For those wishing to comment on the Firefox Myths Debunked thread please leave your comments here.

You see, what I don't get about the guy is how he cherry picks lines from statements to make it look, although they are actually calling his statements complete rubbish, like people agree, which is completely insane.

There MUST be a hidden agenda, because nobody is so stupid as not to understand such comments in their full context, and so either he's a troll, a MS FUD employee, or he genuinely is completely and totally brain-dead.

You've been quoted!

Oh ho, Mastertech has added segments of your thread to the Quotes section of the Firefox Myths page, of course selected so it makes it look like you agree with his article. Welcome to the club!

myth #1. Firefox is the same as mozilla!

NO NO NO. Firefox is MADE by Mozilla. Mozilla is actually a separate webrowser AND the name of the parent corporation. Mozilla suite is the grand-daddy of Firefox, better known as Mozilla Suite - now being morphed again aka as "seamonkey."

Thanks, got it now & added *myself* to the Quotes section. What a class act

Actually, with the formation of the "mozilla foundation", could this "firefox myths" page be subject to a cease and desist, or a slapped wrist by the hosting company - I mean what this mastertech ***** is saying is defamation - and he knows that his words are utter crap.

Or, what about this one...

See - he actually and publically agrees that his page is complete rubbish

This could be quite fun if he was worth poking fun at. It's not like I'm quoting him any differently to the way he quotes others.

Does anybody else wand to find a mastertech quote to post? lol

Evil Avatar. Note the use of third person by the poster Mastertech;
"The page is not a comparison, it is a Myths page. Which makes the rest of your CSS rant meaningless. The author isn't debunking CSS."
"He says that right here: "even without fully supporting XHTML yet""
"You haven't seen the people that use Firefox and claim they don't need antispwyare or AV? That is what he is getting at here."

& that's just on page 1. He get's revealed here.

That's nothing. Mastertech once said straight-out that he isn't the author of the Firefox Myths article and that his name is actually Vincent. (Source)

From the same thread:

LicketySplit said it all a year ago!

puke:

Changes;
Explained Firefox actually has not had an Extremely Critical rated Windows vulnerability.
Updated Browser standard support ratings.
Updated vulnerability count for IE (Now 20 out of 96 unpatched - previous 22 out of 92).
Added another misquotation

funny, mozilla suite is never rated anymore and it's far better than Firefox.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/

The Mozilla Suite has been discontinued by Mozilla. The project has moved off to a separate group called the SeaMonkey group. SeaMonkey is currently at version 1.0.

SeaMonkey's interface is really bloated. From the beginning of the Mozilla Suite, they tried to cram as many features as they could into the interface. The result is an unintuitive mess as far as most average users are concerned. The developers recognized this, which is why the Firefox project was started in the first place. As it turned out, they were right. It's the same reason that other products like Google and Gmail have succeeded: people like a simple to-the-point interface without distracting clutter. Of course there are power users who would like to have immediate access to every little feature, which is why the SeaMonkey project is still alive, but these people are the minority.

that's a real bummer as Mozilla suite is probably the best web browser I have ever run across. I still use 1.7.12 now.... works great.

Like I said, the project is being continued as SeaMonkey. SeaMonkey 1.0 is pretty much the same as the Mozilla Suite, just the next version and rebranded.

You might want to mention the fact that I never redirected anyone attempting to access the standards support summary page like he claims.

For about one day, my summary page detected visitors coming from his site and added a little clarification:

This was simply added on to the standards support summary page. No one was "redirected" anywhere. And furthermore, a day after I did this, I decided it was pretty silly to show this message only to people coming from his page, so I made a couple minor changes and put it up as part of the page for everyone. At this point, people coming from his page got the exact same thing everyone else got, and it was after this that he added the notice to his page and changed the link.

I only made the notice on my page because I was still trying to figure out the best way to present that information in the tables themselves. I eventually did so and took down the notice. Now my tables say exactly the same information that he's calling biased, even though it comes straight from the W3C specifications and no one has attempted to say the tables are wrong there.

Also, he presented that "Do I dislike Internet Explorer? Yes." quote in a pretty out-of-context and misleading way. In the original conversation, he was basically saying that I'm biased against Internet Explorer and therefore my articles must be full of lies and nonsense. As a web developer, yes, Internet Explorer is a royal pain in the neck, and even the Internet Explorer developers have come out and admitted that at least in regard to IE6 (lead program manager Chris Wilson referred to the "bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs" that plagued IE6).

But of course Andrew left out the important part of that paragraph: "Do I intentionally lie to get people to switch? No." Just because I have my own beliefs doesn't mean that I'm trying to fulfill an anti-IE agenda with all of my articles. I'm a web developer and I'm trying to help make web developers' lives easier by providing them with accurate information. In my articles, I try to present as accurate a picture of the situation as I can. Obviously my "Internet Explorer is Dangerous" page is going to show Internet Explorer in a relatively bad light, but only where I can demonstrate through facts and statistics that it deserves to be, and I don't try to hide where other browser share IE's shortcomings (If someone got their bank account wiped clean through a Firefox or Opera bug, I'd mention it, but so far it has only happened with Internet Explorer). My browser support pages, on the other hand, are designed to be as accurate a reference as possible with no agenda to favor any browser over any other. My own version of Firefox Myths is designed to address the various claims and talk about all sides of them, where they are true, where they are partly true, and where they are false, rather than just cherry-picking the information that supports a personal agenda like Andrew K. does.

Changes;
Updated Secunia vulnerability count for IE (Now 21 out of 97 unpatched - previous 20 out of 96).
Updated wording for Myth - "Firefox is Secure" - Part 2 to state that the article implies said vulnerabilities all apply to Windows.
Re-arranged the Misquotes in order that the shortest appears first (For easier reading).

Changes;
Updated (again) Secunia's vulnerability count for IE - 22 out of 98 unpatched now.
Updated the Standards support table adding IE7 standards support results

Changes;
Updated Secunia's advisory counts for IE (19 out of 99 unpatched) & Firefox (2 out of 28 unpatched).
Updated Latest Browser Standards Support summary scores.
Added Acid2 section, indicating Firefox 3 now passes Acid2.
Updated the Mozilla vulnerability listing for "Firefox is Secure - Part 2"

You should update the standards support table. I found some regressions in IE7's standards support, and the tables currently put the CSS 2.1 support at 59%.

I notice the Firefox Myths page now claims that I'm screwing with the table data in order to make IE look bad. I'd like someone to point out something that IE supports and my tables say doesn't. I provide several mechanisms for submitting corrections to my tables, including a public discussion forum that doesn't require registration, and I'd hope people would point out flaws in my table data for the most concerned technology in the most used web browser. I quite frequently get new information about implementation flaws, and those tend to lower the support values. If you'll look at my changelog, all browsers have been getting lower and lower values over time as I'm dinking them for more picky things.

Thanks, I've fixed that figure now.