Firefox Myths - Myths Regarding The Firefox Web Browser
Posted by: Newsfactory on: 12/18/2005 05:01 AM [ Print | 14 comment(s) ] · 5102 views
Myth (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. While Firefox is a decent Web Browser, there are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding it. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these.
Firefox Myths - Myths Regarding The Firefox Web Browser
v1.0.0
First Release
Firefox Myths - Myths Regarding The Firefox Web Browser
v1.0.0
First Release
« Unlocker 1.7.6 · Firefox Myths - Myths Regarding The Firefox Web Browser
· ATI's Avivo Update - H.264 Acceleration »
Comment
|
krewl Unregistered |
#63651 Posted on: 12/18/2005 06:00 AM
I'm sure this has nothing to do with Microsoft and Comcast being business partners. I seriously doubt that anyone has ever had to upgrade their sytem to run firefox. |
Comment
|
MB Unregistered Posts: 26 Joined: 2004-05-21 |
#63652 Posted on: 12/18/2005 08:56 AM
Im using FF myself but this site is right with their points. They even deliver various non-biased sources. And they dont really claim MSIE to be better. FF is a nice browser but I still have lots of problems with various websites and the more people will use FF, the more insecure it will "become". Annoyware - as I like to call them - already adapted to FireFox. FF still has a lot of bugs. I have more stability and reliablity problems with FF than I ever had with MSIE. |
Comment
|
romraptor Unregistered |
#63653 Posted on: 12/18/2005 10:27 AM
"15% of web sites aren't completely compatible with Firefox. " what're they smoking? i haven't come across a site that doesn't work for months. |
Comment
|
Nemo Unregistered |
#63654 Posted on: 12/18/2005 10:27 AM
Yep, Fartfox = Hype. pure and simple. The lamo Hippy linux boys love it because its free and they don't like to pay for decent software... 'man' |
Comment
|
Nemo Unregistered |
#63655 Posted on: 12/18/2005 02:11 PM
Ever since the fartfox hype came into play :0 |
Comment
|
funkdoobiest Unregistered |
#63656 Posted on: 12/18/2005 03:53 PM
I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but Nemo you are full of crap. As a web developer I could type out a very long list of why FF is superior to IE but I won't waste my time as it would go straight over your head. Just so you know - I hate "hippies" so you can't pigeonhole me into that category for convenience. If you prefer Microsoft products then good for you - there happen to be many superior alternatives out there regardless of cost. If you took the time to find out for yourself instead of trolling on W2S all the time you might figure it out for yourself one day. Until that time you'll always be a clueless little MS nerd. |
Comment
|
funkdoobiest Unregistered |
#63657 Posted on: 12/18/2005 04:08 PM
A very biased article. One particular statement which excedes bias to the point of untruth is: "Web pages that [depend on ActiveX or] were only tested in Internet Explorer (which there are many) will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers." Ignoring the ActiveX comment, this statement is blatantly false. There is a likelihood that web pages may not render correctly if not tested in alternative browsers, but if the page was designed using compliant markup then it will display correctly regardless of the browser. It is VERY bad practice to design web pages for one browser and to not do cross-browser testing. This article seems to be suggesting that it's Firefox's fault that it doesn't render pages the same way as IE! BULL****! Methinks the author is feeling threatened by Firefox's continuing erosion of IE's market share and felt obliged to throw out a little BS to make the competition look bad. |
Comment
|
TSThomas Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-05-10 |
#63664 Posted on: 12/18/2005 09:51 PM
I was hoping this'd cover settings myths in relation to Firefox (As per the XP Myths article). Alas nothing of the sort is covered. & while some of the points are valid they're worded in a such a way that it makes Firefox appear significantly worse off than it is. |
Comment
|
TSThomas Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-05-10 |
#63665 Posted on: 12/18/2005 09:57 PM
That must be why up until recently Microsoft used Apache web server software (rolls eyes). Geez. |
Comment
|
Nemo Unregistered |
#63669 Posted on: 12/19/2005 12:05 PM
"while some of the points are valid they're worded in a such a way that it makes Firefox appear significantly worse off than it is." A good point but completely moot as this is exactly the same tactic that fartfox users to diss Internet Explorer. Seems Fartfox users don't like it when their tactics are used against them. |
Comment
|
Nemo Unregistered |
#63670 Posted on: 12/19/2005 12:12 PM
I've been in development for 15 years, web and business. Fartfox doesnt render a lot of sites therefore you will always beed IE as a backup. Fookin hippy *****. |
Comment
|
Nemo Unregistered |
#63671 Posted on: 12/19/2005 12:13 PM
Yup then they got a real webserver  (shakes bollox) jeez |
Comment
|
funkdoobiest Unregistered |
#63672 Posted on: 12/19/2005 12:27 PM
"I've been in development for 15 years" I don't really believe that for a second given the childish bullshit you come out with. If by some slim chance it's true, you're either a crappy dev or you have an anti Open Source agenda. Either way you're a complete dick. |
Comment
|
funkdoobiest Unregistered |
#63673 Posted on: 12/19/2005 12:32 PM
You must be one serious NERD if you get so worked up about a fooking WEB BROWSER. Don't be so threatened by "Fartfox", you can still use your nice IE browser to look at your favourite granny pron |
