Why firefox sucks

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
heh.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Where's our resident 24 year-old, now? lololol

How many enterprise level firewalls have you setup? How many enterprise IDS systems? The database server? Sure. The rest? Generally not.

You said 256MB, and having a working server of any real capacity, it's impossible on that amount of memory. Once everything's loaded up (oh, and *nix has it's security ware more than a firewall -- but why software? -- from exploits too), 256MB is long gone.

Not even close. It's good, but doesn't have the added security of OpenBSD, especially on good hardware (AMD64, sparc64, sparc).

This is interesting, I wonder why it sounds familiar.....hmmm:

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.p...esource=review-openbsd

"Needless to say, OpenBSD is not a solo project. Working with Theo are about 15 core developers who do the lion's share of the work, plus another 50 active contributors (the exact number fluctuates). Software developers tend to be very opinionated, and the OpenBSD hierarchy deals with the inevitable personality conflicts by making Theo the "benign dictator" - Theo has the final word about what does and does not go into the operating system. As a result, you will rarely find OpenBSD being "indecisive", and most of the developers see this as a strength. This is in sharp contrast to some other open source projects where a core team of programmers tries to do things by consensus."

And...

Though encryption is important, the real key to OpenBSD's success is "code auditing." Quite simply, this means the process of manually hunting down bugs in the source code. Not just bugs in the OpenBSD kernel or userland, but in essential third-party packages (such as the Apache web server). Cleaning up the coding mistakes of others is a time-consuming and endless task, but it pays big dividends. Aside from enhanced security, the code auditing seems to improve stability. I can truthfully say that I have not experienced a single crash since I installed OpenBSD."

The stuff I edited out I didn't have any reason to comment on. :)

:cookie:
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Terumo
Where's our resident 24 year-old, now? lololol

25, but close enough. :)

You said 256MB, and having a working server of any real capacity, it's impossible on that amount of memory. Once everything's loaded up (oh, and *nix has it's security ware more than a firewall -- but why software? -- from exploits too), 256MB is long gone.

Huh?

Firewalls. IDSes. How many have you setup? Enterprise level mind you. ;)

This is interesting, I wonder why it sounds familiar.....hmmm:

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.p...esource=review-openbsd

"Needless to say, OpenBSD is not a solo project. Working with Theo are about 15 core developers who do the lion's share of the work, plus another 50 active contributors (the exact number fluctuates). Software developers tend to be very opinionated, and the OpenBSD hierarchy deals with the inevitable personality conflicts by making Theo the "benign dictator" - Theo has the final word about what does and does not go into the operating system. As a result, you will rarely find OpenBSD being "indecisive", and most of the developers see this as a strength. This is in sharp contrast to some other open source projects where a core team of programmers tries to do things by consensus."

And...

Though encryption is important, the real key to OpenBSD's success is "code auditing." Quite simply, this means the process of manually hunting down bugs in the source code. Not just bugs in the OpenBSD kernel or userland, but in essential third-party packages (such as the Apache web server). Cleaning up the coding mistakes of others is a time-consuming and endless task, but it pays big dividends. Aside from enhanced security, the code auditing seems to improve stability. I can truthfully say that I have not experienced a single crash since I installed OpenBSD."

What does that have to do with the fact OpenBSD has been pretty much the only system proactively working on security?
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Huh?

Firewalls. IDSes. How many have you setup? Enterprise level mind you. ;)

Enterprise level, you wouldn't be using a software firewall. ;) It'll be a Cisco hardware class firewall, with the price of it's upkeep!!

And I don't own or have access to a enterprise level Cisco firewall to play with (like I don't have a $50,000 drum scanner), like 99% of the rest of the world. :D

What does that have to do with the fact OpenBSD has been pretty much the only system proactively working on security?

Read back, and you'll see why. :D It'll bring it all back on topic again. :D
 

calyco

Senior member
Oct 7, 2004
825
1
81
I went from using firefox once in blue moon on windows to full time when I switched to linux. I like it alot better than IE now, it works much better in linux - rock solid stable than compared to windows.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Huh?

Firewalls. IDSes. How many have you setup? Enterprise level mind you. ;)

Enterprise level, you wouldn't be using a software firewall. ;) It'll be a Cisco hardware class firewall, with the price of it's upkeep!!

Think again. There are no hardware firewalls. They're all SOFTWARE. Cisco uses software, it's generally referred to as IOS or CatOS. Checkpoint uses software. Hardware firewalls would require hardware changes when you want to adjust a rule. Not quite useful.

How much RAM do you suspect is in a Cisco or Checkpoint box? Seriously. :)

And I don't own or have access to a enterprise level Cisco firewall to play with (like I don't have a $50,000 drum scanner), like 99% of the rest of the world. :D

I've played with plenty of ENTERPRISE level firewalls, none of them cisco though. ;)

What does that have to do with the fact OpenBSD has been pretty much the only system proactively working on security?

Read back, and you'll see why. :D It'll bring it all back on topic again. :D

I didn't see anything worth mentioning, except praise for the best security record around. :beer:
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Think again. There are no hardware firewalls. They're all SOFTWARE. Cisco uses software, it's generally referred to as IOS or CatOS. Checkpoint uses software. Hardware firewalls would require hardware changes when you want to adjust a rule. Not quite useful.

Take a look of one hardware module....
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/pro...t09186a0080092620.html

The software you're referring to goes in junction with the HARDWARE firewall (like the Cisco PIX 500 Series Firewalls). It adds functions for logs, has a console for maintaining rulesets, and other addons.

ALL major internet entities incorporate a HARDWARE firewall, because something more than your server's resources is needed to monitor the network traffic. Software firewalls would be very, very, very resource inefficient for enterprise class servers, it'll bog it down to a crawl. They require heavy processing power to monitor the traffic.

How much RAM do you suspect is in a Cisco or Checkpoint box? Seriously. :)

Depends on the model. And that module above alone. takes 32mb to 128mb of DRAM. Add the supervisor module for enterprise sites of high volume....

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/pro...t09186a0080159856.html

You'll see the memory requirements add up. IIRC, the full setup gets up there with memory.

Apparently n0c, you're not referring to enterprise class firewall protection.

I've played with plenty of ENTERPRISE level firewalls, none of them cisco though. ;)
I know a Cisco engineer who worked installing and maintaing them for an OLP (not AOL), and I wish his butt would show up here to to fill you in on enterprise class firewall requirements -- he sure filled us all on it!!

I didn't see anything worth mentioning, except praise for the best security record around. :beer:

Ignorance begets ignorance, n0c, but have a beer it might help. ;)
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
25, but close enough.
I think she was referring to my comment about having a hard time taking people who say "lololol" seriously.
For one thing I take n0c seriously because of his past posts, and secondly, he didn't say "lololol".

As for firewalls, do you have any idea how many large installations are running Checkpoint?
You obviously don't know what you're talking about, Cisco PIX's don't own the enterprise, though from I know, they're more popular in the US, while many places here in Europe use FW-1 or Nokia boxes(same thing, more or less).

As for shooting the messenger, no I'm not, I'm just replying in a suitable manner, if you didn't behave in such a silly manner, I'd reply in a different manner, very simple.
Heck, we manage to have quite nice discussions in OS once in a while, where the Windows people and the *NIX people get along fine.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Think again. There are no hardware firewalls. They're all SOFTWARE. Cisco uses software, it's generally referred to as IOS or CatOS. Checkpoint uses software. Hardware firewalls would require hardware changes when you want to adjust a rule. Not quite useful.

Take a look of one hardware module....
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/pro...t09186a0080092620.html

The software you're referring to goes in junction with the HARDWARE firewall (like the Cisco PIX 500 Series Firewalls). It adds functions for logs, has a console for maintaining rulesets, and other addons.

The only hardware is the computer that the firewall software runs on. Sorry, try again.

ALL major internet entities incorporate a HARDWARE firewall, because something more than your server's resources is needed to monitor the network traffic. Software firewalls would be very, very, very resource inefficient for enterprise class servers, it'll bog it down to a crawl. They require heavy processing power to monitor the traffic.

Those "hardware firewalls" are dedicated computers running firewalling software. Surprise!

How much RAM do you suspect is in a Cisco or Checkpoint box? Seriously. :)

Depends on the model. And that module above alone. takes 32mb to 128mb of DRAM. Add the supervisor module for enterprise sites of high volume....

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/pro...t09186a0080159856.html

You'll see the memory requirements add up. IIRC, the full setup gets up there with memory.

Apparently n0c, you're not referring to enterprise class firewall protection.

Heh, trust me, I am.

I've played with plenty of ENTERPRISE level firewalls, none of them cisco though. ;)
I know a Cisco engineer who worked installing and maintaing them for an OLP (not AOL), and I wish his butt would show up here to to fill you in on enterprise class firewall requirements -- he sure filled us all on it!!

I don't trust vendors. ;)

I didn't see anything worth mentioning, except praise for the best security record around. :beer:

Ignorance begets ignorance, n0c, but have a beer it might help. ;)

If you just explained what you meant there would be no ignorance on my part. But why bother? Right? Typical FreeBSDer attitude.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Sunner
25, but close enough.
I think she was referring to my comment about having a hard time taking people who say "lololol" seriously.
For one thing I take n0c seriously because of his past posts, and secondly, he didn't say "lololol".

As for firewalls, do you have any idea how many large installations are running Checkpoint?
You obviously don't know what you're talking about, Cisco PIX's don't own the enterprise, though from I know, they're more popular in the US, while many places here in Europe use FW-1 or Nokia boxes(same thing, more or less).

As for shooting the messenger, no I'm not, I'm just replying in a suitable manner, if you didn't behave in such a silly manner, I'd reply in a different manner, very simple.
Heck, we manage to have quite nice discussions in OS once in a while, where the Windows people and the *NIX people get along fine.

Those Nokia boxes are pretty nifty. I think I'm done with this, she just wants to argue instead of discuss. :beer:
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: Sunner
25, but close enough.
I think she was referring to my comment about having a hard time taking people who say "lololol" seriously.
For one thing I take n0c seriously because of his past posts, and secondly, he didn't say "lololol".

That's faulty logic, but shows a preference of bias though, which reflects in your views.

As for firewalls, do you have any idea how many large installations are running Checkpoint?

That's not the question. Frankly, the only firewall I've heard used on any business of any size is a hardware one, be a cheap Cisco or Sonicwall or Netgear, to enterprise/ISP class ones.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, Cisco PIX's don't own the enterprise, though from I know, they're more popular in the US, while many places here in Europe use FW-1 or Nokia boxes(same thing, more or less).

Okay, on one hand claiming Cisco HARDWARE firewalls don't own the "enterprise", but then you don't know because you're in Europe. You really don't know what you're talking about, then.

As for shooting the messenger, no I'm not,

Yes you are, as you're playing a game. One hand trying to act like a mature "24 year-old" and then give your "25 year-old" buddy's 5 year-old behavior a pass.

Do you know what hypocrisy is, by chance? And do you care about not committing it?

I'm just replying in a suitable manner, if you didn't behave in such a silly manner, I'd reply in a different manner, very simple.

I'll say the same with you: take that stick out of your anus. Nothing worse for thread than a constipated person (forget anal retentive).

Heck, we manage to have quite nice discussions in OS once in a while, where the Windows people and the *NIX people get along fine.

Good, I hope that can occur here (abeit in a new thread).
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The only hardware is the computer that the firewall software runs on. Sorry, try again.

Not on the server itself. Sorry, try again.

Those "hardware firewalls" are dedicated computers running firewalling software. Surprise!

They're also not on one's server. Surprise!

Back to square one!

Heh, trust me, I am.

No you don't.

I don't trust vendors. ;)

He wasn't a vendor. But having invested in all the crap to get both Cisco certs, I would take his expertise over yours any day.

If you just explained what you meant there would be no ignorance on my part. But why bother? Right? Typical FreeBSDer attitude.

Damn, one day I'm a Windows "apologist", and now I have a freaking "FreeBSDer attitude". Are you sure you're not schizophrenic, n0c? I wish you'd make up your mind, instead of licking your thumb and holding it up to judge the wind direction.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The only hardware is the computer that the firewall software runs on. Sorry, try again.

Not on the server itself. Sorry, try again.

Those "hardware firewalls" are dedicated computers running firewalling software. Surprise!

They're also not on one's server. Surprise!

Back to square one!

I never said they were run on the servers. I only corrected the thought that those ciscos are "hardware firewalls."

 

Soccer55

Golden Member
Jul 9, 2000
1,660
4
81
I started reading this thread because I found it amusing that the OP thought that he found a way to show that Firefox was broken. Despite many other people providing links from the W3C itself saying that he was wrong, he continued to claim that he was right. Now it appears to have degenerated into a Windows vs. *NIX argument. I must say that Terumo, not the others, come across as the "fanatic" in this discussion. It's almost as if you, Terumo, have no idea what you're talking about as you:

1) Make some lofty assumptions - ProviaFan uses linux as a server to impress people, you know more about NASA than Sunner (despite not offering any evidence that you do), etc
2) Make condescending comments - "If you don't know how to acquire it (Windows 2003 Server), you're out of the loop", "knowledge != wisdom", etc
3) State opinions as fact - "GUIs are the future of server administration", MS Server > Linux unless you're just doing basic stuff like serving webpages, etc
4) Make inaccurate statements about things you don't have first-hand experience with - hardware firewalls, ProviaFan's server needs, etc

As a result, it seems that this has degenerated even further into an e-pissing contest. Up until the last page or so, I was actually enjoying the turn this thread took from its original intention.

For the record, I have a Win2k desktop (a legal copy that I used to have set up as a server via IIS while I was an undergrad) and a Red Hat server. Both of them do exactly what I need them to do. Just my observations as I've been reading this thread.

-Tom
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Terumo
That's faulty logic, but shows a preference of bias though, which reflects in your views.
I don't see how it's faulty, he's made lots of good posts in this forum, you have not, at least not that I've seen.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.

That's not the question. Frankly, the only firewall I've heard used on any business of any size is a hardware one, be a cheap Cisco or Sonicwall or Netgear, to enterprise/ISP class ones.
Then you haven't seen much, which isn't a surprise.
If no businesses were using FW-1, who would be using it? It surely isn't priced as a SOHO product(though Checkpoint has ambitions to carve out a piece of that market as well, not with FW-1 though).

Okay, on one hand claiming Cisco HARDWARE firewalls don't own the "enterprise", but then you don't know because you're in Europe. You really don't know what you're talking about, then.
So you're saying the "the enterprise" is all in the US then?
And even in the US, there are quite a few FW-1 installations, like I said, from what I've heard, Cisco just has a greater marketshare there, compared to CP/FW-1.

Yes you are, as you're playing a game. One hand trying to act like a mature "24 year-old" and then give your "25 year-old" buddy's 5 year-old behavior a pass.


Do you know what hypocrisy is, by chance? And do you care about not committing it?
Well, seems like I'm not the only one finding your behaviure a bit childish.
And no, I don't care about your definition of hypocrisy.

I'll say the same with you: take that stick out of your anus. Nothing worse for thread than a constipated person (forget anal retentive).
What was that about shooting the messenger because you're out of arguments again?

Good, I hope that can occur here (abeit in a new thread).

I won't hold my breath.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I think I'm done with this, she just wants to argue instead of discuss.
Sounds likely.
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: Soccer55
I must say that Terumo, not the others, come across as the "fanatic" in this discussion.

Yesterday I was an "FreeBSDer", now I'm a Window's "apologist" (again).

When you guys get over your schizophrenia in only scapegoating, let me know. :D

It's almost as if you, Terumo, have no idea what you're talking about as you:

Meanwhile, I'm running you guys in circles with simple logic.

Danger of being spoonfed or brainswashed is that when the propaganda and/or script is removed, it makes a person lacking in the ability to think critically on their own.

1) Make some lofty assumptions - ProviaFan uses linux as a server to impress people, you know more about NASA than Sunner (despite not offering any evidence that you do), etc

My sig explains enough. :D But then again, I might come back to show you the mess of a raw satellite feed, for fun.

2) Make condescending comments - "If you don't know how to acquire it (Windows 2003 Server), you're out of the loop", "knowledge != wisdom", etc

Meanwhile, you ignore it in others which shows your bias. Bias is the problem here, as it clouds judgement and is a basis of propaganda.

3) State opinions as fact - "GUIs are the future of server administration", MS Server > Linux unless you're just doing basic stuff like serving webpages, etc

It has to have a GUI no and's, if's or but's about it. Pure lovely, beautiful and vivid functional graphics so even grandma can understand how to use a server (heck, maybe in 20 years she could be running mainframes, with point and click ease).

That will be a fact. With OLEDs on the way (if you don't know, will be responsible for flexible membrane screens that can be rolled up like a projector screen) making visual displays available for even 1U racks, it's just only a matter of time.

OLEDs are already on the market in small devices like cameras, and will be coming to the desktop in 2 to 4 years on the monitor market and beyond. It'll probably replace conventional LCD (as it's even more energy efficient and the colors are organic.

So yes, you're clearly out of the loop on the technology roadmap. BTW, grab Scientific American instead of Playboy sometime, since the emerging technology won't be addressed across a centerfold. :D :D :D

4) Make inaccurate statements about things you don't have first-hand experience with - hardware firewalls, ProviaFan's server needs, etc

Neither does anyone else here. 99.9% of the people on this thread have zero experience with enterprise class computers and their operation (they try to pass themselves off as working on the equipment, but their age alone tells me they're down on the access totem pole -- they're monitor watchers and cable organizers instead). It's like this scenerio: when an important client needs work done on saturday at 8pm at night, the boss isn't going to send a recent CS grad (or inexperienced papered warrior) to fix an established client's network. The boss will call in his most experienced team or shop leader. The same applies with $50,000 hardware. Common sense.

As a result, it seems that this has degenerated even further into an e-pissing contest.

It need not be if folks stuck to the issues, not personalities.

Up until the last page or so, I was actually enjoying the turn this thread took from its original intention.

It was good until boys-will-be-boys come in and all they can do is attack the messenger to derail the discussion.

For the record, I have a Win2k desktop (a legal copy that I used to have set up as a server via IIS while I was an undergrad) and a Red Hat server. Both of them do exactly what I need them to do. Just my observations as I've been reading this thread.

Ditto.
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: Sunner
I don't see how it's faulty, he's made lots of good posts in this forum, you have not, at least not that I've seen.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.

That's bias, because Sunner I know I made a lot of good comments. If I truly erred, I'd be corrected by more than *nix fans. That's how it works.

Then you haven't seen much, which isn't a surprise.
If no businesses were using FW-1, who would be using it? It surely isn't priced as a SOHO product(though Checkpoint has ambitions to carve out a piece of that market as well, not with FW-1 though).

This is the USA I'm referring too (which is the main computer market of the world). I don't know or care what Europe or Australia is using, it has no impact here.

So you're saying the "the enterprise" is all in the US then?
And even in the US, there are quite a few FW-1 installations, like I said, from what I've heard, Cisco just has a greater marketshare there, compared to CP/FW-1.

Cisco MEANS firewall for any decent cluster to carrier center in the USA. I don't know ANY online company that has more than 200 employes that don't employ at least a $800 hardware firewall. They probably won't have a Cisco engineer on the payroll, but they'll use a Cisco router/firewall/load balancer. Cisco has the best reputation for the job, too.

Heck, even my tech relative's home computer uses a true hardware firewall. And if I can get a bargin, I'll be getting one, as I expand my home network.

Well, seems like I'm not the only one finding your behaviure a bit childish.
And no, I don't care about your definition of hypocrisy.

What's childish is coming back to attack the messenger, and continue to lick your wounds.

BTW, isn't my definition of hypocrisy:

From Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Now, are you some God to claim that dictionary is untrue now?

What was that about shooting the messenger because you're out of arguments again?

Likewise? So Sum, where do you get off the train?

I won't hold my breath.

Because you'll be there to derail it?

<I love a good argument> :D
 

Soccer55

Golden Member
Jul 9, 2000
1,660
4
81
I know neither of these guys.....I was just stating how things are coming across to someone not involved with the discussion or anyone in it. As far as your responses go:

I'm not going to even bother with your first two because you'll believe what you want to believe and it will just prolong the e-pissing contest.

I have no idea whether or not you know anything about NASA. That is why I made the statement I made. For all I know, you could have been head of NASA at some point in time.....or maybe the closest you've ever been to anything NASA related is the tour at Cape Canaveral. Again, you haven't provided any evidence that you were familiar with satellite data.....not even a claim that you used to work at NASA, so I could only assume that you were making an inference based on things you've read or heard. If you do, in fact, have first hand knowledge of the workings of NASA, then I stand corrected.

I argue that I am unbiased as I know exactly 0 of the people involved in the discussion. One or both of these guys may have helped me with solving a computer problem once upon a time, but other than that, I don't know them at all. I noticed that Sunner made some somewhat condescending remarks, but I would argue that you threw the first stone with the reading comprehension remark.....it seemed rather civil up until that point.

Neither of us can say for certain that a server will HAVE to have a GUI in the future. You don't know that, I don't know that. It's pure speculation at this point.....on both of our parts, so it cannot be stated as fact. As far as OLEDs, it's interesting that you tell me that I should "drop the Playboy" because "I'm out of the loop on technology" when I already knew the information you presented about OLEDs as I've read about them before. And since I haven't picked up a Playboy since before I turned 16 (9 years ago), I couldn't have read about OLEDs in there anyway.

How do you know that no one here has experience with enterprise class computers/hardware? I have a good friend that was a top system administrator for a company in NY (that makes railroad signalling devices) at the age of 23. He had the wonderful duty of carrying a pager one weekend a month so that someone could call him in if any of the servers went down. I know for a fact that they had some AS/400 mainframes and that he had to work on them. His good friend was one of the top system administrators at a company offering internet and telephone services at 22. So while it may be unlikely or improbable that someone that young could have such a big responsibility, it is not impossible.

-Tom
 

Armitage

Banned
Feb 23, 2001
8,086
0
0
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: Armitage
Actually, NASA does quite well with clusters - mainframes are good where you need massive IO and unquestionable uptime among other things.

And would you know why? What they need is massive processor time for heavy number crunching. They deal with very raw data that needs to be computed into something that humans can read. If you've seen the datasets that are piped down from a satellite you'd know by how much!!

Actually Isee quite a bit of that data - in fact, it is what's choking my co-workers Windows box.

No you don't. The only reason I have access to a windows image @ work is because my company made some bad choices in email (Lotus Notes) & timekeeping software. So I have a citrix image available, that I only use for those apps. Equiv. apps are available for Linux, but our management was short sigted in that respect. I haven't run windows at home for years. Maybe you don't think you could survive without it, but frankly, I don't miss it. In fact it's painfully kludgy when I have to use i have to use it.

<Mercy do they go to extreme lengths to say they dislike MS! lololol>

Fanaticism at it's finest!!

Meanwhile, I have a RHE server and I'd careless of the OS, it's no big deal.

Wow - this thread has really gone to hell - which is quite a feat consideriong it started there.
In any case, no furhter comment except on the maturity bit - my overall impression is that Terumo is probably about 17 or is intentionally acting the part to provoke people. Lot's of shallow opinion & factoids, but no coherent thought. I'm done here.
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
I thank you for the compliment of being 17 again -- I wish. I wish I was 25 again too! :)

Issue with you guys are you are here trying to prop your profession and sound like somebody. This thread started as an offtopic discussion. Now you're trying to sound like Ph.D's yet type like you never held a pen and paper before. Kind of hard backtracking now.

Yep, IE is the better browser to use, as it blankets the internet with surfers, which they use to visit other sides and engage in ecommerce. It's the difference between driving a Model T and a Ferarri (okay, I admit IE isn't a Ferarri, but Firefox isn't one either). :)
 

Olafva

Junior Member
Jan 29, 2005
8
0
0
Does Terumo REALLY work for M$ and purposely off topic to divert serious Firefox discussion?
 

pkypkypky

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2001
1,542
0
76
I just downloaded firefox recently because of all the geek support out there. I used to like opera a lot in the day....here goes my 2 cents

1) IE pages will always display more pages better. More programmers check their pages on IE and not FF. Whether it's compliant or not is up for grabs I suppose. It seems as if the word "compliant" doesn't even mean what it means...or...uh, whatever. The one thing I do realize that many people say "Firefox rules! IE sucks!" and the next day bitch about how a website doesn't display correctly in Firefox..."damn, I have to open IE now!"

2) IE will always have more exposed holes to patch. That's because a majority of programmers/hackers will try to find leaks in it to patch it. If you think FF is bulletproof, you're wrong.

3) IE does not contain spyware or give you spyware. That's the single worst argument from FF users. People who have spyware infested computers should stop blaming other people for their inability to educate yourself on how to protect yourself from spyware. And it goes beyond installing a spybuster program. I had a friend who installed a anti-spyware program he saw abvertised on the web only to find out it infested the computer with its own adware. You can set IE & FF to restrict the same type of malicious scripts if you tried. Most adware/spyware is bundled in stuff you install. The exception is if you browse sites that are "suspect" frequently (if you catch my drift).

4) Stop talking about features of each browser (ie, tabview, popup, clone windows). You can get addons for that. SP2 popup blocker is pretty damn good and FF has been great so far too. SP2 even blocks activex installations for clueless ppl in #3 above.

5) If you support FF, stop talking like a retard. '3' is not equal to an 'E' and crytic words sounds really....well, dorky. I'd like to think that not all people who love FF are either geeks or people who bitch about everything Microsoft-branded all the time.


alas, I hope FF will gain popularity. Competition is always good for the end user. If I run into problems with pages, I'll probably lean towards using IE because I like pages displaying correctly. FF seems to have taken a few pointers from Opera. Let's hope they don't mature as poorly as opera did. Opera had so many great little things I liked. But it started behaving differently every release. And then came the ads. So I said F-that. I still use the old version sometimes, but that doesn't display anything correctly.
 

dataxpress

Banned
Jan 7, 2005
257
0
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
Firefox sucks. Just admit it. You use it to be 'geek cool'. I have no problems with spyware or any of that with IE. And my pages render properly. Fvck firefox.

That's because you're like the rest of the Mac-hating crew-- you don't care if it sucks, if it doesn't work, if it's sh!ttier than h3ll, it doesn't matter, because everybody else uses it. Well that's going to change.