(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Can you objectively prove Firefox is better?

If it fails to render a particular page as intended.

Spoken like someone who has never coded a single op in their entire fucking life.

Care to show me a bug-free rendering engine?

No?

That's because they don't exist.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Furthermore, the question was over the existence of viable alternatives. Not which one is better.

Did I ever say there weren't?

I'll use your own words:

(April 1, 2014 at 12:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I think it's stupid to start using a non-open-source browser when firefox exists and is as good as any other. /snip

You outlined a binary split between "Non-open-source browsers" and "Firefox".

You didn't say:
"I think it's stupid to start using a non-open-source browser when open source alternatives like Firefox exists and is as good as any other."

Nice goal post moving.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Finally, your argument about open source is a form a magical thinking. Just because it is open source doesn't mean it cannot send your data to a third-party.

You are correct, but I don't think the developers would do such a thing, given the potential repercussions if it was found out... and it could by found out.. unlike what happens with close-source software.

"I don't think" != "It is assured"

Magical thinking.

And "finding out" requires:

- knowledge of the domain (browsers)

- knowledge of intentional and unintentional side-channel attacks

- lots of time to examime to accumulate a high confidence of security.


The burden of proof is on those to prove a piece of software is reasonable secure. Closed or open source.

Open source may increase the visibility of bugs to be fixed.

As we can see from critical OpenSSL and GnuTLS bugs lately, horrible defects can creep in to plain sight.

That's because Open source is:
"In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone."

Nothing in that definition has anything to do with security, defects, etc,. Any benefits there are side effects of it being open.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed I can, but I don't have the time for that. I trust those people who work on it and those who keep a watchful eye and are not finding any glaring security faults...

Once again, it's not assured. It's faith you're using.

I don't have a problem with faith, only people who attempt to deny they have faith in something while indulging in precisely that.

Hypocrisy is a pain in the ass.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Do you think an institution like Mozilla would risk such a blow to its main product? What would it gain with such a behavior?

Then what is this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecom...ct=Firefox

Bugs are a natural part of the software development cycle. Nearly every single article of software has a bug within it, excepting the few that are formally verified.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:51 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Open-source is no guarantee on the nonexistence of vulnerabilities, data leakage.

Precisely - and exactly the reason why I've switched back to Internet Explorer. I mean, if you can't trust Microsoft, who can you trust?

That's absurd and you know it.

I'm criticising the assertion that open-source is some kind of totem against software defects.

Nice of you to think that any criticism of "Open Source" really means "Use Closed Source" (It doesn't.)!

(April 1, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What are your alternative suggestions?

There are some services that attempt to answer that:

http://alternativeto.net/software/firefo...form=linux

I'd suggest Chromium. I often find myself using ReKonq when I'm developing code for doing quick lookups.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If it fails to render a particular page as intended.

"As intended" is not necessarily a deterministic metric, particularly in the absence of specific font selections, weights, etc in markup. We can infer what the page creator intends when such things are present, but in the absence of such specifications a client is free to render elements however it wishes.

Or, the TL;DR version: Precisely how should an entity enclosed in H2 tags be rendered?

Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:51 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Precisely - and exactly the reason why I've switched back to Internet Explorer. I mean, if you can't trust Microsoft, who can you trust?

That's absurd and you know it.

I'm criticising the assertion that open-source is some kind of totem against software defects.

Nice of you to think that any criticism of "Open Source" really means "Use Closed Source" (It doesn't.)!

It's April Fool's Day, Syn. Of course it's absurd. I happen to agree with you.

(April 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's April Fool's Day, Syn. Of course it's absurd. I happen to agree with you.

Now how am I supposed to stay mad at you?!

(April 1, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's April Fool's Day, Syn. Of course it's absurd. I happen to agree with you.

Now how am I supposed to stay mad at you?!

You were supposed to play along. You weren't the one being trolled.

Shall we carry on?

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If it fails to render a particular page as intended.

Spoken like someone who has never coded a single op in their entire fucking life.

Care to define "op"?
In my most recent bout with such an acronym, it means Over Powered.
I fail to see how that applies here...

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Care to show me a bug-free rendering engine?

No?

That's because they don't exist.

Care to show me where I said firefox was bug free?
I merely answered your requirement for a way to discern what is better in this context. Less buggy rendering was my reply...though not using these words, but I sort of expected you to understand it, instead... you... misunderstood.
I get it... tunnel vision: destroy invisible internet enemy... yeah, yatta, yatta...

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Did I ever say there weren't?

I'll use your own words:

(April 1, 2014 at 12:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I think it's stupid to start using a non-open-source browser when firefox exists and is as good as any other. /snip

You outlined a binary split between "Non-open-source browsers" and "Firefox".

You didn't say:
"I think it's stupid to start using a non-open-source browser when open source alternatives like Firefox exists and is as good as any other."

Nice goal post moving.

Yeah... right... like the focus of the thread wasn't on firefox, already?... context, my boy, context.
Yes, I meant it like you said it, while I said it in another way, due to the already presence of firefox in this thread.

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You are correct, but I don't think the developers would do such a thing, given the potential repercussions if it was found out... and it could by found out.. unlike what happens with close-source software.

"I don't think" != "It is assured"

Magical thinking.

And "finding out" requires:

- knowledge of the domain (browsers)

- knowledge of intentional and unintentional side-channel attacks

- lots of time to examime to accumulate a high confidence of security.


The burden of proof is on those to prove a piece of software is reasonable secure. Closed or open source.

Open source may increase the visibility of bugs to be fixed.

As we can see from critical OpenSSL and GnuTLS bugs lately, horrible defects can creep in to plain sight.

That's because Open source is:
"In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone."

Nothing in that definition has anything to do with security, defects, etc,. Any benefits there are side effects of it being open.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Yes, bugs can exist...
Not a single program that I've written was bug-free on the first go... not even stinking hello world!

On the other hand, blatant data gathering... I wouldn't expect it on open-source software... but, again, that doesn't mean it can't exist... it's just stupid to do so, for it will found, sooner or later.

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed I can, but I don't have the time for that. I trust those people who work on it and those who keep a watchful eye and are not finding any glaring security faults...

Once again, it's not assured. It's faith you're using.

"Trust", was the word I used.
I can understand some confusion between the concepts alluded by those two words, but, in this forum, let's try to keep faith in the realm of religion and trust everywhere else, ok?

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I don't have a problem with faith, only people who attempt to deny they have faith in something while indulging in precisely that.

Hypocrisy is a pain in the ass.

Hotheadedness too...

(April 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Do you think an institution like Mozilla would risk such a blow to its main product? What would it gain with such a behavior?

Then what is this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecom...ct=Firefox

Bugs are a natural part of the software development cycle. Nearly every single article of software has a bug within it, excepting the few that are formally verified.

Again, you present me with bugs, while the argument was more about deliberate data gathering routines potentially embedded in close-source software

---

(April 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If it fails to render a particular page as intended.

"As intended" is not necessarily a deterministic metric, particularly in the absence of specific font selections, weights, etc in markup. We can infer what the page creator intends when such things are present, but in the absence of such specifications a client is free to render elements however it wishes.

Or, the TL;DR version: Precisely how should an entity enclosed in H2 tags be rendered?

Beats me!
The way the person who designed it saw it in his/her browser and thought it looked good?
"And on the fourth day, Carl created the section on foods and pets. He looked at the screen and saw that it was good"

"Blatant data gathering". I do not think you know what you're saying.

Care to prove it?

For example, here's a discussion over Google Chrome (Official, not Chromium) sends to Google (http://lifehacker.com/5763452/what-data-...out-me/all)

Basically:
- Anything you do an instant search with (that's how search suggestions work in any interface btw)
- Crash/usage statistics of the interface (can be disabled)
- Unique browser installation ids (removable via UnChrome)
- Anything that is part of a bookmarks/history/password sync (Firefox has a similar infrastructure)

Want to know where we see data leakage?

You can get it via Javascript, XSS attacks and a lot of data collection. Hell, get enough traffic logs (IP Address visited page at time) and you can learn a fuck ton.

Trust me, you're leaking more data by visiting websites than your own browser ever sends.

That's why the NSA targeted routers, data providers and datacenters. Not your personal web browser.

---

Also, I meant op as in op-codes (assembly).

(April 1, 2014 at 5:54 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: "Blatant data gathering". I do not think you know what you're saying.

Care to prove it?

No.
It is speculation, conspiracy theory gone wild and the like... It is "what can be", not "what is in reality".
It is... about trust.
I (me personally) trust more those people who do not hide their code.

Speaking of code.... when can we see a forum mod that warns people when someone else posts something in between my viewing a thread and my posting of a reply on that thread?

I like firefox the best of all the browsers I have used so far. Just for look, ease of use, and customizability. That being said, I'm on my old MacBook, and the new FireFox is too robust for it. As soon as I installed the newest version, Firefox started shitting all over my computer. It was slow, crashed a lot, and caused my computer to run slow. So I switched to Chrome. It is more lightweight, I get almost all the same extensions (the only one I can't get is an iTunes controller) and it too looks nice. So I'll stick with Chrome until I get a new MacBook Air.

(April 1, 2014 at 6:16 pm)pocaracas Wrote: when can we see a forum mod that warns people when someone else posts something in between my viewing a thread and my posting of a reply on that thread?

Cthulu has volunteered to help you with that.

On a more serious note, such is possible. What keeps us from doing that is bandwidth costs and computing costs.