Firefox slating is a purely commercial operation

Comments and suggestions about this site

Moderators: ChriThor, LXF moderators

Firefox slating is a purely commercial operation

Postby linix » Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:58 pm


I had resisted reading this article but i am starting to run out of things to read on this site (thats not to say i understand it all though).

So i read what this fellow has to say, now i am biased from my hard facts of use of my computers over the past two years. I had several re-installs when i used to use IE from various infections including a dial-up thing which cost over £70 on the phone bill, trojan,slammer, you name it ! I have set up a lan with 3 comps on it 2 using win98 with IE 5.5 only for updates and firefox 1.0.7, i have downgraded from IE6 on both of them because i don't ever use on-board e-mail any more and when you upgrade with sp pack 1 it installs OE and generally smothers the comp. BTW he is quite wrong with his info on how much power the cpu has to have to run IE6, one comp is a cyrix 200mhz from 1997 the other is p11 350mhz and a further one a HP/Vectra from 1995 P(r)-166mhz all run it !

Anyway he has succeded in causing me to worry and i will be installing opera on at least my moms/family P11, my and by far the best comp, that i have built since christmas is linux/suse only.

He does damage his own authoritive self though, with the info at the end of the article,

"myth, Firefox is compatible with every web site"
reality 15% are not,

Then directly underneath it say's

Scivisum found 1 in 10....

The maths do not work !

Furthermore, and finally to the post header. I understandably wanted to read the replies and clicked on "opining" and the icey feel down my back from the past with IE came flooding back, Pop-up blocker is engaged and (horrfyingly)? a window comes up offering to "block all Spam".

Invasive (Commercialisim)? Yes it is, and while i am no mushroom (keep me in the dark and fill me with s...), I would ask you remove this link to what is obviously a commercial operation of the lowest order.

If you have got to here, thank you for reading and please understand i had to write this as part of dealing with the ruffing-up that article gave me.

Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:20 pm
Location: Worcestershire, England

Postby TheDoctor » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:47 pm

Didn't you read the rebuttal? Takes the original 'article' (more a list of unsourced straw men with inaccurate replies) to the cleaners (and back)!

Though I'm not sure why the oriinal article was ever put on the front page.
LXF regular
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Postby M-Saunders » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:01 am

TheDoctor wrote:Though I'm not sure why the oriinal article was ever put on the front page.

Because it's good to see different opinions, even if they may be flamebaitish or inaccurate. Many people share some of that guy's opinions!

LXF regular
Posts: 2893
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:14 pm

Return to This Website

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests