Metropol

Flava wrote: What I detested was an inferior rendering engine which didn't display several websites properly . . .

If that's a snipe towards the Gecko engine, then perhaps I should rephrase it accordingly . . .


"What I detested was an superior rendering engine which didn't display several websites properly
most likely due to the fact that these sites are using proprietary, non-standard, IE specific markup."


The absolutely, totally and utterly, 100% undeniable and indisputable facts are that the Gecko engine
is the most accurate and the most W3C standards compliant rendering engine of all current browsers.
The only time a Gecko based browser may trip up, is when it encounters websites that are poorly
coded, and littered with proprietary, non standard markup, that will only work in IE, and/or in
some cases, very old versions of Netscape, such as the now obsolete Netscape 4.x series.

Now let's get back to the subject of browser security, or lack thereof . . . !

Hymagumba wrote:

Neil Jones wrote:Yeah well our "war" is only on this issue, your "war" spills over into everything else. As your signature proves.

Yes but ours is just *sooooo* much better than yours.

How childish.

Neil Jones wrote:How childish.

oh surely not, I didn't mean it to be.

Ok people, time out! Lets not indulge in off-topic bickering, and return to the subject of browser security!

Thankyou please . . . !



Right then folks . . . Here's an article that fully describes the complete timeline between how the shell:
security vuln was found in the Mozilla codebase and how quickly the vuln was eliminated and patched.

To summarize, a bug report regarding the vuln was filed on BugZilla, and was resolved 32h 11m later.

I'm not usually one to nitpick, but when I rather more serious security bug (Download.ject)was found
in Internet Explorer recently, it not only took Microsoft several days to issue what they officially class
as "a configuration change", it turns out that it doesn't adequately resolve the issue!

Now, given the fact that Microsoft is a much larger organization than Mozilla, and has what must be
at least 4000 times the amount of money than Mozilla has, then to be totally honest, for Microsoft
to leave such a dangerous security hole (amongst other similar craters) unpatched for several days,
in what is still the most widely used internet browser and then only issue a fix that doesn't even
fix it properly, while Mozilla sorts out their own security bug in just over 32 hours (and I make
no apologies for saying this whatsoever) it's just an absolute f***ing disgrace . . .

Despite their claims to the contrary, Microsoft Corporation obviously don't give a shit about
the security of their most popular products, nor the security of their customers computers.


Oh BTW, the shell: vuln that Mozilla fixed in their software, also affects IE.

But I'm sure you probably knew that already, didn't you . . . ?