Dear IE, I'm Leaving You For Good

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko
Security is unimportant for a regular user.

Even an advanced user like you shouldn't care much about security of his internet browser.

This is nonsense -- the major reason why viruses, spyware, and adware are so prevalent on Windows is inadequate IE security.

Security is important for everyone. It's not just about protecting your data, it's about keeping all the crap off your computer.

[Ljube]

I wouldn't go that far as calling your last sentence nonsense

When I was your age I used to be enthusiastic like you. Years of experience have taught me however that there is no such thing as perfect software and all programmes have faults.

It all comes down to this: You can either fool yourself a more secure product will protect you, or you can face the fact it is not true and adopt a behaviour which reduces risks of virus infections instead.

I chose the latter and have since only suffered from blaster worm, an infection I cleaned without any trouble.

[Asher]

Of course you won't be invulnerable with Firefox, and it's certainly not perfect.

But it increases your chances of not getting any trouble.

I've never had a virus or a worm, and I've been using computers for as long as I can remember and first hit the internet before the world wide web even existed.

I appreciate your hilarious insight as an "IT Analyst" to keep Internet Explorer, but it's rather worthless advice.

There will be security holes in Firefox, but there are far more in Internet Explorer. The best advice is to use common sense and safe practices with Firefox.

[Ljube]

There is also one strong argument in my favour and that is convenience. You want to replace a readily available free IE with an equally free Firefox. Why? What are the benefits? Better security? Perhaps, but does it really matter?

If I want security, I'll use firewall and anti virus and anti spyware too.

Supporters of Firefox have failed to convince a vast majority of people there is a significant advantage in Firefox compared to IE that would justify the cost of change. And my job is to estimate this cost and advise for or against the change.


And the reason I had blaster is cause I didn't want to even turn on the firewall that comes with windows XP.

[Asher]

The cost of switching to Firefox is nothing.

It's a tiny download, it's freely available, it requires less time ****ing around with it to set up to be secure. It imports your IE bookmarks, it imports your IE history, it even imports your IE auto-complete history, too...

The fact that you didn't even want to turn on the XP Firewall alone shows just how little you know or understand about computer security.

You claim to be an IT analyst...you must work for the government, don't you?

[Ljube]

Let's not start calling names


I didn't turn on that firewall cause I use dial-up at home.

I work for a French company called Thales and my current project concerns the government: It's computerisation of courts in Serbia.

Even a tiny download is huge work to repeat on many computers. There is also training for the new product and adaptation of users. Still, the issue is not if it's all that difficult to change to Firefox. The issue is whether it's justifiable.

Since I believe it is not, it will eventually come down to personal preference. I will always advise against the change, some of my colleagues will advise for it.

My personal opinion is that it's always better to avoid any change if it's not absolutely necessary. You may think differently now, but in ten years time you'll think like I do. Trust me on this one

[Asher]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko
Even a tiny download is huge work to repeat on many computers.

It certainly isn't if your IT Advisor has properly advised you.

Do you not use disk imaging? Do you not use network installs? Firefox 1.0 has an MSI installer available that corporations can use to "push" out to clients and have it silently installed.

As long as the IT Advisors are not incompetent, it's trivial.

My personal opinion is that it's always better to avoid any change if it's not absolutely necessary. You may think differently now, but in ten years time you'll think like I do. Trust me on this one

The change is negligable. Everyone I know that's switched hasn't had problems adapting, it's an easy to use program that just happens to be more secure by design, and by implementation.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko
When I was your age...

Maybe this is a case of "It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks"?

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I find it true for me, because I find it much easier to hit the taskbar right at the bottom than to aim for something near the top but not quite there. Plus, to close from the start bar it's just right-click -> move the mouse a tiny bit up and right -> left click to close a window, a motion I've ingrained into my brain. With tabs the close option is farther away from where you right-click. And I don't have to worry about accidentally closing a window with everything in it. Even if it does post a warning, I just am more comfortable with multiple windows than with tabs.

That's why I have all my tabs in Opera at the bottom of the window And I just close them by middle-clicking the tab; if I accidentally close a tab by mistake I just hit Ctrl-Z to undo closing it and pick up where I left off.



Opera

[Q Classic]

why would you download and install it multiple times?

vrtually every it advisory and house that i know of uses some sort of image deployment system, be it symantec ghost, radmind, or something else...

sure, installing more secure programs aren't going to help you if you keep doing stupid things like open unknown email attachments, but does it make it a good idea to go in without that extra level of protection?

Security is unimportant for a regular user.

Even an advanced user like you shouldn't care much about security of his internet browser.

this is like saying it's a good idea to go into a war zone without even the benefit of camoflage and a bullet-proof vest. will they save you? not necessarily. does it make it a good **** idea to not have them on? not really.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
this is like saying it's a good idea to go into a war zone without even the benefit of camoflage and a bullet-proof vest. will they save you? not necessarily. does it make it a good **** idea to not have them on? not really.

It's not like that because your life is not at stake here.
I couldn't care less whether my personal computer is secure or not. I care very much whether I catch a bullet or not.

[Q Classic]

It's not like that because your life is not at stake here.
I couldn't care less whether my personal computer is secure or not. I care very much whether I catch a bullet or not.

you do realize a good many end users are quite attached to their data that is stored on their computers... losing say, a thesis, because your computer got infected with spyware and virii, would seriously crimp many people's style.

particularly since the majority of people also don't keep regular backups...

===

incidentally... you're it advisor in eastern europe?

i read somewhere that a good fraction of malware and such originates in eastern europe.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ixnay
That's why I have all my tabs in Opera at the bottom of the window And I just close them by middle-clicking the tab; if I accidentally close a tab by mistake I just hit Ctrl-Z to undo closing it and pick up where I left off.

I find middle-clicking unnatural, and to easy to do accidentally.

[Agathon]

Kuci, the tab browser extension will allow you to place the tabs at the bottom of the window.

Tabs should really be on the side to save screen space.

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Agathon
Tabs should really be on the side to save screen space.

Putting them on the side wastes a hell of a lot more space unless you cut them down to just the icons, which would be really stupid.