Socket puppets

[Phatt Matt s]

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.

Did I ever say there weren't?

I'll use your own words:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)!

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.

Lmfao!

Fukin brilliant!