Tomorrow's New York Times features an article about Firefox. The two page article, by Randall Stross and titled "The Fox Is in Microsoft's Henhouse (and Salivating)" is a worthwhile read. I particularly liked this paragraph
With Firefox, open-source software moves from back-office obscurity to your home, and to your parents', too. (Your children in college are already using it.) It is polished, as easy to use as Internet Explorer and, most compelling, much better defended against viruses, worms and snoops.Mr Stross also spends quite a few of his 1200 words wagging a chastening finger at Microsoft calling IE "long overdue for a top-to-bottom redesign, one that would treat security as integral." That sounds good to me. Posted by asa at December 18, 2004 09:31 PM
That IS a good read! I like the line about the Microsoft rep saying you should just buy a new PC if you want a better version of IE (if you don't have Windows XP, that is). Don't they realize that they are basically comitting suicide with their current strategies?
Posted by: Yacoubean on December 18, 2004 11:35 PMYes, that article truly was nice (as in great PR!). I saw it yesterday - I found it through Google News. Can't wait to hear Onestat's next monthly stat update :-)
Posted by: David Naylor on December 19, 2004 02:10 AMBugMeNot won't let me get in... Rats!
Posted by: Markus Lindström on December 19, 2004 03:49 AM"Don't they realize that they are basically comitting suicide with their current strategies?"
Please! Let them! Firefox could be the best browser in the history of mankind, and it still wouldn't get anywhere if IE was "good enough". We should be grateful to microsoft for not fixing their product.
> BugMeNot won't let me get in... Rats!
I was able to log in via BugMeNot.
--Thomas
Me too.
Posted by: David Naylor on December 19, 2004 07:54 AMThe folks at Mozilla.org surely deserve a chance to pause and savor such accolades, which must be particularly sweet vindication after many "industry observers" declared the Browser Wars over and castigated Netscape/Mozilla for its strategy of redesigning the browser from the ground up. Ironically, some of the same "observers" are now criticizing MS for *not* doing the same with IE.
However, before anyone gets too comfortable...
"...tiny application called an ActiveX control, which can take control
of your PC and, in a worst-case instance, erase your hard drive. "Users
still must make informed decisions," Mr. Schare added. (With Firefox,
users do not have to make decisions about these miniprograms, which are
blocked by design.)"
This seems to be a bit of a misconception. Yes, Firefox users can't download ActiveX controls, and certainly such 'tiny applications' can't be surreptitiously downloaded without the user's consent. But I share the concerns, expressed by Adam Lock here, http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=5659#13, and I presume others elsewhere, about the potential for malicious extensions to destroy Firefox's perceived advantage in this regard.
Mozilla/Firefox's strongly worded warning in the extension installation dialogue and its extension site whitelist represent a good start. Hopefully, they'll now add additional extension security enhancements: encourage/require extensions to be signed, provide tutorials for developers interested in doing so, recommend certificate issuers or adopt Lock's suggestion about GPG/PGP signing, add MD5/SHA-1 support to the download manager, provide better support/documentation for secure remote XUL applications, etc.
Some good ideas there, Charles. I hope Ben & co have thought of those things, or that they read your post (and the one you refer to).
Posted by: David Naylor on December 19, 2004 10:52 AMYou can view the article without signing in through this link.