Look who's talking
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sachankara Jan 11, 2007 4:05 AM EDT |
Mozilla shouldn't accuse their Opera for being insecure and slow at fixing bugs. They're not exactly the fastest patchers themselves. Send a bug fix to Mozilla and it'll take months for them to incorporate the fix into the official build. If their development priorities where the norm for all free software, I'd use something else. :P |
| devnet Jan 11, 2007 8:18 AM EDT |
There was a total of 9 days that Mozilla was unpatched for a vulnerability last year. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_... They're talking about DISCLOSURE here...not speed of patches applied...although, with only 9 days of unpatched holes existing...I'd say that they're pretty quick to patch things up. My guess is you use Opera as your main browser. |
| Sachankara Jan 11, 2007 8:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:They're talking about DISCLOSURE here...not speed of patches applied...although, with only 9 days of unpatched holes existing...I'd say that they're pretty quick to patch things up.Considering how seldom they release official builds, I doubt it. I think they're referring to nightly builds which are patched rather quick. Quoting:My guess is you use Opera as your main browser.Nope, I don't. Guess again. ;) |
| devnet Jan 12, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:Considering how seldom they release official builds, I doubt it. I think they're referring to nightly builds which are patched rather quick. They're talking about what unpatched days. It's in plain English :) They're saying that Opera doesn't disclose browser holes...and I'd have to agree. I've never heard about them having a security problem. Is this done on purpose? Who knows? That's what they're speaking of. As far as whether they're referring to nightly builds, the rhetoric says otherwise...and I'd have to call the Washington Post a solid source on that...I'm sure they'd be quick to point out if it was nightly builds to give Microsoft an excuse. Quoting: Nope, I don't. Guess again. ;) Safari? Dillo? lynx? :D |
| DarrenR114 Jan 12, 2007 12:16 PM EDT |
I'm guessing Mozilla Firefox ... |
| hkwint Jan 13, 2007 6:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:I've never heard about them having a security problem. That's strange. I did. Not often, but still, I did. (For your reference: you could look here, http://secunia.com/product/4932/?task=advisories , though I saw advisories showing up at other places) I'm using Firefox (just so you people don't have to guess;) since about two years now. I switched from Opera, and I always had (and still have) the idea Opera was more secure than Firefox in the past two years. I have my doubts now, but still, I don't consider Firefox as a secure browser. It's just that there isn't any 'workable' securer alternative that I use Firefox. Yeah, there are some add-ons I love in Firefox, but they make Firefox less secure and most of them are included by default in Opera. Occasionally, I use Konqueror (when I don't want to do file operations from the command line, which is very rare, or when some page has errors in Firefox), and links/lynx. For some reason, Konqeuror 'feels' more secure to me than Firefox, though probably not true, and Lynx feels as the most secure browser (duh!). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!