Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Firefox Lead Engineer On Origins, Security, And More 57

Posted by timothy from the go-put-firefox-on-someone's-computer dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet has an interesting interview with Ben Goodger, the lead engineer for Firefox. When asked to comment on critics' claim that Firefox has a better security reputation than IE because it doesn't have enough market share to attract trouble, Goodger responded with a one-two punch. "Firefox is better designed in a number of ways -- we have no "mode" that allows untrusted content to be executed automatically, for example -- no "safe zone. Another reason -- market share does not predict security. Apache has more market share than has Microsoft IIS, which has more holes than Apache." On Longhorn, he believes it will be a tough sell for Microsoft because of backward compatibility issues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Lead Engineer On Origins, Security, And More More

Firefox Lead Engineer On Origins, Security, And More

Comments Filter:

  • firefox vs. Nortons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zardoz342 ( 663020 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:01AM (#10532403) Homepage
    I just had a customer tell me he deleted Firefox because the latest version of Nortons told him it was a security risk, so he's back to IE, and blamed ME for compromising his system
    • Absolutely false concerns.

      We run Norton Antivirus and Firefox side by side, with no trouble whatsoever.

      While I'm not doubting that someone stupid might have done such a thing, Norton certainly wasn't the root of the problem.

    • Re:firefox vs. Nortons (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gherald ( 682277 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:07AM (#10532428) Journal
      I just had a customer tell me he deleted Firefox because the latest version of Nortons told him it was a security risk, so he's back to IE, and blamed ME for compromising his system

      It was probably "Norton Internet Security," aka firewall. Firefox was "trying to access the internet" so Norton prompted the user to authorize this. It's perfectly normal Windows firewall behavior (cf. SP2 firewall, ZoneAlarm, etc).

      Nothing to be concerned about.. have you tried explaining this to your customer?

    • Re:firefox vs. Nortons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:50AM (#10533080) Journal
      So it is fine for Spyware/Dialers to be taken of softwares 'threat' lists, but legitimate software?

      I cannot believe not more fuss was kicked up to stop Sophos (or whoever) removing the dialer software of thier list.

      It is thier software, they advertise it as preconfigured to thier judgement. If all cisco routers suddenly came preconfd to block mp3 packets, then we would all sooon find isp's telling cisco to remove this feature, or shop else where.

      I am guessing people wont mind dialers being blocked and that it is a service.

      Dumb client probably completely missread it, or saw a zonealarm request for access or something.

      User, pfftsk.

    • Ugh (Score:2)

      by billybob ( 18401 )
      Those are the type of people that made me want to commit suicide when I did tech support. :(
    • I just had a customer tell me he deleted Firefox because the latest version of Nortons told him it was a security risk, so he's back to IE, and blamed ME for compromising his system

      How did you respond? I hope you did something (preferrably violent) to him. It is one thing to be ignorant, but an entirely other thing to accuse someone (especially someone who was trying to help you) of wrong doing. There is absolutely no excuse for that, and no one should have to put up with taking the blame for somethin

  • I wonder whether this also has to do with Firefox's more varied use. I have used it on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Many Linuces, as well as Linux. It seems that regardless of the browser used, any of those systems other than Windows would have a better security situation anyway. While it is still better on Windows, overall, I would say, that a large amount of its relatively low rate is the non-windowsness.

    • Nah (Score:2)

      by billybob ( 18401 )
      I understand what you're saying but I would wager that well over 50% of the firefox installations are on Windows machines. Remember - MS Windows has over a 90% share of the entire OS market. I know that a large portion of that market are extremely stupid people who wouldnt know a browser from their own ass, but there are a lot of smart people who do use windows you. I know, hard to believe :P

  • It's simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:04AM (#10532412)
    The Mozilla Firefox team was able to look at all the wrongdoings of Microsoft and avoid them from the ground up. Firefox is a great app and I use it everyday. I cringe when I have to use IE at school.

    Microsoft could always ditch IE and use firefox code to develop their "new and secure" browser, but they've been pissing OSS for too long to take that route.

    The browser wars are starting back up again. IE hasn't changed in years because it hasn't had to. Now everyone is screaming to use firefox over IE. This hurts Microsoft because they need to keep the image that they're the best of everything.

    I hope firefox kills them in the browser wars. They have a better product. It was designed with usability and security in mind.

    • Re:It's simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:41AM (#10532558) Homepage Journal
      The Mozilla Firefox team was able to look at all the wrongdoings of Microsoft

      Let's set the record straight - Microsoft won the browser wars over the Netscape, because it delivered a better product with IE 4 and IE 5. Netscape Communicator 4 was bulky, glitchy, slow to load and slow to respond with ugly widgets. Netscape 6 was the same nightmare with different skin and off-the-scratch source code. IE at that point was faster, easier to use, and had native Windows widgets with faster response times.

      IE 6 is function-less, incapable of being customized (internal popup blocker did not come till SP 2) and is a security nightmare. Firefox just delivers a better product at the time.

      Microsoft was not always a loser in this game.

      • Re:It's simple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dimator ( 71399 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @05:11AM (#10533367) Homepage Journal
        Let's set the record straight - Microsoft won the browser wars over the Netscape, because it delivered a better product with IE 4 and IE 5.

        Let's set the record a little straighter - are you sure bundling the browser had nothing to do with its popularity?

        • Right, but Parent is still right (Score:4, Insightful)

          by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:08AM (#10533719)
          Bundling did play a factor yes. And bundling is what has kept them in the lead for so long.

          But the parent is totally right in saying that Netscape 4 - 4.5 sucked donkey balls. It was slow, bloated, and incredibly hard to develop HTML for because of its goofy layers system. Even if MS had never bundled anything, I am quite convinced that Internet Explorer 4 (and later 5) would have gotten the majority market.

          After that it becomes more grey. If IE had never been bundled, IE6 vs. Netscape 6-7-Mozilla is much more difficult to call.
          • Even if MS had never bundled anything, I am quite convinced that Internet Explorer 4 (and later 5) would have gotten the majority market.

            MSIE was free back then. Netscape Navigator wasn't, it cost (IIRC) around $25 or so. It wasn't just the bundling, it was the 800 lbs gorilla doing the funky billion dollar dance all over the puny competitor. Just another business day in Redmond.

            • Who cares? What benefits the end-user? Microsoft:

              1) Made a better product (IE)
              2) Gives it away for free.

              What the crap is wrong with that?

              Are you going to get upset with Apple for giving away iTunes, iPhoto and iMovie? What about Safari?

              Either you make a better product, or admit defeat. It's fairly simple logic. The whole bad stink about IE being bundled into windows is stupid.
              • What the crap is wrong with that?

                What's wrong with that is that they used their ill-gotten gains (over-priced Windows, as seen in court) and market monopoly to push their own version of a supposedly open technology. That created lock-in and made is easy for them to push ActiveX and IIS to sell Windows servers, making it more difficult for the "better product" to compete on even remotely equal terms. To add insult to injury, they ignored IE for years after they won the first browser battle - simply becaus

                • That created lock-in and made is easy for them to push ActiveX and IIS to sell Windows servers

                  Says who? The numbers don't reflect that, FYI, as Apache holds the web server "market share". You also aren't required to use IIS in order to deploy ActiveX objects on your website.

                  To add insult to injury, they ignored IE for years after they won the first browser battle - simply because they had achieved their market dominance.

                  Who cares? You can use any browser you want. No one's forcing you to use IE's. Lik
        • >Let's set the record a little straighter - are you sure bundling the browser had nothing to do with its popularity?

          No way. I hated netscape with a passion.
          It was slow bulky and other bad things.

          IE was much better IMHO.

          I now use firefox. Why? Because it is better than IE IMHO.

          It don't see wordpad the defacto word processor just because it was bundled with windows for the last decade.

      • Let's set the record straight - Microsoft won the browser wars over the Netscape, because it delivered a better product with IE 4 and IE 5.

        Ahh, let's set the record even more straight (with a nod to dimator [slashdot.org]):

        Netscape made a fatal development decision. THEY CEASED DEVELOPMENT FOR THREE YEARS. Let me say that again: some PHB acquiesced to the developers' request (or decided on his own---who knows?) to allow them to start over. Oh a medium to large project, you never, ever, ever start over [joelonsoftware.com] when market shar

      • incapable of being customized (internal popup blocker did not come till SP 2)

        Huh? You can install BHO's, such as Google's or MSN's toolbar, or an app I use called PopUpCop to deal with that stuff. So yeah, IE can be customized.
      • I agree with all those points.

        The problem I have with IE is the lack of updates and the fact that it's mostly now a Windows product.

        Companies can manage security a lot easier with one browser across the whole organisation. They're more likely to think about deploying Firefox if the org uses different operating systems.

    • Re:It's simple (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15, 2004 @02:04AM (#10532613)
      Microsoft never WANTED to develop a browser. They were FORCED to by MS execs who thought Netscape had enough potential to cause money loss. Once they made a feature-rich browser (although insecure, no one argues that it doesn't do enough), they put Netscape into the red. Now they drag their heels everytime someone finds a security issue in Explorer. It served its purpose and they aren't interested in continuing its development.
      • I must disagree. I do say IE doesn't do enough.

        Firefox is far more feature-rich than IE, once you take into account third-party extensions, which is the second reason most of the people that I know who use FF give for using it over IE (after security). That additional functionality can't be dismissed.

  • Firefox market share is up to 18% on technology (Score:5, Informative)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:36AM (#10532549) Homepage Journal
    Both W3Schools.com and CNET News.com report that Firefox users make up 18% of their audience [itfacts.biz]. Techie-oriented sites, I know, so doesn't speak much for mainstream, but Google was a techie-oriented engine at some point as well.
    • That's a pretty big share. I found another one for a newspaper, and took the liberty of copying the stats in my journal [slashdot.org]. Of course, this one is skewed differently from w3schools.com, but it should be about as mainstream as it gets.

      For the lazy: Mozilla Firefox has about 1.5%, Linux has about 0.60%. And no, as with all other web statistics, it's not scientific.

  • The most important thing he said... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EvilJohn ( 17821 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @09:31AM (#10534476) Homepage
    ...and why Firefox will succeed:
    "I use the tools that let me get stuff done quickly -- no brand affiliation or idolatry."
  • To access this site, the minimum recommended browsers include Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5 or higher, Mozilla Firefox, or Netscape version 7 or higher.

    this is the message on my companies employee website! :-)

  • security? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    hey how about that -feature that allows you to show ones saved passwords if they dont have a master password set? (oh btw the master passwd being asked for every 3 seconds is frustrating) yeah i know there were other ways to do this, but theres no good reason to a user interface in firefox for it. this -feature- affects firefox1.0PR it is listed under bug 259996
  • The crappy ZDNet.au site and its CSS that render text invisible.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close