The blog's been rather mellow, so let's liven it up a bit...
I have a colleague, and Microsoft Developer, who wrote about malware and how it should preempt anyone from trying out the new Firefox browser. We'll take each point and analyze it further. He begins with:
"Yesterday I read that Firefox have reported more bugs in the last 6 months than Internet Explorer"
Let's suppose, since he doesn't mention the source of the news, that said bugs where reported by Firefox own developers and that said developers where openly acknowledging that the program has bugs. Bugs are common in all applications, so common it's a fact that most open source applications have some sort of bug tracking web site where programmers and users can identify, categorize, track, work on, apply patches for and report the status of the application's bugs (you can see Firefox bug tracking web site in action here; it is appropriately named: Bugzilla). Due to the fact that Bugzilla itself is open source you can use it for your own projects, free of charge (interested? Go here).
Now I ask, has ever Microsoft allowed me to view the bugs as Microsoft programmers find them? Has Microsoft let me see what bugs are plaguing their IE end-users? Can I post bugs in a Microsoft website for all to see? Do they even care if Internet Explorer has bugs? Do paying customers get bug patches first or are they the only ones that get them? Feel free to answer.
Now suppose that some fly-by-night security company wants to make a name for itself. Maybe they just need to prepare a press release summarizing a new browser's bugs from the last six months, only instead of working hard profiling a proprietary and closed browser they just go to a bug-tracking site from an open source browser get the information and roll with it. Due to Microsoft closed-culture and closed source such antics are harder to do with IE, but they do happen (you can read about Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Outlook new high-risk bugs here). Also Walt Mossberg, from none other than The Wall Street Journal, wrote this column and in it he says:
"Firefox isn't totally secure -- no browser can be, especially if it runs on Windows, which has major security problems and is the world's top digital target. But Firefox has better security and privacy than IE. One big reason is that it won't run programs called "ActiveX controls," a Microsoft technology used in IE. These programs are used for many good things, but they have become such powerful tools for criminals and hackers that their potential for harm outweighs their benefits." (emphasis mine)
Enough, let's move on to another point, he continues:
"The best antivirus, my self. The best firewall, my self again."
That fine and all, good for him. I don't run any kind of security on my home systems because I'm good enough at avoiding the pitfalls of malicious coders on the Internet. Most people, however, are not as skilled. I would argue that no one should have to be, no one should have to have such a specialized skill or need to have such things as a complete suite of software designed for the sole purpose of being secure on the Internet. As an example, my wife kept getting her laptop's IE hijacked, three different anti-hijacking programs later IE kept getting hammered. Finally I installed Firefox.
She doesn't use IE anymore...
In fact all PC's at home have Firefox installed, and the big blue "e" has disappeared. Or as much as it can, actually, be made to disappear. And I ask, why is it harder to remove IE from Windows than installing four programs designed for the sole purpose of protecting it from getting hijacked? Is that a stylish user experience? I think not. I bet, neither do the 30 million who have downloaded Firefox.
But I will tell you why is it so hard to remove IE. Microsoft does not want you to. They aren't trying to give you a stylish user experience, they want to control it, by taking such choices from you. In fact, some people grow so accustomed to Microsoft control they say things like my friend does:
"If you don't need to run something, why to run it? Why to download something, whatever it is, from the internet just to give it a try? Just to know if it works?"
I suppose Burger King should not allow you to eat at McDonald's and Chrysler should make it impossible for American people to own Japanese cars. Burger King and Chrysler should heed Microsoft's ways and stifle competition and innovation.
But I agree with my friend on something:
"... You need to know your source." (emphasis mine)
In fact I couldn't agree more. But since Microsoft wouldn't give IE's source to me, here is Firefox's.
The information soldier looks to the horizon...
