kenny said:
Yes, however.. there were not so many viruses with Java before
firefox! They saw that people started getting smart and using
firefox to access their sites,
and they were immune to active X viruses and exploits, so the made
Java ones!
So if there was no firefox, there would be no increase of java
viruses.
Even if it's true that there's been an increase in malware delivered
via Java (and you provide no evidence of the claim), it's no
justification for your FUD Subject "bad news for Firefox".
Yes they do.
they say that XP is still in beta that's why they
keep sending patches.. lol.
Some do, based on the sheer number of critical patches that are needed
for Microsoft operating systems after their release.
Look around.. someone SELDOM says what you are saying if he/she is
a linux user.
Most Linux users don't bother to fight FUD. That's true for users of
any OS, BTW. But if /you/ look around, you'll find plenty of them
saying what I've noted, and only a few trolls making the claims you
attribute to "Linux users".
Only windows users MAY complain, but most don't.
It doesn't do any good when they do complain, unless they are large
corporations. The home user effectively has only the choices of living
with it or switching to a more secure OS.
You have to be careful when you release a patch, or
It can create more problems... that's why it needs time to test
it. MS was wise to send the WMF patch after they tested it
thoroughly (although a early version got out too soon and they
pulled it).
That argument works well when you are talking about patches that are
released within days of the 0-day exploits, but not so well when
talking about the 260+ days that at least one critical vulnerability
has been waiting for a patch from MS.
And I say if linux was the mainstream OS there would be viruses
that could bring it to its knees!
An easy claim to make since you cannot test it, and one that completely
ignores the points I made just above, among many others.
No matter what OS you have if the user is not careful he can be
hacked and attacked.
No one has claimed otherwise, yet you continue to argue against the
straw man. Again, one important difference is that a Linux user who is
successfully "hacked and attacked" would not have his OS broken or have
his OS turned into a zombie for malware propagation or spam spewage.
Oh yeah.. that browser is used from 0.001 of the population of the
computer user world!
Safari is based on that.. but MAC computers have always been
ignored by hackers.
Even linux users use firefox!
A lot of them still use Konqi -- it's a pretty good browser, and
actively developed. If it had 90% of the overall market, I don't doubt
that more flaws would be found, but I also don't doubt that the devs
would continue to patch them in the same timely manner.
Also, pointing out a flaw in a third-party browser such as Konqi, and
using it to say "flaws put Linux, Unix systems at risk" is exactly like
saying that Firefox or Opera flaws "put Windows systems at risk".
You'd have an absolute fit if people started doing that WRT Windows
apps, yet you easily use it to jumpstart more Linux FUD.
