Firefox vulnerability could cause remote code excecution

the reason why IE hasn't managed to completely mangle a page for you kuntz, is because a lot of web designers have to design an alternative version to their websites just so IE won't mangle it. it sometimes isn't possible to just design for IE, because it would break compatibility with other browsers. i remember reading an article on techreport.com, saying that there's an alternate version of the site purely for IE7.

also, keep in mind that IE's marketshare has been falling quite steadily over the last little while. i personally have no issues with IE, but i just like google chrome a lot better, purely for its ability to drag/drop tabs. combine that with my 2048x1152 display and windows 7, it's an absolute snap to have two full-width webpages open at the same time.

IE7Pro has Super Drag & Drop, you can literally D&D anything, even flash and images with hotkeys. It also has this mouse-drawing thingy where you draw simple shapes with the mouse to do complex tasks. I don't multi-mon anymore so I don't need most of these features.

IE7's share can only fall since it was 95% at one point or something really high like that. And special versions of websites need to be made for every browser, since every browser is just a bit different. Look at vBulletin's source code, and you'll note the best version of vBulletin is through IE7. IE7 supports the best features for a webpage, hands down.

Oh, you were a bad, amateur web developer? Which programming language are you referring to and how does that relate to HTML standards? If you wrote 'STANDARD' compliant mark up, avoiding proprietary markup endorsed by certain browser manufacturers, then you wouldn't need to be fighting for any minority... ALL compliant browsers would be able to utilize your web page...

Your 'logic' in suggesting MS has an 80% market share, and therefore ALL others should follow their example in adopting whatever standard MS puts forth is FLAWED. Simply put, Microsoft was late to the internet game, Bill Gates noted it was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes... when Microsoft did eventually decide to enter the browser market they would have entered from a 0% market share position, ergo, they quite naturally should have followed whatever standard/browser was dominating the market, right? Yeah, they didn't, nor did almost anyone else... they chose to deviate from established standards to gain an edge on their competitors, as did other companies, by endorsing non compliant web design they sought to gain market share...

It IS exactly what they did. They made a new browser, with new markup, although they didn't complain. Their userbase did that for them. And when no one can view your pages that have worked for a long time because Microsoft decided it doesn't like the way it works, you're forced to change.

Also, I'll point out the comment on copyright laws, because the same idea happened. Bill gates took ideas from other companies, that would blatantly fall under copyright laws that HE fought to instate, because Microsoft decided that the new rule was that no one should be able to copy another. Instead of complaining to a milling mass of oblivious computer users, he complained to the government about what he did, and thus it became illegal for someone else to do.

tl;dr Microsoft did something, then made a rule against it and bitched to the government. Also, hypocrisy and narcissism.

P.S. re-read my example on C code as to WHY this whole thing is bad. You're a programmer (Albeit a web one), you should understand why that is generally a bad thing.

While ie7pro is a definitely a step in the right direction, I find its adblock/flashblock/noscript functionality much too clunky in use, compared to the Firefox equivelents. It needs more work in my opinion.

IE also seemed slower while ie7pro was installed, but that might be just me.

The vulnerability was already fixed... this thread is now irrelevant. Thank you for pointing out a single vulnerability in Firefox, but pushing a browser recommendation because of one security flaw (that has already been patched) is pushing the bounds a bit.

I am closing this thread, as it is now misinformation.

However, if you want to dog on a company for security holes, please look no further than Microsoft in the future.... and cite non article sources as a source. Here is a professional security report to browse. Enjoy the lawlz.

http://secunia.com/gfx/Secunia2008Report.pdf

While Firefox may have more vulnerabilities, at least it doesn't take Mozilla 294 days to patch a critical vulnerability.

Oh, and I am not being bias here. Had this thread been pointing out an IE7/8 vulnerability that has since been patched, I would close it as well. So try not to feel picked on too much.

That said...

<font color="red">CLOSED</font>