That 1 step might get around problems with IE, but switching to Firefox isn't a cureall which will prevent all spyware and browsing hijacking. If you use Firefox and download all manner of crap and run it, you'll be just as screwed as if you do that with IE.

Short of adding spyware/virus detection into Firefox, or blocking all downloads, Firefox can't fix the spyware that people download intentionally, it can only avoid the exploits.

How does Firefox give better results than IE if you download and run spyware intentionally? Answer: it doesn't. Just a few days ago someone was in the forums complaining that their Firefox had been hijacked (of course, actually their Windows had been hijacked, but that's not how they perceived it).

Michael raises a good point. A lot of people download software such as imesh and kazaa that has spyware already included. Then you also have all these people going to porn and warez sites which is likely to junk up your pc in 5 minutes. My PC is pretty clean. yes I only use firefox. but I also have zonealarm, anti-virus, ad-aware, spybot, a big hosts file and I don't check out crappy websites. Thats safer computing but it's an ongoing struggle to stay ahead of the bad guys. There's no simple solution

> How does Firefox give better results than IE if you download
> and run spyware intentionally? Answer: it doesn't

It doesn't at the moment, but if Firefox XPInstall will come with a predefined blacklist of Mozilla-hostile sites, then it will be much more immune to this threat than IE.

More here: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250854

Prog.

Bah, the one 'tip' isn't even a tip! "Beware the web bugs" doesn't even offer any solution. Meanwhile I've had them blocked using userContent.css for a long time ...

Asa, how's your adware/spyware experiment going that you started a few months ago?

Dan, unfortunately I was unable to make much of an experiment of it. I just couldn't force myself to use IE and OE for any significant amount of time. I'd intended to use them for my not work related web surfing and email but, man, it was just too painful to move away from Firefox and Thunderbird. I tried. I failed.

--Asa

Asa, I'm becoming increasingly worried about this kind of 'jump on anything not firefox' behavior -- it's just not going to work.

You are suggesting that all businesses just drop IE and open up firefox. Guess what, it won't work. I've worked in small and medium size businesses IT dept's for 10 years now, and every time I've looked recently at moving to FF and it just can't happen. Most SMB's have IE only (many running custom ActiveX components) web apps. Without support for them (most have just started moving to modern systems off old DOS and Unix console apps), they can't move.

Many people like me would love to have FF but I don't want to have them all move back to IE as soon as they get sold an IE specific web app. Asa, it's not just a one way process - Mozilla has to help people like me by getting cooperate support (just like Red Hat has with Oracle) for their web apps.

If this doesn't happen, IE will get even more lock-in in the business world.

Martin, in that situation, I ran Firefox as much as I could and when I had to use an intranet site that required IE, I used IE for that. I certainly never used IE for external web access.

I'm surprised no one has said anything about the content of the tips, which is in many cases wrong. To wit: "The Web site can use [retrieving an image] to transmit other information--your e-mail address, for instance." This is as dumb as the "your computer is transmitting an IP address" ads, and I'm surprised Microsoft would spread such FUD about their own product! How about pointing the Firefox marketing project at this Kim Komando?

Look, I'm not talking about _myself_, Darren. I'm talking about a 20-500 user desktop rollout. 95% of them are incredibly stupid with their computers when it comes to things like web browsers. I can't have two icons on their desktop, it would be chaos when they start phoning the helpdesk. How am I meant to teach 200 users that one icon is for using 'important stuff' and the other is for 'wasting time stuff'. I can't do that - the only way to roll something out is use one or the other. For something like a replacement of an ageing DOS program with a web app, then yes, it's acceptable to use both side by side as an intirm measure (usually we have the old DOS app for looking over old records and all users are told that they must put everything in the new app), but not permenantly.

We need a rollout script generator and support (somehow) for ActiveX apps.

Martin, I understand your problem. But the problem is NOT Mozilla but the user base. Demanding Mozilla to run ActiveX is pretty much like demanding Linux to run Windows programs. It might be done, but huge amount of afford is required (does this worth?).

By the way, Mozilla ActiveX Control would solve the problem.

You really shouldn't of chose running Windows programs on Linux. Linux can run most popular Windows programs via WINE and some Linux distro's include CrossOver office which can run MS Office, IE and other 'popular' apps right out of the box.

But, all I am saying is that Mozilla needs to be more proactive in getting big web services support. Running ActiveX is a total overstatement on my behalf but it would be a big big help.

Oh also, Mozilla ActiveX is a different thing. I'm talking about using ActiveX _inside_ the browser, and not including the browser inside the ActiveX component.

According to that Microsoft article, freeware programs (such as firefox) may come with a cost. Such programs might come with popup ads or spyware.

This is probably the statement that is worth correcting more than anything else. Free software is not synonymous with spyware, since there are many pieces of good quality free software, and pieces of commercial software that have come with spyware (eg. Corel Draw 10 came with spyware).

To be fair, many freeware applications do come with a cost. For the most part, it is free software that comes with spyware. Commercial software for the most part does not (but as you pointed out this isn't always the case). I think its fair and valid on their part to admonish users from installing random freeware they see on the web. It's certainly the advice that I give to people who look to me for computer help.

Let's be reasonable. It's a fair statement. Getting them to change it for Firefox's sake is as likely to happen as us being 'fair' and telling people that WinXP SP2 comes with popup blocking, so if they just want popup blocking without any other changes, they should grab that instead of Firefox.

Microsoft is a corporation interested in pushing its own products at our expense. Mozilla is an organisation interested in pushing Firefox at Microsoft's expense. Let's not forget that.

More negative press for Microsoft and positive recommendations for Firefox. This time by ZDNet's Robert Vamosi. This is great because I think the ZDNet Anchordesk reaches a more general, slightly less techie audience than other parts of CNet.

Screenshot:
http://npb.ucdavis.edu/labs/wilson/img/fx_over_ie.gif

Asa, Feel free to take this image and post it on your blog if you like.

Cameron, thanks for the screenshot. The article's still there and still featuring Firefox in that box. It looks like the space normally reserved for ads. I wonder if that's special? Thanks again for the tip.

--Asa