Continued from post Browsers (Cont.).
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html
That is a very interesting article looking at each of the claims Firefox users make about their beloved and worshiped browser. Don't get me wrong, I like the browser and you should not take my previous statement as a sign that I dislike it. But I think its important that people be truthful about browsers =). I also agree with the authors/editors pick at the end of the article.
Topics
Previous Posts
-
►
2009
(43)
-
►
March
(9)
- A Battelstar Galactica perspective on the things G...
- Safari 4 - How to Set your Top Sites URLs Manually...
- AMCA Blacklist leaked on Internet
- AMCA Fine you for Linking to Blacklisted Content
- Projection
- Google Suggests Suicide
- Online File Storage
- Style - What are we missing?
- An Inspiring Method to Studying the Bible
-
►
March
(9)
Flickr: Donna
Flickr: Leigh
15 comments:
The author of the Firefox Myths site doesn't know the meaning of the word "truthful".
http://www.techspot.com/vb/showthread.php?p=249496
The article is quite accurate on the majority of the authors arguments.
It doesn't make Firefox a bad browser, it is still a fantastic piece of software. It just doesn't make it perfect.
If the author has taken other peoples statements out of context, so be it.
Do you trust somebody who does this to tell the truth about anything?
Look at all the pro-IE, anti-Firefox links on the page, it's obvious what the author's bias is.
The author's underlying aim remains to drive users away from Firefox, preferably back to an IE based browser.
It does this by selective quotation of 'facts' and opinions, all of which show Firefox in a poor light and other browsers in a good light.
This page should be seen as what it is: anti-Firefox propaganda and vitriol, masquerading as something else.
For a more balanced view of Firefox imperfections, I recommend this page:
http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php
And for a revealing parody of the page:
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/
Sometimes an authors validity themselves is irrelevant to the validity of their argument.
Yes the author obviously has some very big issue and doesn't like Firefox. I love firefox, and yet I fully agree out of my own experiences with many of the issues he discusses.
I am definately not anti-Firefox. And to note something: why would the authors aim be to drive users back to an IE based browser? Opera and which the author applauds is not IE based. Not to mention he/she applauds the Mozilla browser, which uses the same technology as Firefox and definately not IE based.
I agree that the author has an issue with Firefox, but not that his/her agenda is to drive people to IE.
Leigh,
I just linked to your blog post today on my site, which is why you just got spammed by the Fanboys.
I've never had a problem with Firefox, only the lies people use to promote it and these Fanboys.
The author's argument is that IE is compatible with the largest number of websites, due some websites being designed specifically for IE. The figure he quotes on the page is 15% of pages not working with Firefox. This is a disputed figure of course, as is the argument: many people have put the counter argument- that the more people who use alternative browsers, the more sites will ensure they are cross-browser compliant. His argument is negated by Microsoft's development of IE in version 7: increased standards compliance will mean that sites that contain code to fix IE bugs (or even sometimes take advantage of these bugs to render correctly) will break in IE7 unless fixed.
You are right to point out that recommending Opera makes no sense if he (his name's Andrew, by the way) really would like people to use IE, but it seems to be a case of rather Opera than Firefox.
The author has posted this page on many forums using the name 'Mastertech'. Some of the threads make interesting reading!
Here are a couple of threads from Andrew's own forum, where he enlightens us as to why IE is the right browser for the 'masses'.
http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=1247
http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=544
Firefox Myths goes out of its way to show Firefox in a bad light, but also goes out of its way to show IE (and Opera) in a good light, making a mountain out of a molehill about Firefox security issues whilst dismissing IE security issues and disparaging Firefox's standards compliance whilst praising IE's.
These subjects deserve to be discussed more objectively, not by somebody who has expressed strong anti-Firefox, anti-OSS, pro-IE sentiments in another place on the web.
"These subjects deserve to be discussed more objectively, not by somebody who has expressed strong anti-Firefox, anti-OSS, pro-IE sentiments in another place on the web." --Anonymous
Andrew have every right to discuss his opinion and experiences, as do I, and as do you. Firefox is not a religion, it is a piece of software, with faults just like every other application, accept that and move on.
Andrew has the right to express his opinion of course, but not the right to express opinions in one place and then deny that he has expresses those opinions in another place where they might reveal him to hold a bias.
Bias deserves to be challenged, and I reserve the right to do so. If you choose to give credance to his site that is your choice, but I would urge you to look a little more closely into the background of the author. His intention is clearly to drive people away from Firefox: indeed he has boasted to me of the number of people who have stopped using the browser after reading his page.
It is Andrew's strategy to label all his critics as "Fanboys" who subcribe to the Firefox "Religion". It's been 25 years since I could by any stretch of the imagination be called a boy and I do not worship at that particular church. I am quite happy to accept that Firefox has faults, and have criticised it myself. However, I will continue to be the fly in Andrew's ointment without appology, because readers of his page deserve to know that what they are reading comes with a very definite spin.
The author has consistently refused to answer questions regarding deliberate misquotations; post them in full, or remove them as has been requested several times, e.g. http://www.techspot.com/staff/56/firefox-myths-debunked-part-2/
“…Good stuff - give it a read.” - Asa
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2005/12/accettura_tears.html - “Robert Accettura has a nice response to the poorly constructed & mostly worthless article Firefox Myths. Good stuff - give it a read”.
“It’s an interesting read…” - Robert A. (Mac User)
http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/ - “Someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame (obviously not worth 15 minutes) decided to post some Firefox Myths. It’s an interesting read, though has a few oddball statements, that really don’t make sense”.
“I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested.” - Tre
http://www.thingoid.com/2006/01/the-myth-of-firefox-myths/ - “I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested. Then sadly disappointed. Rather than a balanced analysis of some of the folklore surrounding Firefox, it is merely a stream of weak arguments against imaginary “myths” supported by misquoting or deliberate misreading of sources. I’m not even going to reference the page”.
“The sources & data are convincing…” - Ryan J. (Editor note - this should start “…the sources”)
http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=137#137 - “Even though the sources & data are convincing, I see nothing pro-Firefox there - notice no links about IE’s insecuity I wonder why.”
“…your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP” - MrFlibble (FreewheelinFrank)
http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=159#159 - “What is clear is that Mastertech has unbelievable energy for incessantly persuing the same arguments over & over & over again, he is entirely incapable of admitting that anybody else has a valid point of view, let alone might actually have anything to add to the discussion that might contradict his pre-set notions, & will never give up until he has the last word on this subject, or until he finds the last internet forum on the planet to post in again & start up the whole argument again. Mastertech, I personally don’t care if you have a bee in your bonnet about Firefox. I don’t care if you see yourself as some kind of “Master Technician” come to save us from falacy. Personally I think you are becoming the “laughing stock of the internet.” I don’t care how many forums you post your articles/blogs/web pages in. Just know that you have attracted a lot of attention now, so posting 1 of your articles & talking about the author in the third person isn’t going to work anymore. Admit authorship for what you write & post. Anybody Googling you past postings can see you have been dishonest. Some of your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP, but as far as I am concerned you are a busted flush”.
“…all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security.” - FreewheelinFrank (MrFlibble)
http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=456#449 - “This includes 1 of Mastertech’s typical phrases designed to suggest he is not the author (’Makes interesting reading’) but then goes on to use the first person. Strange- that would be the first time for Mastertech. The notions are his: all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security.”
“Mozilla Firefox is a great web browser, but its praise is not without its share of exaggerations. …Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox… Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites. Firefox … does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards.” - David H.
http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php - “Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox the first time you double-click on the program icon. This is mainly because the core Internet Explorer engine is actually loaded into memory as your computer is starting up. Furthermore, not all components of the web browser are in memory when the browser window comes up. Some components, such as the favorites manager, are only loaded into memory when you access them, while Firefox loads everything at once.
Something as complex as a web browser will almost certainly have security vulnerabilities crop up from time to time. No major web browser has a perfect security record. There are some fundamental differences between the architecture of Firefox compared to Internet Explorer with regard to security, & Mozilla has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser’s vulnerabilities, as shown in this security summary, but Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when manually downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites.
No web browser is 100% standards compliant. The web technology standards are very extensive & it often takes many years to implement all of the features of a standard, plus additional time to fix the bugs. In addition, the standards are always evolving & becoming more & more robust. Firefox (along with Opera, Safari, & Konqueror) is certainly a leader in the field of standards support, & is quickly adopting new emerging technologies, but it, like the others, does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards. More information is available in this standards support summary”.
“Any browser is more secure by not supporting… Firefox. All Browsers have vulnerabilities… No Browser can claim… to be 100% standards compliant” - Thomas (Editors note - This is actually me)
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html - “Any browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX, not just Firefox.
All Browsers have vulnerabilities (& more will be discovered); what’s more important than the number of vulnerabilities is how quickly they are patched & in that regard Firefox has a proven record of being quite secure much of the time, Opera also proved extremely responsive in this regard.
No Browser can claim (Or ever has claimed for that matter) to be 100% standards compliant. However, both Firefox & Opera clearly have made significant movement in this area while IE 6 lags well behind in all but 1 area”.
They are so afraid anyone may read my page and make up their own minds, they instead follow this around the Internet Spamming as much as they can and doing everything in their power to get the page removed, typical fanboy behavior. The only opinion you are allowed to have is the one they create for you.
Anonymous AKA FreewheelinFrank AKA Mr. Fibble summed up his fears:
"His intention is clearly to drive people away from Firefox: indeed he has boasted to me of the number of people who have stopped using the browser after reading his page."
The Firefox fanatics go beyond radical trying to force everyone to accept and use their browser of choice. That is not how works in this world, people can make up their own minds.
Leigh summed it up here:
"Firefox is not a religion, it is a piece of software, with faults just like every other application, accept that and move on."
There are several factual errors on the page. Here's one obvious one that I've told the author about countless times with no response: he claims that the page only deals with Firefox on Windows, yet he also claims that Secunia lists an "extremely critical" vulnerability for Firefox. Nowhere does Secunia list an extremely critical vulnerability that has affected Windows versions. He also includes other Mac- and *nix-specific vulnerabilities in his tally.
His sidebar is also full of lies. Every single quote under the "Fanboy quotes" section was originally from people pointing out faults in the page, and he cut and pasted pieces of things together to make it look like they supported his page. I am David H., supposedly "quoted" twice there, and I'll be the first to say that his page is utter crap and it spreads more misperceptions than it clears up.
The author himself has said that the page is deliberately slanted. He says that it isn't supposed to be balanced because that would run contrary to the purpose of the page. If you would like to see my version of the page, which attempts to present an accurate overall picture, Google for "firefox myths web devout". Unlike Andrew K., I'm not going to spam links everywhere to increase the PageRank (which, by the way, got him permanently banned from digg, TechSpot, and several other websites).
Hey Nanobot - please provide the link of your page, I would love to have a read =).
If you do not wish to advertise it on the internet, email it to me. My email address is available at http://www.shokem.com/ in the right column.
I have no problem with giving a link on request.
http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php
You may notice that my site is the source he used for the standards support information (which he cherry-picked from to paint as good a picture of IE and as bad a picture of Firefox as he could, and then lied about actions I have taken on the site).
On the contrary, none of the "fanboys" have made comments *here* recommending any Browser, we've merely highlighted your errors & misrepresentations. BTW - You've never responded to requests to remove the 8 or 9 deceptive comments you've quoted from people. Wonder why that is? You got rather mad on the Opera forums after being accused of using an affiliate program;
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=1496398
It's also "interesting" to note you removed all "Blog responses" links after highlighting your lies & errors. Wonder why that is?
Yeah there is a point where even the lies you fanboys try to spread about me goes too far.
Post a Comment