4 ms·

Go look at the CVE reports for each browser. Your taking a > 10x risk running anything other than Chrome. These changes Mozilla is making are to fix that.

icebraining 10y ago
If I want to reduce computing security risks I'll use a calculator. Everything else comes with tradeoffs, and for many of us, these aren't worth it.
- aseipp 10y ago
  The answer to "This piece of software has a track record of being more secure than this one, due to its design, and these changes in part help fix that disparity" IS NOT "I'm going to use a calculator now because nothing can be secure so what's the point anyway stop trying to force me to eat my dinner vegetables i'm not listening". I don't even know why this needs to be said, because it's fairly obvious nobody on Earth actually does risk analysis this way. I mean, unless you're a programmer with some sort of brain worm infestation, who cannot read between the lines, and have an inability to understand how people in the real world do (and must) operate, clearly.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    From your other posts you seem like a reasonable person, so I'll try to explain myself better despite the verbal abuse. I realize that some software is more secure than others, and that changes can be made to make it more secure. My point is that you can't simply say "therefore these changes are necessarily good", because there is more to software than security, and those changes often involve tradeoffs in other areas, which have to be weighted. For some of us, in this case, those tradeoffs aren't worth it.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Making up numbers doesn't help the discussion. Can you prove that firefox users are at all more likely to be infected in practice? I doubt it. You surely can't prove they are 10x.
fulafel 10y ago
Chrome comes with Flash, and Flash vulnerabilities are not counted against Chrome. So this is highly skewed. (Never mind CVE counts being a poor proxy of risk)

icebraining 10y ago

If I want to reduce computing security risks I'll use a calculator. Everything else comes with tradeoffs, and for many of us, these aren't worth it.

aseipp 10y ago
The answer to "This piece of software has a track record of being more secure than this one, due to its design, and these changes in part help fix that disparity" IS NOT "I'm going to use a calculator now because nothing can be secure so what's the point anyway stop trying to force me to eat my dinner vegetables i'm not listening". I don't even know why this needs to be said, because it's fairly obvious nobody on Earth actually does risk analysis this way. I mean, unless you're a programmer with some sort of brain worm infestation, who cannot read between the lines, and have an inability to understand how people in the real world do (and must) operate, clearly.
- icebraining 10y ago
  From your other posts you seem like a reasonable person, so I'll try to explain myself better despite the verbal abuse. I realize that some software is more secure than others, and that changes can be made to make it more secure. My point is that you can't simply say "therefore these changes are necessarily good", because there is more to software than security, and those changes often involve tradeoffs in other areas, which have to be weighted. For some of us, in this case, those tradeoffs aren't worth it.

michaelmrose 10y ago

Making up numbers doesn't help the discussion. Can you prove that firefox users are at all more likely to be infected in practice? I doubt it. You surely can't prove they are 10x.

fulafel 10y ago

Chrome comes with Flash, and Flash vulnerabilities are not counted against Chrome. So this is highly skewed. (Never mind CVE counts being a poor proxy of risk)