Firefox Fans Patch Faithfully

Security vendor Secunia ApS is reporting that users of Mozilla Firefox are more likely to have installed the latest security updates than Web surfers running Internet Explorer or Opera. This can be explained with the fact users have to choose to use Firefox, possibly because they find the browser more secure, and the built-in updater within the open-source browser. Secunia's analysis is based on more than 350,000 software checks, performed over the past five months by its free Secunia Software Inspector service.

According to Secunia, 5.19% of all Firefox 2 users had missed security updates. For IE6, which is used by nearly half of all Web surfers, that number was 9.61%. Microsoft's latest IE7 browser had a number much closer to Firefox's results: 5.40%. Opera was the least likely to be patched: 11.96% of all Opera 9.x browsers were missing updates. Secunia also found that 28% of all programs on PCs it scanned were not fully updated, meaning browsers are much more likely to be patched than other types of software.

News source: PC World

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google Book Search becomes more comprehensive

Next Story

MS denies Rumor: undecided on last 32-bit Windows Client

28 Comments

View more comments

WICKO said,
I think that dropdown button at the far right for choosing among multiple tabs is kind of useless, as you can see all the tabs along the top anyway.

Except when you open more than 8 tabs.

Joel said,

Except when you open more than 8 tabs.

Depends on what kind of monitor you have as mine can hold up to 16 tabs at once before it goes into sort of a scroll mode in which I can no longer see all of them. Of course, you may be referring to actually seeing the words, but I think the favicon and 8 characters show enough detail for me when 16 tabs are open. Though, I don't usually open that many tabs unless I'm hunting scripts/images or other files anyway.

I didn't like 2.0 at first, but once you get used to the changes.. man.. I'll just say one thing: spellcheck. God does it feel good to not have to click on dictionary.com half the time.

I think the entire article comes down to:

"Users have to choose to use" and "the built-in updater".

I hardly find it surprising.

i believe that the fact that the built in updater automagically downloads the update and tells you "hey! there's an update for you!" is the sole reason why firefox users keep updated. they don't have to do anything besides click "restart firefox". to make matters worse: they won't even lose their current session! so it's a perfect system for convincing users that they can should :P "here: i've done the entire thing for you. i'm gonna install it and get you back to the same spot you were, mmmmkay?"

and that's it

Yep. :)

I'd say the ONLY thing I'd like from them is the option to restart when you click to uninstall an extension, but that's a different thing.

I also think thats its because its free and it has the checker built in plus theres no wga or anything like that to get in the way.

I want to know the sample size, the t-value and the p-value of the results. Percentages these days are too misleading.

Same here. Although, the fist thing I do is look for that option so I can disable it. Hate ANYTHING that wants to auto update.

Are these figures not relative to overal market share? If thats the case, then they are just another bout of pointless stats.

bah! I love using firefox because it's faster and that's it.

I still use IE as my main browser.

I need to use both for web design.
Firefox respresent all other browser except IE regarding on how the browser react on tags and stuff.
Firefox doesn't respond right on most of the the new web syntax so I had to clean and clean and clean.

For me Firefox is old school even thought it came after IE.

:)

PieAnn said,
I need to use both for web design.
Firefox respresent all other browser except IE regarding on how the browser react on tags and stuff.
Firefox doesn't respond right on most of the the new web syntax so I had to clean and clean and clean.

For me Firefox is old school even thought it came after IE.


Are you kidding? Internet Explorer doesn't even understand "new web syntax."

For example, in XHTML, you should be able to go <script src="path/to/script.js" /> as the close tag is combined with the open tag. Firefox, et al all support this. IE on the other hand bails.

But then, the "new web syntax" has been the same since 1999. A new version of HTML hasn't been out since then, except for XHTML which is based on 4.01 anyway. HTML 5 and XHTML 2 are in draft form. Anything that is "new" in IE is proprietary and shouldn't be used in the first place unless you are willing to work around things.

<script src="path/to/script.js" /> firefox supports this?
umm perhaps you should try that again. IE does not support this and so is firefox.

<img /> <link /> blah. etc.
it works on both but not <script />

:) fair enough.

edit: for danj205, forgot to quote

PieAnn said,
<script src="path/to/script.js" /> firefox supports this?
umm perhaps you should try that again. IE does not support this and so is firefox.

<img /> <link /> blah. etc.
it works on both but not <script />

:) fair enough.

edit: for danj205, forgot to quote :)


Yes it does. I've done it before, but then had to change it back to <script></script> because IE6 didn't support it. I have just tested this (IE7 does support it). This is XHTML 1.0, so you have to use that DTD. That's probably why it isn't working, and you should be declaring your DTDs correctly anyway if you are a web developer and that's probably why your pages aren't working correctly!

As per the XML specification, everything has to have a close tag. So, <img></img> is just as valid as <img />.

Commenting is disabled on this article.