Originally posted by IceFire
The benefit of Firefox is that it is invulernable. The benefit is:
1) Separate layer from the OS (IE is integrated into the OS)
2) Bugs are found, fixed, and then released promptly
(diversion alert!)
Strangely (or not) RE 1 I was just thinking that today with regards to Windows - they've really ****ed up that Os by trying to make it more than an Os and cater to the lowest common denominator. If MS simply made a thin, efficient (god forbid) OS with minimal features, they not only wouldn't have half the security & interactivity problems they now have, they also wouldn't have to assume as much responsibility for the myriad security holes. I've read recently about Ms considering denying pure socket access (or similar) to programs to try and polyfilla the holes they present - actually denying the programs operating on the computer access to a facility when IMO it's the OS' job to
facilitate access.
At the moment they're seemingly doing neither; they have this bloated Os with non-Os related features, and rather than take the more obvious step (given the way windows has seemingly evolved, at least on the home PC) of fully integrating security/etc control as part of the Os, they're spinning it off onto yet another layer of applications.... to me the obvious and sensible way is either to incorporate all this into the OS itself as a proper security protection (acknowledging it'll **** up access to OS functions for a number of 3rd party programs in the meantime), or simply specifically neglect areas of security (viruses, for example) as being the responsiblity of the user.
At the moment they seem to do neither; not giving the user any responsibility, yet not actually committing to proper fixes but more sticky-tape over an amputed limb type solutions. At least, that's my perspective.....
