Archive for February, 2006
As many of you are well aware, I (& many others) have taken issue with the Firefox Myths site. Rather than argue the issues with the author; who consistently never answers, ignores, or attempts to weasel out of such disputes (e.g. Ars Technica) I’ve decided to create a Firefox Myths Debunked post on the forums.
Here I’ll be covering certain of the Myths, with reliable sources used to provide information & fuller use of quotation. In particular be sure to check out the Quotes section which highlights the misquoting of people completely out of context; backed up by the full original comment.
Update 20/02/2006 – The Author has now chosen to add me to his Quotes section, butchering some points I made in Firefox Myths Debunked. What a decent bloke ehh?
Update 19/03/2006 – The author chose to respond here on 25/02/2006; to which I’ve asked why he purposefully misquotes & misrepresents myself & 7 others on the site (No response still). We’d appreciate an answer why these quotes are still unamended & on behalf of myself & the 7 others would request they either be posted in full (As can be read in full on my forum post) or be removed.
Update 25/03/2006 – I’ve made a few updates to the forum;
- 1. Despite what’s stated on the site there are no patched/unpatched vulnerabilities rated as “Extremely Critical” for Firefox in Windows – “All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions” as the author indicates.
2. Added another (mis)quote, ironically the source states that “the contents of this e-mail are very much sarcastic & are purely intended to point out flaws in his article”.
3. Updated the Browser Standards Support table.
4. Updated the Secunia Vulnerability report (Only change being that IE 6.x went from 22 out of 92 advisories unpatched to 20 out of 96 Secunia advisories unpatched).