The myth of “Firefox Myths”
Right upfront let me say that I’m a regular Firefox user and have been since before version 1.0. Like any software it’s not perfect but it suits my purposes.
I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested.
Then sadly disappointed. Rather than a balanced analysis of some of the folklore surrounding Firefox, it is merely a stream of weak arguments against imaginary “myths” supported by misquoting or deliberate misreading of sources.
I’m not even going to reference the page. If you really want to find it, I’m sure you can. It’s by someone called Andrew K on a site that seems to have a lot of other stuff about Windows 2000 and XP.
Happily in doing some reading for this response I found a balanced view (which is what I was looking for), so instead I suggest you look at the Firefox Myths written by David Hammond.
Straw
But to return to Andrew K’s page, the main problem is that it’s a series of straw man arguments from start to finish. Many of the so-called myths seem to have been simply made-up. I certainly haven’t heard most of them before.
For instance in searching on Google, the following myths make no appearance other than on Andrew K’s page or on pages that refer to it:
- “Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer”
- “Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser”
- “Firefox is More Secure by not using ActiveX”
- “Firefox is a Solution to Spyware”
- “Firefox is Bug Free”
- “Firefox was the first Web Browser to offer Tabbed Browsing”
- “Firefox fully support W3C Standards”
- “Firefox fully supports the most important W3C Standards”
- “Firefox works with every Web Page”
So let’s look at these ones first.
“Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer”
Oh come on! IE6 works on a 486 does it? I mean really works? Right and can someone tell me how well Windows XP runs on a computer (lets say a 486) with 32MB RAM?
Minimum requirements are one thing. Minimum requirements to actually do some useful work are another…
“Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser”
According to the Firefox project:
Faster Browsing
Enjoy quick page loading as you navigate back and forward in a browsing session. Improvements to the engine that powers Firefox deliver more accurate display of complex Web sites, support for new Web standards, and better overall performance.
Nope, no claim to be the fastest there. In fact it was Opera that used to make that claim (they don’t anymore).
“Firefox is More Secure by not using ActiveX”
Who cares? If you’re making a site with ActiveX, you’re making it only for people who use IE anyway.
“Firefox is a Solution to Spyware”
According to the Firefox project:
Stronger Security
Firefox keeps you more secure when you’re browsing the Web, closing the door on spyware, worms, and viruses. The Firefox community of developers and security experts works around the clock to monitor security issues and release updates to better protect you.
I’m feeling generous: let’s say that’s a fair cop - marketing-speak on the Firefox home page tends to gild the lily somewhat.
“Firefox is Bug Free”
Oh come on! This is getting silly. No-one in their right mind is going to claim that about any program more complex than “Hello World!”
Andrew K even identifies that the Firefox project is open about bugs and runs bugzilla. Furthermore the project openly encourages people to submit bug reports.
How do you do that with IE?
“Firefox was the first Web Browser to offer Tabbed Browsing”
The Firefox project does not claim to have invented tabbed browsing.
What a spurious “myth”!
“Firefox fully support W3C Standards”, and “Firefox fully supports the most important W3C Standards”
From the Firefox FAQ:
Mozilla is an open-source web browser and toolkit, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability.
Well, if you read that quickly, you might get the impression that they’re claiming full standards compliance. But read it again and it doesn’t really sound like it at all.
But hang-on Andrew K, what’s this? Hoist with his own petard, methinks.
“Firefox works with every Web Page”
No one has ever even thought that! Why are there extensions like IE View and a host of other tools that help Firefox users work around “This site requires Internet Explorer”?
Another spurious “myth”.
Other references
Although I haven’t heard of many of the other “myths” before, it seems that some have basis in reality, with other references to them to be found through Google.
“Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer”
Browser speed is an ongoing race. Yeah, I’d expect IE 6 to have a real speed kick - after all Microsoft has worked on it for long enough.
But even if IE6 is faster than Firefox, the “faster than IE claims” date from when Firefox absolutely whipped IE5. And it did so for a long, long time. [Jan 19: As Realist points out, I’ve got the date of version numbers wrong. Not surprising really, as we Mac users haven’t had a new version of IE since version 5 - and we never will.
Regardless that’s a sloppy statement and I withdraw it.]
Maybe IE6 is winning the race (for now) but I really don’t care - there are too many other reasons not to use IE.
“Firefox is Faster than Mozilla”
A strange claim, but people seem to have made it. However in the report that Andrew K references, it looks to me like you could choose whatever speed figures suit your argument.
“Firefox Achieved 10% Market Share in 2005″
Andrew K, you choose your source of stats, I’ll choose mine. No-one can be totally sure of actual market share.
Anyway, what’s the practical difference between 8.9% and 10% anyway? It still means that Firefox has a sizable chunk.
“Firefox is Secure” and “Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser”
OK, some Firefox zealots do get a touch over enthusiastic about this but no-one in their right mind is going to say that any program is totally secure.
However the Firefox Project says:
Switching from Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firefox
We are providing these instructions due to the recent disclosure of severe security exploits in Internet Explorer and the recommendation to switch to an alternative browser, such as Firefox, by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the Department of Homeland Security.
But what about the critical statement: “Firefox is more secure than Internet Explorer“? Andrew K doesn’t address that. Perhaps this one isn’t a myth then?
The Firefox FAQ again:
Is Firefox more secure than Internet Explorer?
Yes, Firefox and all other Mozilla-based products are more secure. Why? Here is a list of the most important reasons:
- It is not integrated with Windows, which helps prevent viruses and hackers from causing damage if they somehow manage to compromise Firefox.
- There is no support for VBScript and ActiveX, two technologies which are the reasons for many IE security holes.
- No spyware/adware software can automatically install in Firefox just by visiting a web site.
- Firefox doesn’t use Microsoft’s Java VM, which has a history of more flaws than other Java VMs.
- You have complete control over cookies.
Another view
Bruce Schneier also had something to say about browser security recently. According to the Browser Security Test, there is another way of looking at browser security; that is to consider how long a browser is publicly known to be unsafe:
Actually there was only one period in 2004 when there were no publicly known remote code execution bugs - between the 12th and the 19th of October - 7 days in total. That means that a fully patched Internet Explorer installation was known to be unsafe for 98% of 2004.
Incidentally, both Opera and Firefox did considerably better in this test.
“Firefox Blocks all Popups”
Ah, no. The Firefox Project actually says (emphasis added):
Improved Pop-up Blocking
Firefox’s built-in pop-up blocker has been enhanced to block more unwanted pop-up and pop-under ads.
No, they don’t claim to block all of them. And my experience is that Firefox doesn’t.
Debunking
There are a couple of excellent debunkings of the “Firefox Myths” Myth:
- Firefox Myths? by Robert Accettura
- Re: Firefox Myths at Nano See, Nano Do
My own conclusion is that Andrew K is just trying to increase the traffic to his site - and therefore his AdSense revenue - by published trash and FUD. It certainly doesn’t help to clarify anything.
Updates
Added on 23 Jan 2006:
- Another debunking: The war on error at Jared M’s site.
- And on the lighter side, David Hammond has produced Firefox Fables a parody of Andrew K.’s “Firefox Myths”.
Added on 12 May 2006:
- Jeff Evans has a comment on Firefox Myths
January 19th, 2006 at 2:29 am
Thanks for the excellent rebuttal. I read it the same way - Andrew, whose website is obscenely overloaded with ads, manufactured supposed myths to easily slay. What a nonsensical page, and the agenda (pimping some lame IE wrapper) is odd given that the real champion of his selective competition is Opera.
Browser stats are an interesting topic - while Andrew can crow about Internet Explorer’s 90% marketshare, that has little bearing if you run any sort of technology content. My pages have seen the front page of Reddit and Digg several times over the past month, and the percentage of users running Firefox is usually pushing 70%+. I’m sure if I ran a knitting site my experience would differ, but I do think it’s interesting that browser share is treated as if it’s a universal thing. It’s akin to a developer at a corporation building targeting Internet Explorer because 90% of users run IE, when 100% of the corporation uses Firefox.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Every one of David Hammonds lame rants has been disputed. He even resorts to accusing people of lying and using a propaganda IE is dangerous web page. Would you really take advice from someone who openly admitted to getting infected with Spyware using IE? Or someone who does not?
Requirements = You can’t read. IE can work on a 486 with Windows 98.
Speed = No where does it say the makers of Firefox said this. These are Myths perpetuated by fanboys.
ActiveX = You have no argument and dispute nothing.
Spyware = You keep comparing things to what the makers of Firefox said. Why? Funny you help further the fact that even the makers admit to this Myth.
Bug = Again you do not dispute the Myth. But complain about IE does not have a similiar bug reporting site. Hum, last I checked IE lets you automatically sumbit error reports when the error occurs directly to Microsoft.
Tabs = Who said the Makers said this? Can you read? It is the fanboys ect…
Standards = Again your failure to read has led you to create this whole page. No where does it say the makers of Firefox made these claims. Again it is the fanboys. And this is honestly the most shocking one because I hear this all the time.
Web Pages = Just because you never heard it does not mean it has not been said. Fanboys say alot that you obviously do not hear.
IE Speed = You don’t dispute anything and show your lack of knowledge, IE 6 has been out since 2001. Do you have ANY clue on when Firefox was released? Embarrasing to say the least.
Mozilla Speed = You don’t dispute anything again! Look at the data yourself.
Market Share = The difference is the Hype. Fanboys round things up to make themselves look better.
Security = You don’t dispute the Myths AGAIN! And you just redirect the argument. How does IE having more security holes than Firefox make FF any more secure? It doesn’t You also included another Myth in your rant = ActiveX.
Popups = AGAIN you don’t read. The page is not taking claims from the Makers of Firefox. How does this dispute the Myth that FF blocks all Popups? It doesn’t. You again are unable to dispute anything.
Talk about a useless Rant with no facts and are unable to dispute ONE of the Myths. Hillarious.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
WTF? You are a Mac User?!!!
tech.thingoid = A Mac User
Hammond = A Linux User
And the page is related to WINDOWS!!!!
FYI I checked the page again and no where does it say “The Makers of Firefox Claim…”
Also I looked a guy in Robert’s Blog comments disputes the whole thing and Hammond rants on and on and on and on and on and doesn’t dispute a single thing from the Myths page. He instead seems angry that this Myths guy is not taking his opinion.
This is cute. In IE Hammonds page shows this in the upper left corner:
“Warning!
You appear to be using an outdated web browser. It is recommended that you switch to Firefox or Opera.”
WTF is this guy on crack? My Browser is fully patched! Yeah I don’t think I will take advice from someone like that.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Realist = Mastertech = Andrew K
January 20th, 2006 at 7:31 am
I can confirm that Realist’s posting style and wording looks identical to that of Andrew K. Andrew has repeatedly lied about his identity on several sites, going under several different names even on a single site, and has also been banned from a few sites for trolling and deliberately refusing requests from the administration.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Another alias is GeneralAres.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Could it really be that Realist is also Mastertech who is also Andrew K?
Well, I’m prepared to accept that Masertech and Andrew K are the same person. Apart from anything else, Mastertech has been posting the “Firefox Myths” link all over the place - to see what I mean just do a Google search for the phrase “You will be surprised at what you thought was true.” And over at Dvorak’s site there is an entry Firefox Myths Website Opened. Interestingly, Dvorak says right at the top of this post:
And which reader posted it? Yep, good ol’ Mastertech.
But to return to Realist, he can’t possibly be Mastertech/Andrew K because on January 3 Mastertech said on this forum that he has thousands of clients:
Mastertech/Andrew K is a seriously busy man.
With thousands of real-life clients to service, surely he couldn’t spare the time to monitor my site - possibly the quietest backwater of the web - and make two comments within twelve hours? No I don’t think Mastertech/Andrew K could also be Realist.
But hang on! What was that again?
So Mastertech/Andrew K is also a “realist”. Could it be he is also the Realist?
Circumstantial evidence to be sure, but highly suggestive.
Oh dear…
January 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Hi Realist,
Thanks for stopping by and giving my site so much of your valuable time. Gee, you’ve been busy.
Let me start with your latest comments:
WTF? You are a Mac User?!!!
Yes. Should I apologise for that? You should know that all Mac users whip themselves each morning for being so foolish in their choice of computer.
tech.thingoid = A Mac User
Hammond = A Linux User
And the page is related to WINDOWS!!!!
Let’s get Andrew K to put a bit note on the top of the page: “ATTENTION: Windows users only”.
But of course that wouldn’t help me because apparently I can’t read.
And by the way - who’s ranting now? Please wipe the spittle off your chin or it’ll drip into your keyboard.
Also I looked a guy in Robert’s Blog comments disputes the whole thing and Hammond rants on and on and on and on and on and doesn’t dispute a single thing from the Myths page. He instead seems angry that this Myths guy is not taking his opinion.
Yeah, I looked there too and strangely you didn’t have anything to say. Not even “me too”. But you’ve made two rather long comments here. Now that’s curious. Unless this other guy who “disputes the whole thing” is actually you?
This is cute. In IE Hammonds page shows this in the upper left corner:
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Why are you talking to me about what’s on David Hammond’s page? Other than making a link to his site, I have nothing to do with it.
Just for the record, David Hammond and I are not the same person. Oh, and I’m not Robert Accettura either.
Anyway I notice you haven’t taken up your complaints over at David’s site. Well, not wearing your “Realist” name badge anyway…
Now, to your earlier comments.
2. Speed = No where does it say the makers of Firefox said this. These are Myths perpetuated by fanboys.
6. Tabs = Who said the Makers said this? Can you read? It is the fanboys ect…
7. Standards = Again your failure to read has led you to create this whole page. No where does it say the makers of Firefox made these claims. Again it is the fanboys. And this is honestly the most shocking one because I hear this all the time.
8. Web Pages = Just because you never heard it does not mean it has not been said. Fanboys say alot that you obviously do not hear.
13. Popups = AGAIN you don’t read. The page is not taking claims from the Makers of Firefox. How does this dispute the Myth that FF blocks all Popups? It doesn’t. You again are unable to dispute anything.
And in your later comment:
FYI I checked the page again and no where does it say “The Makers of Firefox Claim…â€
OK, you bring this up several times so I’ll answer it here once.
My point is that if someone is saying something that you think is misleading then you should refer to a key source. In other words, simply ask the “fanboy” to show where on the Firefox site those claims are made and proved by the Project. If the Firefox people aren’t making these claims, then the argument is pretty much over isn’t it?
For example, if the people in the Firefox Project genuinely thought they had the fastest browser (or invented tabbed browsing, or were 100% standards compliant …) it would be very easy to find on their web site. In most cases, it would be on their front page. It’s not, so there’s really nothing more to argue about.
I wouldn’t let a bunch of “fanboys” upset you so much.
Incidentally, I don’t understand the importance of the “who invented tabbed browsing” thing anyway. Practically every graphical browsers has tabs now - who cares who invented it?
1. Requirements = You can’t read. IE can work on a 486 with Windows 98.
I’m sure it can. And like all software, I’m sure it works better on a faster machine too.
I don’t doubt at all that IE 6 can be made to run on a 486 in 16MB of RAM. I do wonder how much fun it would be. Personally, if I had to have a 486 I’d rather have the extra RAM, regardless of what anyone says the minimum requirements are.
3. ActiveX = You have no argument and dispute nothing.
No, I don’t know anything about potential security holes in ActiveX because it doesn’t effect me. That’s why I said nothing about that.
But the fact remains that anyone including ActiveX tools in their website is doing so exclusively for the benefit of people who use IE. Which was my one and only point.
4. Spyware = You keep comparing things to what the makers of Firefox said. Why? Funny you help further the fact that even the makers admit to this Myth.
I have no trouble at all saying it. I think in using the phrase “closing the door on spyware” the Firefox Project may give a misleading impression. But that’s just my opinion.
By the same token, anyone who expects a web browser to be an all-in-one anti-spyware tool is fooling themselves.
5. Bug = Again you do not dispute the Myth. But complain about IE does not have a similiar bug reporting site. Hum, last I checked IE lets you automatically sumbit error reports when the error occurs directly to Microsoft.
I don’t need to dispute this “myth” because it’s patently absurd. Take a tip: if anyone makes such a claim you can immediately dismiss them as at best sadly misguided and at worst a fool. You really shouldn’t get so upset about such things.
You’re right, most modern software does have in-built error reporting (including both IE and Firefox). But that’s just one channel, my question remains - is it as easy to report and track bugs in IE? I’ll answer it for you: no.
9. IE Speed = You don’t dispute anything and show your lack of knowledge, IE 6 has been out since 2001. Do you have ANY clue on when Firefox was released? Embarrasing to say the least.
Yeah, I got the dates and version numbers wrong. I’ve retracted that. And I’m mortally embarrassed. Perhaps I should whip myself again?
In my world Internet Explorer never made it past version 5 and never will. And it would be unfair to put the current version of Firefox up against IE 5 wouldn’t it?
IE 7 is currently in beta and sounds like being pretty darn good but that still doesn’t help me…
10. Mozilla Speed = You don’t dispute anything again! Look at the data yourself.
No I don’t dispute that the myth exists because it looks like people have made that statement.
Here’s the way I see the figures on the Browser Speed Comparison page. For the most important action a browser does - rendering a page - all modern browsers are pretty much on a par.
And what do you know? Mark Wilton-Jones, the author of the page, thinks so too, concluding in part:
In my view too much importance is placed on browser speed when there are plenty of other factors that influence the speed at which a user receives web pages (e.g. connection speed, speed of the server, round-trip time, design of the page itself).
As I indicated under the previous myth about speed, for me browser speed is less of a consideration than other factors. Like security, for instance. And the author of the Browser Speed Comparison agrees:
[My apologies to Mark if I’ve taken anything out of context or misrepresented his views here.]
11. Market Share = The difference is the Hype. Fanboys round things up to make themselves look better.
Statistically it makes no difference whatsoever - IE is still by far the dominant product in the area.
12. Security = You don’t dispute the Myths AGAIN! And you just redirect the argument. How does IE having more security holes than Firefox make FF any more secure? It doesn’t You also included another Myth in your rant = ActiveX.
I don’t need to dispute the “myth” because as with the bugs one, it’s obviously nonsense. I also conceded that the “fanboys” do go overboard with this.
Mate, we’re agreeing on that - there’s no need to get upset.
But to answer your question, the state of Firefox’s security is not changed one jot by what happens to IE. However if Firefox has fewer security holes than IE, then it is more secure compared to IE. And as I said this is a far more important question, which you have made no attempt to address.
I personally can’t comment on ActiveX. As I clearly indicated, that’s a quote from the Firefox FAQ. When you’ve got them to change it, come back and let me know.
Thanks again for dropping by Realist. You’ve been fun.
Cheers,
tech.thingoid.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Is this a comedy club?
Nanobot! You frickin idiot. What are you up to with those warnings when I visit your page? My Browser is not outdated. I’ve seen some BS online but that takes the cake. Who are these other Jokers? Is this some sort of fanboy convention?
And tech.thingoid, it seems like your whole argument is lost since nothing you say disputes what is on the Myths page. You also admit it does not say “The Makers of Firefox Claim…” Anywhere on the site which disputes all your other arguments.
Lastly it says on that Myths Page: “All Myths relate to running Firefox in Windows. Please read carefully.” - Apparently you forgot to READ CAREFULLY and jumped to conclusions.
But what takes the cake is that you are a MAC user and are trying to dispute Windows related issues.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Welcome back Realist
Wow, nearly 24 hours without a comment! And just when I was starting to miss you…
Hey, we know each other pretty well now so I think we can drop the pretense: you are Andrew K./Mastertech, the author of the Firefox Myths web page.
Is this a comedy club?
Well I’m glad you think I’m funny. I sure as hell think you’re a joke. Keep it up, I’m having a great time.
Nanobot! You frickin idiot. What are you up to with those warnings when I visit your page? My Browser is not outdated. I’ve seen some BS online but that takes the cake. Who are these other Jokers? Is this some sort of fanboy convention?
No, this is my personal web site and if you want to continue to participate in the discussion here you will curb your language and take your complaints with Nanobot elsewhere. I know you’ve got his email address because you’ve had an ongoing email discussion with him that you weren’t prepared to share with the rest of us. What a shame, it would have been a great ol’ laugh I reckon.
And tech.thingoid, it seems like your whole argument is lost since nothing you say disputes what is on the Myths page. You also admit it does not say “The Makers of Firefox Claim…†Anywhere on the site which disputes all your other arguments.
Sigh. I’ve no need to dispel most of these “myths” since they only occurred in the confused jumble of your mind. I outlined nine “myths” that can’t be found anywhere on the web but on your site, despite your claim that they are “heard on the Internet”.
The term “myth” suggests some sort of public currency - even popularity - of a story. You can’t just make stuff up and call it a myth. (Well, I suppose you can because you did.)
Incidentally, you said earlier about David Hammond:
He seems angry that this Myths guy is not taking his opinion
I must say you seem awfully angry that I’m not taking your opinion.
I repeat: look who’s ranting now.
Lastly it says on that Myths Page: “All Myths relate to running Firefox in Windows. Please read carefully.†- Apparently you forgot to READ CAREFULLY and jumped to conclusions.
Ppppppppphttttt! Hahahahahahahaha!
Nice try.
Last update on your page: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:44:51 PM.
I can only assume that you took my earlier advice to change your page. Although I would have thought “WINDOWS USERS ONLY!!!!” inside <BLINK> tags would have suited your style a bit more.
And let’s just trundle across to Dvorak’s blog again shall we? He’s taken a copy of the top of your page, presumably on or around 15 Jan. It reads like this:
Let’s see what this older version doesn’t say:
But I notice Dvorak doesn’t include your “Legal Notice”. Hmmm, better get your lawyers onto him. No hang on - you can’t because that’s not what’s on your web site anymore!
Andrew K Realist, we can all change our web pages but some of us have enough integrity to date and record the changes. You’re welcome to highlight my earlier humiliation right now - the text and date of deletion is still visible on this page. Conveniently, your laughable change log includes no date/time stamp. Oh, and no mention of you adding that bit about “windows users only” either.
Lame.
But what takes the cake is that you are a MAC user and are trying to dispute Windows related issues.
Yes, I happen to be using a Mac right now but I have spent more than my share of time working with Windows and Linux as well.
You really demonstrate your stupidity here. What about your wonderful XP Myths page? It’s full of comments about Linux and OS X. But what takes the cake is that you are a Windows user and are trying to dispute Unix/Linux/OS X related issues.
First rate debating Realist.
Until next time,
tech.thingoid.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
This gets funnier every time I look here. Who are you guys talking too? Did you delete his posts? I don’t see this Mastertech or this Andrew K posting here. I honestly believe you all have lost you minds. This must be some sort of joke blog.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Wait I missed these (the comments all jumble together): “Realist = Mastertech = Andrew K”
January 20th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
(Odd it cut the rest of my comment off) Anyway HAHAHA!! That is hilarious! Do you guys wear tin foil hats too? Thanks for the laugh now back to Football.
January 21st, 2006 at 12:48 pm
All my last comments were deleted here? To summerize, I did not realize you thought I was this other guy as these comments all run together. I am flattered you think I wrote this page, I wish I could take credit for it but I cannot. Interesting way to debate this by making such accusations.
January 22nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
More gold from Realist
Hello again Realist. I’m so glad you’re monitoring my page more regularly again.
All my last comments were deleted here?
Ah, the impatience of youth! You must belong to the “instant gratification” generation. No, your comments have merely been waiting in the moderation queue. Unlike you, I have other things - far more important things - to do than monitor this web page several times a day.
I have not deleted any comments made on this site but if I ever do my personal policy is to record in the comments area that a comment has been made and deleted.
As all of your remarks are here intact - right down to the last capital letter and multiple exclamation mark - you are most welcome to withdraw that remark.
This gets funnier every time I look here. Who are you guys talking too? Did you delete his posts? I don’t see this Mastertech or this Andrew K posting here. I honestly believe you all have lost you minds. This must be some sort of joke blog.
No, I haven’t deleted any posts - not even any of the tripe you’re delivering. Strangely neither Andrew K nor Mastertech have left a comment here but you are the only comment-maker who keeps coming back to strongly defend Andrew K’s site. And yet I can’t find any comments from anyone called Realist on other pages to which I’ve made links. Don’t you disagree with the others, or do you just particularly like me?
Wait I missed these (the comments all jumble together): “Realist = Mastertech = Andrew K”
Whoa, hold on there! You missed this? “Apparently you forgot to READ CAREFULLY and jumped to conclusions.” - your words, not mine - but they do seem to describe your style so much better, don’t they?
(Odd it cut the rest of my comment off)
I think you might be having trouble with your keyboard. I told you earlier to wipe the drool away - now it’s slopped in under your enter key.
Anyway HAHAHA!! That is hilarious! Do you guys wear tin foil hats too? Thanks for the laugh now back to Football.
There’s only one of me here. Any comments that aren’t yours or mine were made by people who visited once then went away. Presumably they don’t have a barrow to push, but you seem to. How’s the advertising revenue going over at “Firefox Myths” by the way?
Your repeated suggestion that there is some group of “you guys” makes it sound like you’re battling a conspiracy. Yeah, the truth is out there…
To summerize, I did not realize you thought I was this other guy as these comments all run together. I am flattered you think I wrote this page, I wish I could take credit for it but I cannot. Interesting way to debate this by making such accusations.
Don’t talk to me about “debate”. You’ve made seven postings here and your only half-hearted attempt at real debate was in your first comment. Since then, apart from plenty of abuse, all you’ve effectively said is “I’m right and you’re wrong”.
OK, let’s look at this “accusation” then:
By way of circumstantial support I offer some remarkable coincidences in your usage of English. I’m no linguist, but there are certain distinctive phrases and usage that are common to responses that appear to have been made by Andrew K/Mastertech:
On its own this list could be mere coincidence, but given the fact that Andrew K/Mastertech uses a long list of handles on different forums it is reasonable to accept that this is not coincidence.
No, it is not mere “accusation” - it is solid fact: Realist you are Andrew K/Mastertech. If you can’t at least be honest enough about that then we really can’t continue this discussion.
TTFN,
tech.thingoid.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:33 am
I found your blog from Digg and keep coming back so I see if anyone responded to MY comments. I would love to pretend to be someone for you but I have better things to do then join in with some which hunt. For fun I stuck a metal pot on my head but when looking in the mirror it was still me = Jim …. no I don’t think it would be a good idea to give you my last name ;).
January 24th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Andrew K. is a liar
Hello Jim.
And Realist and Andrew K. and MasterTech and David Dobsen and FFeLEET and GeneralAres and Joe Somebody and Mike G. and NewsHound and Thor and Vincent. (Which one are you going to be today?)
Oh yeah, there’s a “witch hunt” alright: and you’re the one getting burnt. I suppose you’re going to bleat about being the victim of a “fanboy conspiracy” now? Please don’t - that would be too pathetic for someone who behaves like you do.
Every single posting on this page made by “Realist” comes from one of the two IP addresses shown here to be used by Andrew K, Mastertech, Mike G., Thor, Joe Somebody (I liked that one in particular - very credible, not) and various other handles - all of whom take exactly the same position as you.
I hesitate to label anyone, but Realist - you are a inveterate liar. You have absolutely no qualms about coming here - or anywhere else on the web - and lying over and over again.
Just for laughs, let’s go through it all again:
On 19 January you only pretended to be someone else:
On 20 January I effectively stated that I thought you were Andrew K. In one of your several replies on the same day you tried - rather unconvincingly - to laugh it off.
Then, with no further prompting from me, on 21 January you outright lied.
On 23 January I provided you with four reasons why it was so easy to conclude that you are Andrew K. And on the very next day you came back and lied again.
However, in the interim I’d visited one of Nanobot’s forums and found a match for your IP numbers. This totally confirms that you are Andrew K., Mastertech and a host of other identities.
I had no intention of making your IP numbers public but now that someone else has put them out there I have no problem at all in pointing others to where they can find them. But of course, I can’t believe Nanobot can I? According to you he’s a “frickin idiot”. You really are a charmer.
By the way, I’m not at all surprised that you didn’t retract that snipe about deleting your comments. You obviously want to create an image in the web community that you are being “victimised” and “censored” by a conspiracy of “fanboys”. Claiming that your comments get deleted is just part of that image. Despite the fact that your language has often been abusive, every single one of your comments to date have been posted in full without any editing by me.
For the record, I’ll say it again: no comments have ever been deleted from this blog. When I have the need to delete comments, I will post a note to say so.
Andrew K., you are a barefaced liar. This behaviour totally undermines your credibility on all things, not least the content of your “Firefox Myths” page. But I’m convinced that you don’t care because you are simply a troll; but the very worst kind of troll - one who tries to profit from the clamour that surrounds pointless debate. Your tactics are simply aimed to drive as much traffic as possible to your page which is “obscenely overloaded with ads” (as Dennis Forbes said here on 19 January).
I said in my last comment that if you can’t be honest about your identity, then we can’t continue this discussion. Therefore any further comments you make here will be deleted - unless you say something particularly entertaining, in which case I may post it so that others who know you can enjoy yet another laugh at your expense.
Realist, until your last few comments (which I must say were especially dull) you’ve been mildly amusing.
Good-bye,
tech.thingoid.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
OK, this is getting a little ridiculous.
The whole point is that Firefox is not as great as its fans made it out to be.
The debate is not about who’s the best name-caller on the web.
I read both websites and I have to say that I agree with Andrew K. more.
After all, there’s not really an “IE advocacy” group, like the rabid Firefox people who are trying to “convert” people… Come on! It’s just a browser!
PS: I’m Andrew K. posing as someone else, if you are so paranoid about it…
January 26th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
You know tech.thingoid, I’ve been to Mastertech/Sybil’s site a couple of times to read the back and forth between him and David Hammond, and I’ve never seen any ads… of course, I use Firefox, so that may explain why. ;)
January 26th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Hi Seneschal,
Thanks for dropping by.
OK, this is getting a little ridiculous.
I’ll say!
The whole point is that Firefox is not as great as its fans made it out to be.
Now I reckon that’s a statement I can agree with. There are definitely people in the Firefox cheersquad who talk it up way too much. In fact, I pointed to an example way back up there in the original entry.
The debate is not about who’s the best name-caller on the web.
You’re dead right and I’m not at all happy that the discussion went off track here.
Looking back over the comments, I think it was Realist who derailed the debate here when he tried to ridicule my choice of computer and complained about David Hammond’s site. Neither are really relevant to the key issues. I think distracting people from debating the content of his site is one of Andrew K’s tactics. But that’s just my view.
I read both websites and I have to say that I agree with Andrew K. more.
OK, that’s your opinion and it’s fine by me. I’m not out to push Firefox on anyone.
After all, there’s not really an “IE advocacy” group, like the rabid Firefox people who are trying to “convert” people… Come on! It’s just a browser!
Yep, it’s just a browser. There is an advocacy group but I’m not part of it or any other Firefox cheersquad. As I said at the top of the original entry, I’m not really into evangelism or hype. I think the strongest thing I’ve written about the topic is:
Hmm, that was supposed to be lighthearted but now that I read that again it sounds a little more forceful than I intended! Anyway, that was in a published article that suggested another nineteen programs that people might want to try. And that’s my line: just try it - if you don’t like it and prefer another browser, that’s great. As you say, it’s just a browser.
And I’m sure plenty of Mac users think I’ve got rocks in my head for not using Safari.
PS: I’m Andrew K. posing as someone else, if you are so paranoid about it…
Ha ha! Nice one. But you didn’t call me a “fanboy”!
Nooo, I’m not paranoid about it, just a bit irritated. Look at it from my perspective - Andrew K. came to my site and deliberately misrepresented himself in order to push his agenda (whatever that may be). Wouldn’t you be a little annoyed about that too?
Anyway, I welcome a return to the real topic at hand, so thanks again for your comments.
Cheers,
tech.thingoid.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Hi Phil,
You’ve never seen any ads? I’ve seen:
If we count the Diskeeper ads as one, that makes five advertising areas on the page.
I don’t think that’s at all relevant to the debate about the content on his page, but I do think it throws some light on Andrew K’s methods of promoting the page in various places across the web.
Cheers,
tech.thingoid.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
I’d just like to point out something.
The reason IE6 loads faster than Firefox, is because it has been heavily integrated into the windows operating system, which is a cause for many of the security flaws. If someone could find a way to run IE stand alone, and time it, Firefox would win out as it is actually smaller when you count the system files that IE references.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Late reply, but ha, give a damn.
Yes, btw, and he addressed that point, (the, faster because it’s intergrated one).
That still leaves firefox slower than mozilla and significantly slower than opera, aparently, which aren’t any more part of the OS than Firefox is. :)
August 31st, 2006 at 9:22 am
[…] You should this site and compare this with Firefox Myths website. You should choose the est and I am now ‘officially’ Opera 9, IE7 and Firefox 1.5 […]
December 28th, 2006 at 10:34 am
From a mathematic point of view, this webpage proves nothing about “Firefox Myths.”
I use Firefox and I love it, but I feel the need to point out that all of your arguments defending Firefox are insufficient by inductive reasoning standards.
Of course, I admit no one really cares (or should care) about that.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Oh, and I forgot to mention that many of the arguments on this page can easily be refuted with a single sentence found on Andrew K’s site:
“This page does not claim the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation is the originator of any of these Myths.”
This is found at the top of the page, where it says “disclaimer.” The claims to the myths are cited by an “example” link found at each myth.
In my opinion, Andrew K. made very good arguments in his article, unlike the authors of this article. Nevertheless, I think Andrew K. tried to push Opera too much; I’ve tried Opera, and it does seem much faster and more efficient than Firefox. Unfortunately, Opera’s “widgets” do not come close to comparing to Firefox extensions, so I would rate Firefox higher than I would Opera.
If only each browser could learn from the others… I mean, more than they do now…
December 31st, 2006 at 12:06 am
John said:
I should point out that this entry dates from 18 January 2006 (that is, nearly a year ago as I write this comment), with a few updates as indicated in the text itself. To the best of my recollection, Andrew K’s page did not include “example” links at the time and as I’ve previously mentioned, the text of the disclaimer certainly wasn’t the same back in January (e.g. see Dvorak’s blog).
There’s no way of knowing when these items were added because his “Change Log” is laughably inadequate. However I’d say that the phrase about “Mozilla Foundation/Corporation” went in some time after 20 January 2006 because on that day Andrew K (writing as “Realist”) specifically quoted the text of the disclaimer ( - incidentally, text which has also subsequently changed) but although he berated me about the Mozilla Foundation (i.e. ), he did not quote the section of disclaimer that John did two days ago. I can only assume he didn’t quote this because it simply didn’t exist when I wrote this entry on 18 January.
Further to the question of “example” links, simply trawling through Google to find suitable quotes does not make a statement any more mythical (or factual for that matter). Look long enough and you can find someone, somewhere that has made some asinine, unsupportable remark—but that doesn’t automatically suggest that their belief is common or widespread, as a myth must surely be.
Finally, I have to defer to John’s greater knowledge of inductive logic. I’ve no doubt he’s correct: from a strictly logical point of view, Andrew K’s arguments may be sound but I don’t think he starting premises are. For instance, when I made this entry in January using Google fully nine of his statements could only be found on his web page and nowhere else, which suggests that they were not common myths at all. I also question the importance of some of the myths he drags up or makes up—I mean, who really cares what browser was the first with tabbed browsing or pop-up blocking?
But then I didn’t ever think I was defending Firefox or questioning Andrew K’s logic, but I was questioning the validity of his “myths” and (as the discussion proceeded) his methods of self-promotion, which are highly misleading to say the least. And on that point I’m pleased to note that he has stopped quoting me out of context on his page, although he continues to misquote and misrepresent the views of his other critics.
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Hey “thingoid”, I just want to let you know that Andrew K/Mastertech also posted a link to his website back then on the Ars Technica forum that I frequent, and the debate that ensued was a hilarious one; if you want to see this thread here: http ://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/558005957731, while my nick there is “shirker”.
You see, the main problem was that he failed to answer all the “hard” questions asked, for instance why is he spamming on Ars and on the various other sites (i.e. reposting his crappy website numerous times to Digg) etc., and on the other hand he also failed to provide any links to the supposed origins of these so-called myths. Not to mention that he also failed to explain why is he misquoting people and so on.
Regards, Ivan Tadej, Slovenia
http://tadej-ivan.50webs.com/
May 7th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Myth #99: (logo)
Everybody knows that a shiny (32-bit colour with alpha channel!!!) letter ‘e’ can kick some pantsy fox’s a**.
Therefore I concur that you are just a bunch of effeminate FANBOYS !!!
May 7th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Hey Realist, theese fanboys don’t understand that you can install XP with IE7 on a 386 machine in a perfectly reasonable 17 days period.
45 minute of boot time is “not conveneant” ??
Sounds like a true open source fanboy propaganda to me.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
It’s interesting to see that “MasterAndrew” (i.e. another composite alias of Andrew K, MasterTech - the guy who wrote that original crappy Firefox Myths article), has come here to once again spam his garbage and spread lies and fallacy.
As they say, the biggest problem with a stupid person is that they actually don’t know that they’re stupid. It’s incredibly sad that the openness of the Internet has led to the proliferation of people like Andrew K, someone who clearly writes bogus articles just to pad his own ego and wallet, rather than to genuinely educate people.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Just wanted to say that the post above or this one is not actually from Andrew K or one of his many alter egos “Realist”… I just wanted to see what it was like to change aliases every five seconds like the real Andrew K does :)
Sad, sad, man and his sad, sad, escapades. I’d like to see him make a comeback with something like “Linux Myths”, or “Mac Myths”. I wonder if he takes requests? Guys, everyone chip in $5 and see if we can get him to write about myths like:
Myth: Ubuntu has been prophesized to rule the world.
Fact: No such prophecy exists.
or
Myth: Your mother said you are the handsomest boy in the world.
Fact: Statistically speaking, you are quite unlikely to be the handsomest boy in the world (sources).
July 24th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Firefox is seriously overrated, gets a huge amount of North American hype cause it’s “home grown”.
It’s not a bad browser, but don’t believe the hype. It has suffered a slew of exploits and isn’t demonstrating any abatement.
A power user can drive Opera seamlessly and that is a faster and more secure browser. If you’ve got to have some specific add-on for FF then go for it. Spare me the hype though.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 am
It seems that “MasterAndrew†is a parody of MasterTech/Andrew K.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:06 am
Andrew K has blown his cover.
Full name: Andrew Khan.
(He typed his full name by mistake in a comment here.)
December 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Realist = MasterAndrew = Andrew Khan and whoever else he is.
A stupid anti-Firefox guy who can’t prove his own points.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Yay! Another Hate-Hate page. Andrew K hates Fanboys. Then a fanboy creates a Hate-Andrew k page.
I have to get to the point… Whatever Firefox Myths and these respectable Firefox users have to say, they have to say it without flaming.
Sure your Firefox isn’t the worst browser, it isn’t the best either, and isn’t certainly the best …or only… alternative to IE. If your IE has problems, fix it. Switching to other browsers isn’t a solution. It’s only just a workaround. The problem is still there.
If you love Firefox, you cannot hate IE. FFX and IE are collaborating on several occasions like giving Firefox users the ability to patch windows, Use WGA (Okay… This isn’t really a good contribution from Microsoft), and in return, FFX gave Microsoft rights to use the same orange RSS icon to be used in IE7.
Why the hell are you ruining IE in favor of FFX? Is that even right? Andrew K is doing the reverse, and you feel mad about it huh!?
These are competing companies! You should care less about what they’re doing to destroy each other. You shouldn’t take sides either.
And about this fanboys… GET A LIFE!!! or better yet DROP DEAD!!! Whatever Andrew K’s pissed about, it is with good reason. Whatever those fanboys feed their exaggerations to firefox and defamation to IE, they must be stopped. A lot of Internet cafes here have firefox installed believing that their units will be safe from viruses.
Anyone who is guilty of spreading firefox lies must commit harakiri. Don’t care who…
May 15th, 2008 at 5:09 am
TRiAD = Andrew Khan ?