. See that's the problem with fanatic zealots, no matter what FACTS our brought to clear up the fog and show what the real story is, no matter how evident it is, there's always someone that will do anything and everything to cloud it up. In most of my posts I've given what I believed to be facts from other known and reputable sites about the bug and quality issues.
Again I sincerely hope the best for Mozilla but IE has %95 of the browser market, if Mozilla wants to seriously take it on, it will have to fix it's core problems and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Well that's why they call it a debate... everyone has their own style, beliefs and opinions. Sometimes it may be a little heavy but I still respect everyone's right to their opinion.
>By your own accounts, you have to run NIS, a separate 3rd-party product that requires periodic signature updates to run a secure IE client platform
Uh?? I use NIS primarily as anti-virus protection, firewall and for privacy issues. Viruses, Trojans, Malicious and non malicious scripts are poping up everyday and that's why I need signature updates. The IE platform on it's own is secure, it's the 3rd party software that I'm afraid of. For example, the other day I was using a Video Editing program and on it's own tried to connect with it's mothership without telling me, it had nothing todo with IE platform at all.
>especially the ones that dispell nearly all the myths you seem to believe about Mozilla and it's development
>Facts are only important when they are convenient for you, eh?
>MozillaQuest, which is by MOST objective accounts, a Mozilla FUD web site. >You believe everything you read?
What's there to acknowledge, and what myths, MozillaQuest is a Mozilla supporting website. See that's the problem with fanatic zealots, no matter what FACTS our brought to clear up the fog and show what the real story is, no matter how evident it is, there's always someone that will do anything and everything to cloud it up. In most of my posts I've given what I believed to be facts from other known and reputable sites about the bug and quality issues.
Again I sincerely hope the best for Mozilla but IE has %95 of the browser market, if Mozilla wants to seriously take it on, it will have to fix it's core problems and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
What about the original question now guys??
So what's the difference between Netscape and Mozi? which do you prefer and why?
So what's the difference between Netscape and Mozi? which do you prefer and why?
I prefer Mozilla because it has more current code and lacks all the AOLBloat. I don't need AIM integrated into my browser and I don't need AOL icons splattered all over my desktop.
Mozilla is the project developing the core browser and related utilities, Netscape is AOL's "spinoff" which includes alot of other stuff(crap if you will).
Mozilla will always be ahead since Netscape is based on mozilla, and hence has to wait for Mozilla.
And NicColt, Nothinman had a very good point in saying you avoided every counterpoint people posted.
Mind explaining why?
And before you go calling me a mozilla zealot, Im typing this on Opera 6.02 on a Linux box, so I should be excluded from the zealot crowd, no?
Mozilla will always be ahead since Netscape is based on mozilla, and hence has to wait for Mozilla.
And NicColt, Nothinman had a very good point in saying you avoided every counterpoint people posted.
Mind explaining why?
And before you go calling me a mozilla zealot, Im typing this on Opera 6.02 on a Linux box, so I should be excluded from the zealot crowd, no?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I've admitted when I was proven wrong before, most of the time I appreciate being taught something new. But all NicColt has done is post opinions riddled with meaningless statistics and conjecture, it blows my mind how anyone could actually believe anything NicColt has posted here.
The myths that Mozilla is riddled with bugs and won't get any better than it already is. I've been using it as my primary browser since 0.9.5 was released, it's only gotten better and I have yet to experience one of the ~12K bugs you're claiming are so terrible.
That one instance was unrelated to IE, and calling home isn't necessarily a bad thing. Infact I'd like it if more commercial software required that sort of thing to cut down on piracy. I know it'd be cracked in no time, but the more annoyances closed software have the better open software looks.
How can you say the IE platform is secure? With all the holes that have been found, let alone the ones that havn't been patched (according to that posted link) yet.
That makes it's words gospel?
You look like the zealot here. You've presented no facts, just opinions and meaningless statistics.
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it's true, in this case it's the exact opposite. I believe Santa Clause is real and big companies annual commercials back up my belief, does that make it true?
Funny how you can't name any of it's 'core problems', instead just pointing to the bugzilla system which would take a non-Mozilla person weeks to sift through and pull out the crap.
Someone posted a bug that was submitted about the price of soda being raised on the second floor, how do you know there's not ~5K of those type of submissions in there?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter