Your car is advanced - now get the advanced web browser

You're the 3rd experienced Sysop/Admin/internet-knowledgable person in 3 days to recommend that I switch to FireFox, Danny. God is apparently trying to tell me something.

Just made the jump to DSL at home today; one of those three friends said, even more than a good hardware firewall with NAT aliasing, switching to FireFox is (overall) the best thing I could do to make internet browsing more secure.

I get the message -- ZoneAlarm first, then FireFox! (Then, a more configurable firewall/router than the one Qwest rents me.)

Thanks!

 

add AVG anti virus and Adaware and you be set!!

 

I'm using the corporate McAfee VirusScan, and SpyBot (love that product) as the third level of defense there; but we don't get much e-mail and don't install many software programs, so I'm less worried about that stuff.

But for a family computer (particularly with kids using it), a virus scanner and spyware/adware scanner would be really important, I think.

 

If you use Windows, especially with IE, you are asking for trouble. With a Mac you don't have to worry about viruses and spyware. I could go on and on about the other pros and cons, and the reasons for them, but that's it in a nutshell.

I mentioned the house/foundation analogy for the browser/OS earlier and didn't seem to get through. How about this one: Windows PCs are the SUVs of the computer world. Macs are like the Prius. Which kind of computer would you rather drive?

 

When talking about OS's somebody somewhere sometime needs to talk authoritatively about Linux as an alternative to both. Haven't play with it myself yet (have the disks though) and read and interesting essay by Neal Stephenson entitled "In The Beginning... Was the Cammand Line" which blasts Microsoft but makes some cogent arguments about the weaknesses of Apple's approach as well. Remember too that OS X uses a Unix kernal. As Linux has evolved it has become less and less the sole domain of geeks, can if need be set up on a computer as a dual boot so that the few programs (for me medical) that don't have Linux equivelents can still be run. And the cost is minimal to literally nothing depending on your level of competency as it is at its core Open Source.

 

i have Lindows 1.1 and Corel Linux 3.3 and although Linux has its merits and many enterprise solutions incorporate a Linux box or two for part of their needs, it isnt very user friendly on the homefront.

although it gets better and better every day, it still needs work to become attractive to the average user. not yet heavy into the bells and whistles end of it yet and that is what most home users want. they do not understand, desire to learn, or want to be bothered with a 100% configurable and user controlled environment.

as far as performance and security and stability goes, it is hard to beat. that is the only way enterprise companies would even consider it. although not yet trusted for key business needs yet, many have implemented Linux for a lot of support needs like email, file serving, some applications, and many intranet monitoring and support services.

 

I agree with most of what Dave said. Recent Linux distributions can do the basics really well, but still but not the "bells and whistles" that many home users want. Yet. Firefox does run on it, however (trying to stay a little on topic here). The Mac supports many more goodies and is head and shoulders above anyone when it comes to user interface and ease of use. Linux and MacOS are way more reliable than Windows, both because they're designed better and because they are not as much of a target for bad guys.

The one thing I disagree with Dave about is about Linux not being used for key business functions. The web servers at Amazon, Netflix, LLBean, Toyota, and PriusChat all run on Linux. I'm certain it's used for many other key purposes as well.

 

take a poll of leading net admins and they will say that Linux is generally not trusted as yet and that is all i said.

i did not say that Linux isnt trusted anywhere. there are some organizations that simply cannot spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for their IT needs. so they use Linux for all their needs because of the lack of per seat license fees and proprietary mandatory support services that are bundled with the purchase price make Linux a very economical way to go.

the only difference we are seeing now is that companies with lots of money who only a few years ago would never even have considered Linux are now realizing that much cash can be saved especially in behind the scenes operations where minimal user intervention is present.

Linux does more with less hardware horsepower so the latest and greatest processors are not needed. Linux has nearly become the de facto standard (for companies that are smart with their money that is) for finding uses for old outdated equipment that used to be dumped at pennies on the dollar just to make space for new machines.

the list includes nearly every mover and shaker in the IT industry with the possible exception of microsoft.

intel, HP, Dell, IBM, you name it, they all have a few Linux boxes around and their role will continue to grow as more and more realize that good OS's dont have to come with a huge premium

 

I suspect that the main reason there are so few viruses for the Mac is because people who write these programs:

1. Want to do as much damage as possible, so why write a virus that can infect less than 3 % of the computers currently in use?

2. These nasty programs are probably written by Mac users.
:roll:

 

if there were no viruses for the MAC then why are there virus checkers for the MAC??

dont even kid yourself by thinking you wont get zapped. there is NO operating system out there that is safe without added protection.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jamarimutt\";p=\"45548)</div>

I said earlier that lower MacOS market share is part of the reason Macs are safer, but the OS is also more secure. Whatever the reasons, the fact remains the same. If you mean the 3% market share indicates an inferior product, then consider the fact that the Prius market share is even less.

Your accusation that Mac users are the authors of Windows viruses is absurd and conpletely baseless.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"45564)</div>

That's easy: because virus protection companies are cashing in on the Windows virus scare.

I never said that Mac or Linux computers can't get viruses. Just that they haven't, and are much less likely to get them for various reasons. Switching to a less problem prone and feature rich browser can help your computing experience--making a similar OS switch can help even more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"45564)</div>

Windows 3.1. :mrgreen:

(Oh, and the Amiga.)

 

I did not say that Macs are inferior products; they are very nice computers. However, they just don't offer any real, substantial advantage versus Windows PCs, while being considerably more expensive. It is also practically impossible to build your own Mac from parts, while it is very easy to do this with a PC.

Macs are down to 3% of the market and that's where they're most likely going to stay for a very long time. And that 3 % is thanks to Mac addicts, who follow the brand as they follow a religion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jamarimutt\";p=\"45595)</div>

However, cost is less of an issue between Windows and Mac laptops...

Well, people could say the same thing about people who buy hybrids. :wink:

I switched from Mac to Windows back in 89 -- I had been one of the founding members of the Seattle Mac dBUG (Downtown Business User's Group) , but I write Windows applications, and two different OSes was more than I wanted to maintain at home.

But I have to say, there's a lot that appeals to me about a Mac these days. Like the UI (as always); for whatever reason (Unix underneath, fewer virus writers, fewer OS architecture decisions that compromised security) security is better; and you can write and run Unix code underneath.

Plus, they shure are purty.

I'm not planning to buy one right now -- too many custom Palm PDA conduits that won't run on the Mac, too much investment in Windows PCs, and I'm still (relatively) saavy with them.

But as I like to say: There's nothing like programming Windows systems for 15 years to get you to hate Microsoft. :guns:

 

Windows 3.1 ?? like WHO CARES!!

macs will always have the advantage of having more control of the software and hardware. even now that dont build their own processors anymore, they still have better compatability than windows has.

although intel and microsoft work closely together, as we all know, microsoft doesnt share their secrets with anyone. that only hurts them in the long run.

i thought for sure after the success of Linux they would have realized that sharing their secrets might get them farther ahead.

its pretty obvious that they struggle to find qualified talent to write their programs, but their closed mouth policy prevents them from getting help from any outside sources.

Linux has done well because of the collective talents of the open source community an advantage microsoft doesnt have.

 

Macs have been around for a long time and their market share has consistently gone down over the years. Priuses have been around for a comparably very short time and their market share is increasing quickly; they may both have a small market share but for totally different reasons.

 

here is an article printed by the NY times that details some of the problems we all face when cruising the net. it only emphasizes the fact that no one is safe and without additional protection, you will most likely get zapped and in the case of spyware, it may be months before you notice anything is wrong.

F.T.C. Files First Lawsuit Against Spyware Concerns
By TOM ZELLER Jr.

Published: October 13, 2004

The Federal Trade Commission formally announced yesterday its first assault
against spyware - bits of computer code that surreptitiously install
themselves on the computers of Internet users to track their activities,
push them to Web sites, barrage them with advertisements, and otherwise
wreak havoc with their machines.

The commission filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New Hampshire last week
against Sanford Wallace, the owner of Seismic Entertainment Productions and
Smartbot.net, contending that Mr. Wallace and his companies had violated
federal law, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or
affecting commerce."

"This may be our first case," said Lydia Parnes, the acting director of the
commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, at a news conference in
Washington yesterday. "But it won't be our last."

The suit, which seeks an injunction against Mr. Wallace's companies, claims
they exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser
- the most widely used browser - to seize varying amounts of control over
users' computers. It also charges that the spyware deployed by the two
companies changed users' home pages, installed advertising and software
programs on the users' computers, and caused a deluge of pop-up windows to
appear on computer screens - without the users' consent. In some instances,
the complaint says the codes caused computers to "malfunction, slow down,
crash or cease working properly."

"I understand what the F.T.C. is trying to do," Mr. Wallace said in a
telephone interview, "but we believe that what we're doing is legal."

Just how widespread the problem of spyware has become is difficult to
measure, but in a workshop held by the F.T.C. last spring, representatives
of Microsoft complained that nearly half of the system failures reported by
users of its Windows operating system were traceable to spyware infestation.
And a representative of Dell said that complaints about spyware had eclipsed
all other problems on its technical help lines.

The commission's action comes at the same time Congress focuses attention on
legislation aimed at curbing spyware on the Internet. Two bills - the
Internet Spyware Prevention Act and the Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions
Act - were passed in the House of Representatives last week. And several
states are considering anti-spyware legislation, although the only provision
to have passed - Utah's Spyware Control Act - has been delayed while a state
court considers its constitutionality.

As with the wars against computer viruses and junk e-mail, or spam, the
battle against spyware has been one of ever-evolving one-upsmanship, with
spyware removal applications struggling to keep up with new mutations
devised by spyware creators. Microsoft has introduced software patches to
close some of the holes in its Internet Explorer browser, but the problem
exists across most Web browsers, and even extends into the comparatively
safer haven of Macintosh operating systems.

Mr. Wallace insists that all of the accusations made in the F.T.C. complaint
are within consumers' ability to control. "If you choose to block pop-ups,
update your machines," he said, "and turn off auto-download, you won't have
a problem."

But Ari Schwartz, an associate director of the Center for Technology and
Democracy, which ignited the commission's investigation of Mr. Wallace when
it filed a complaint concerning pop-up ads with the commission earlier this
year, says it simply is not that easy.

"If someone changes their settings and then you change them back again, then
you're defying their wishes," he said. "It would be like an advertiser
coming into your house and putting something in there, and saying 'if you
don't move it, you've bought it.' "

Given that hundreds of Internet marketing companies use the very same
techniques that Seismic Entertainment and SmartBot.net are accused of using,
some industry specialists wondered if the commission's suit was making an
example out of Mr. Wallace. He had a business sending junk faxes before the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 outlawed the practice, and then he
gained fame in the mid-1990's as one of the most prolific distributors of
spam. He was labeled "Spamford" by critics, and even embraced that name on
his Web sites.

But the tentacles linking spyware writers to marketing companies, who in
turn use their bits of code to push and pull users - usually forcefully -
toward the pages of third-party companies who pay a fee for the service, can
be difficult to trace. And Laura Sullivan, a lawyer representing the
commission, said that all of the connections in this case were still being
teased out.

But Mr. Wallace said his companies were simply an "aggressive part of a
larger network of companies involved in direct marketing that annoys
consumers." And with Congress still considering legislation on the issue,
the F.T.C., he said, is simply "trying to enforce laws that don't exist
yet."

 

Well, best of luck to you guys ;-).

 

Shameless plug (for the Mac folks here, at least): I use OmniWeb. But partly because I work at Omni, so I can help change anything I don't like about it. :mrgreen:

 

This was just announced today:

Multiple Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer

I count 9 vulnerabilities in this one.