um, okay, that made very little sense. is that why microsoft routinely leaves publicly known problems open and unpatched? because "the only security vulnerabilites that are actually exploited are the ones anyone gives a damn about?"

you're saying that IE4 has more security problems strictly because it is more popular. this is wrong. why is it wrong? it is true that more users means potentially more debuggers out there finding problems with your software... but the problems existed before the popularity did. it still would have had all the same problems if not a single person on earth used it, or if 90% of the world used it. the problems were built into the program, not by the popularity it gained after the fact. does it need to be any more clear?

firefox, in contrast, has had vastly fewer problems. sure, it has not been around as long, and not nearly as many people use it. but the fact that it has fewer users does not automatically make it any more or less secure than IE. problems are problems, and they are there to begin with, no matter who is using it, how many people are using it, or how they're using it. you seem to be saying that if firefox suddenly claimed 90% of the browser market, that we'd suddenly see a mushroom cloud of security holes come about, and it'd be just as bad as IE or worse. well that very well may be - BUT this is merely an assumption. how can you say that any software is more or less secure than any other software without knowing that the security problems are there or not? because basically, you don't. but this is the conclusion you are jumping to, and it is based on an assumption. you don't know anything about how firefox was coded, you don't know anything about how IE was coded - and neither do i. but we can observe that microsoft has a proven track record (not just with IE) of constantly problematic and insecure products - mozilla/firefox does not - not yet. so at this point in time, firefox is winning.

IE4 was released in 1997. since then the core remains very much unchanged. they have never re-written the program, and never done a complete overhaul of anything. and still, after eight friggin years, there are still multiple security problems exposed almost every month. eight years is way too long to wait for a stable program. as firefox gains in popularity, if it proves to be just as bad as IE, then i'll find something else. but at this point, firefox is still winning.

how do you know firefox has all these unknown problems of which you speak? no, 'because it's not popular enough and they haven't been found yet' is not proof. by that logic, you could say that the easter bunny exists, but no one's looking for him so he hasn't been found... yet!

 

Users don't write patches. They find problems but don't fix them. More users = more problems found.

Security holes that haven't been found yet aren't security problems yet.

Yes, but who cares about the problem if it isn't exploited? I am very likely allergic to some kind of plant that doesn't grow in north america. As long as I am in north america, I couldn't care less because it doesn't affect me.

Vastly fewer problems found.

We're finding security vulnerabilities in firefox. As its market share increases, the number of vulnerabilities found is increasing because more people are working to find those vulnerabilities.

The number of security holes a program has is inconsequential. It's the rate at which those holes are found and the severity of the holes that matters.

 

i couldn't disagree more. since most dictionaries won't have "security problem" listed as a phrase, look up the individual definitions of "security" or "secure" and "problem", and you will find no mention of the context with which you base your argument.

that is an incredibly narrow minded view of the world in general. if the rest of the world thought this way, then there would hardly be anyone working towards the cures for diseases like AIDS, cancer, bird-flu... because most likely a very very very very tiny percentage of the doctors and researches that study these things are actually afflicted by them. and if it doesn't affect them, they shouldn't care less, right?

and i quote: "Yes, but who cares about the problem if it isn't exploited?" You appear to be selectively applying your logic to suit your argument. :nono:

i think we're differing on the definition of security. because a security problem hasn't been found, it can't technically be exploited. that is true, but does that make it any less of a security problem? so, you'd consider a program with 10000 "extremely critical" security holes that haven't been found by the general public yet to be 100% secure? :eh: no threat whatsoever? not gonna worry, someone could format my hard drive, steal all of my credit card and bank account information, withdrawal all of my money, transfer ownership of my house, change my vehicle registration and stab me repeatedly in the anus once they find these problems, but i couldn't care less because noone's found them yet!

you still don't know that firefox has or will have just as many, more, or fewer security problems than any other program. maybe it will, but so far it hasn't - you even acknowledge this yourself. you're arguing with assumptions about possibilities and hypotheticals, not about fact as we know them at present. but hey, if you want to keep using IE, i'm not gonna stop you. it's your loss.

 

*points and laughs are firefox

 

I have a bellybutton h:

 

No, what you're saying is that we should be concerned about potentials for diseases that don't exist yet. The human body is vulnerable to all sorts of exploitation, but guess what, we only research vaccines for diseases that already exist.

 

no, i was arguing that we should still care about things that don't affect us directly and immediately.

 

:wtf: I read this thread and all of a sudden I cant copy and paste using firefox

 

.

 

firefox allows alternatives to software that fugs up your computer. an example would be the weather plug-in which has alot fo options and doesnt bother your computer like weatherBUG or other programs