Did you agree to the EULA (AKA the contract) when you installed it? Should contracts not exist either? Maybe the state should regulate them.
I think you should stop eyeing the vanguardist kool-aid before you look foolish.
Firefox is preferred by an amount of the market (as evident by their 20+ % market share & growing) for more reasons than merely to spite Microsoft and/or IE. One of them includes better rendering of web markup & faster loading time (specifically those who do not have a Windows OS, as IE installed in Windows has an advantage in this department), but the other is most likely the amount of plug-ins & word of mouth.
Increasingly, it is becoming the choice of the “average use” browser as MS’ monopoly is continually being challenged by other projects & products, at least regarding home users (IE, or any other product for that matter, will always be apart of the workplace depending on the buissness’ needs & circumstances, and if they change or not).
Your equation of “If you support free-markets…” does not follow either; nowhere in this thread have I read anything hitning at that Microsoft should be forced to stop operating, nor that IE should be forced to not be used.
The open-source movement has it’s fair share of collectivists, just as it has it’s fair share of non-collectivists; I honestly don’t remember, beyond Richard Stallman’s rhetoric, when open-source required a political motivation in order to exist or to operate.
For the last part of your post, before I’m acussed of just being an apologetic, I’m assuming you are referring to Mozilla agreeing to the E.U. 's ruling on IE & Microsoft. I highly disagree with Mozilla’s stance, despite the obvious “fight fire with fire” theme that appears & possibly appeals to many.
In any case, despite my open-mind & inital interest, I’m afraid the Firefox Myths page seems to be filled with considerable strawmen:
Rebuttal Link (to be considered): http://blog.thingoid.com/2006/01/the-myth-of-firefox-myths/
I find it especially laughable that Firefox Myths is claiming that Mozilla or any one else in their right mind is going to claim Firefox is more secure than IE de facto (at best, Firefox is designed differently, & is theoretically relativley more secure, in that it doesn’t have ActiveX & assorted Internet Explorer weaknesses) when, oops, Firefox still uses Javascript (which isn’t know for being secure on the internet).
Firefox can also have a double penatly of being installed on Windows (although, adding Firefox to Linux quite possibly could make Linux more vulnerable, in the sense that surfing the internet At all puts you at risk for activity by others beyond your control), & Firefox has a huge amount of plug-ins that can easily rival & surprass the insecurity of IE’s ActiveX.
Then again, installing NoScript on your Firefox install typically helps a lot in the security department, in the same way that changing a few settings in Windows can for IE, but that’s entirley dependant on the user.
I’ve used IE before and not everyone who uses it is instantly doomed to exploits, malware, etc. I know many who continue to use IE (despite also using other browsers) merley out of personal preference, & I never hear from them about IE being insecure & screwing their comp up, etc.
I think too many people just input their subjective preferences within attempts and/or illusions of an “objective” argument, & then get all embarassed & outraged when called out on it. Both Firefox Myths and Proponents of Firefox are guilty of this.
Firefox is used largely based on myths and irrational Microsoft hatred, I know I work in the field. The web rendering is a myth as more pages render properly in IE than Firefox. It is also a myth that Firefox is faster than IE. The user base who do not run windows is less than 12%. Which is largely irrelevant Mac users, linux desktop use is a joke at 0.83%.
I find it funny you state a fallacy - “Microsoft’s Monopoly”, as no such thing exists.
Mozilla wishes to use the state against Microsoft since it cannot compete in the market.
There are no strawmen on the page and the “rebutal” is a laughing stock as nothing was “rebutted”. There are many of these so called pages, all use conjecture to dispute facts.
You find it funny that people claim Firefox is more secure than IE? Really? When did you get Internet access? Last Year?
The ActiveX security myth has been around forever and has no bearing in reality.
Myth - “Firefox is More Secure because it does not use ActiveX”
Reality - “ActiveX gets a bad rap as the cause of all of Internet Explorer’s security woes. But it’s just not so. Old myths die hard! There’s no doubt that Internet Explorer has more than it’s fair share of security holes, but very few of them have to do with ActiveX. ActiveX controls are packages of code that can run in the context of the browser. They are installable through a link on a Web page. Exactly how different is this from having a link to an executable file that you have to explicitly run? Essentially not at all, except that the ActiveX version is more convenient. Even with Firefox you can download and run an executable file. Does this make Firefox unsafe? In fact, Mozilla and Firefox’s support for XPCOM, a plain text and platform-independent software model, is very comparable to ActiveX once you get the user to click “Yes.” The complaint against ActiveX has always centered around the ability to install native code from across the Internet, but this is less unusual than it seems, and ActiveX arguably makes things more secure. When you encounter an object tag referencing a control that you do not have installed, you then have the opportunity to install it. Under the default security settings, you will be warned before this happens and given an opportunity to approve or reject the installation.”
- The Lame Blame of ActiveX (eWeek)
- The Lame Blame of ActiveX (Dave Massy, Microsoft Software Engineer)
I use IE every day and have supported thousands of clients who do not have malware problems based on simple security practices:
Windows XP - Install the latest stable version of IE (currently IE7), install all security updates, Enable the XP Firewall (the last two are done automatically if SP2 or higher is installed) and install Windows Defender.
Windows Vista - All the above is done by default.
The difference is, I deliberately download and run the executable after subjecting it to close scrutiny (where’s it from? what does it do? why do I want it? etc). Users do not deliberately run ActiveX script; it is automatic.
Also, you might want to see this presentation, courtesy of Mircosoft:
I was so outraged after seeing this cop-in-a-box documentary that I immediately downloaded and installed Linux Mint.
I notice that people are never made aware of the terms of the “contract” before they shell out their money.
I also notice that it almost seems like they are designed to be impossible to read. They put a twenty-five-page document in a tiny little box that makes you scroll left and right and up and down and you can’t read half a page without losing your place. Tell me–honest–have you ever read the EULA “contract” that comes with windows?
I didn’t think so.
Stop blabbering nonsense about Mozilla corp. They are hughly successful in the market(grabbing million of download and market share) and with a powerful marketing machine to boot.It is profitable too.
IE has some uses. Being used to download FireFox being the only one I can think.
Again someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about:
Notes - Windows XP SP2 (released on August 2, 2004 before Firefox 1.0 was released on November 9, 2004) included further security enhancements to Internet Explorer for the installation of ActiveX controls. Internet Explorer now displays an Information Bar (just below the address bar) where you can see information about downloads, blocked pop-up windows, potential security risks, and other activities. With the default settings for Internet Explorer you’ll see the Information Bar when a Web site tries to:
- Install an ActiveX control on your computer
-
Open a pop-up window
-
Download a file to your computer
-
Use the Internet Explorer Information Bar (Microsoft)
Any and all complaints about ActiveX controls were taken care of BEFORE Firefox was even released!!! It looks like some myths will never die because too many are computer illiterate and continue to believe internet urban legends. YES Firefox’s popularity is tied to myths and an irrational hatred of Microsoft, your posts continue to prove my point.
Yes I have and I have only had to scroll DOWN. The fact remains the contract exists, it is your responsibility to read it before “accepting” it’s terms. You have no one to blame but yourself, unless of course you would like the state to hold your hand.
Nonsense? The only thing Mozilla is good at is online propaganda. They promoted their browser based on lies about Internet Explorer and when that doesn’t work they look to get the state to impose sanctions. Hardly the champion of free market competition.
The EULA only exists because of patents, and patents are simply monopoly grants. So no, the code is not their property in the first place.
I don’t think that is completely true. I used IE, and I got a lot of malware, etc. Now I use Firefox, and I haven’t had any problems. My experience was not a myth. Maybe IE fixed all its problems before I switched. I don’t care. I don’t feel like going back - Firefox never gave me half the problems IE did.
Also, MS products generally advertise other MS products, or attempt to drive users into proprietary standards. For example, MS Office updates its default save format every few years, and you end up nudged into upgrading Office anywhere you want to simply use it. I don’t consider it irrational hatred to avoid their products when possible. The simple fact is that I do not find MS’s products especially personally appealing.
I now use Google Chrome. I also have Opera. I still use IE occasionally, but when I want the most security I use Firefox with the NoScript plugin to disable all javascript by default.
…and I do use Windows XP, but I feel its day is nearly done.
An EULA is a contract. If you agree to its terms, you are bound to it. It doesn’t mean the producer owns the idea, but it does mean they can hinder you (though perhaps not 3rd parties) from reproducing their product. Where is the problem? Is it hard to imagine EULAs in a free society? They might be unpopular or ineffective, but they’re still contracts.
Yes, it is impossible to imagine EULA’s in a free society. Without patents, I could easily copy Microsoft OS or IE for free.
In violation of the conditions of acquisition of the product? Why?
Let’s say Microsoft sells me a copy of their OS with an EULA. Someone then “steals” my copy that I left outside of my house because my “kid got a hold of it and I did not know about it.”
This “thief” then puts it up on the internet, for anyone to copy, for free. So now, why in the world would anyone else buy the software? And why would Microsoft do this in the first place, knowing it will happen?
Right, but I’m referring to the contract between two individuals. You’re saying it’s impractical. I’m asking why it’s invalid, not why it’s impractical. You agree it is not invalid, then?
You’re shifting the goalposts.
Oh yeah, I am not saying it is invalid. I am just saying no one would ever sign one without patents.
It’s foolish to conflate Mozilla’s popularity with “myths”; it would be equally idiotic to conflate IE’s popularity simply because of previous monopolistic actions by Microsoft (which I think you are implying that others on this thread soley beleive, which I have to disagree with).
Even if some percent of the population did believe in Firefox Myths, unless you can sudenlly prove via information transmission theory, & through a series of hardcore mathematical & psychological studies, that said percent of the population is influencing other’s into believing these very Firefox Myths, you cannot generalize what some idiot Mozilla “zealot” spouts on his/her blog to the rest of the Firefox audience, any more than whatever an IE “zealot” spouts on his/her blog.
IE won the first part of the browsers wars against Netscape, & Netscape had just as much to do with it’s own loss than IE actually did (Taking forever to develop finally develop Geko & Mozilla, troubles with Javascript, etc. come to mind) .
IE had some great advantages in the way it handled DHTML over Netscape, which allowed for more people to do more things with it; I know, because I used IE for the first 2 to 3 years I was online (To answer your baiting question, no, I didn’t just get online last year, I’ve been online since 2000. Since 1996 if you want to include using other’s computers & accounts & the public library).
Additionally, I liked the ideas that the IE developers had regarding some of CSS, particularly CSS expressions, that I would’ve liked to have been considered when the CSS spec was created. Otherwise, I used to largely despise the way IE ignore other browser’s capabilities with CSS.
Hopefully, any possible charges of me being a close minded standards purist or a Firefox Fanatic will be hallow, at this point.
IE also had great speed advantages, which, even today, if I had to choose between Netscape 4.8, I would choose IE 5.5 in a heartbeat (but would probably go back to an earlier version of Opera instead, if I were to get nostalgic while caring about standards). The Windows integration was also a convienence that Netscape never could’ve competed with.
In any case, Internet Exporer in the present time is vastly inferior to competitor products (however, IE is now is superior to IE in the past, so it certaintly has made considerable improvements), and I don’t just mean Mozilla or Opera, or Chrome.
Enter Maxthon* (see links below this post).
I discovered Maxthon 2 years ago, and since then, it has been putting Internet Explorer (as a browser, as they both use the same Trident engine for rendering) to shame ever since then. It has extensions, skins, themes, and a whole slew of other options that easily competes with Firefox.
However, the big importance about Maxthon is the steps they took to increase & compensate for security, and this is why it beats Internet Explorer 7 & below.
It has a wealth of options available that frankly make IE’s offerring lacking in both aesthetics (the Maxthon browser has a very slick & newbie friendly appearence, especially for Windows users), & options (Maxthon allows for easier disabling of javascript, activex, pop-ups, ads, even text ads).
The great thing about Maxthon is that I can use the one thing I liked about Internet Explorer without feeling guilty: The Trident Engine.
As much as I use the Geko engine, I truly think the Trident engine, if it were ever open-sourced to people outside of microsoft that care more about standards, would be superior in many ways, particulary with speed on a Windows OS compared to Firefox on a Windows OS.
As a web-developer, despite my hatred for IE, I always test everything I make in Maxthon to ensure the Trident engine at least gets withint 95% of what I got, right.
Standards be damned, a few conditional statements (which Maxthon seamlessly obeys as IE) get’s my CSS nice & tidy under IE, so the standards fascist talking point of IE holding back web design is bunk for a minor amount of effort (It’s harder with a Pure CSS design, but CSS itself wasn’t designed with layout in mind. I digress, this is another matter entirley, I don’t want to fork off the topic further…)
So what is my point of bringing up Maxthon? The Chinese are challenging Microsoft on it’s own turf, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, & Safari are challenging Microsoft elsewhere with other technologies, and yet, Internet Explorer continues to play catch up with the competition.
IE8 will finally be able to utilize the display: table-layout property in CSS, something that has been more or less a given since at least the spec of CSS 2 came out. IE8 will finally have just enough features & improvements (obviously that one little example is not the only thing being added) to somewhat stay in the competition with other browsers.
If IE fails, it will be due to silly injuctions by the EU; at this point, it will be due to the market out competing IE. It has already been more or less out competed in China, where Maxthon is 2nd in use.
Then again, perhaps MS has a trump card in the making with their Expression Web engine, which is apparently using a completely new & different engine than Tridant, and this new engine is supposedly far more standards compliant than Trident currently is. Who knows, I don’t have much to gaze into a crystal ball.
For the record, I don’t see how you can justifiably defend Mozilla’s consent to statist interventionism by the EU into the market. I also do not see how you can defend Microsoft, out of spite against Mozilla, for utilizing equally statist collusion & interventionism in the markets, as their previous actions have proven to be.
Hell, I’m not even going to get into the “bundling IE with windows” argument, because bundling may not actually lead to signifigant market share by itself.
Also, looks like Mozilla isn’t nearly as sinister as you claim it to be, when they themselves do not think bundling Firefox with Windows is the right outcome of the EU ruling. Meaning, given the chance to fight “statist fire with statist fire”, they take a pass (at least for now).
Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/02/10/bundled-firefox-not-the-right-outcome/1
To summarize: internet browsers is serious business.
Links (Maxthon):