Printable View
I'm writing up an article for class comparing Internet Explorer and Firefox, and this is probably one of the best places to get some people to critique it. The document is kindof in a rough-draft stage so there might be a ton of errors, there might not be.
If anyone has a few minutes I would love some feedback on this paper.
Thanks all.
http://thejefffiles.com/docs/critcomp.doc
I don't have time (right now) to give a full critique and point out the things I thought were wrong, but you really need to run that through some kind of grammer-check or something.
Hmm, yah, re-reading what I wrote now there's definitely a few stupid grammar mistakes, thanks for pointing that out.
*goes to fix 'em*
Wikipedia says, "No reputable printed dictionary includes [viri/virii] as correct forms." I tend to agree that the correct plural form of virus is viruses. (Just wondering, would you actually say "virii" in a conversation?)
I'm thinking it should say "onto." Same thing for "into" in your first sentence of the conclusion.Quote:
There is also a bar along the top of the browser which you can drag and drop bookmarks on to for easy access.
The end of that sentence sounds kind of funny..I don't know how to explain it. Maybe you should say something like, "so it is still useful to switch over to Internet Explorer in some cases."Quote:
As stated above however, using Firefox as your only means of browsing the internet can lead to troubles, so it is still best to switch over to Internet Explorer if absolutely necessary.
You're also kind of vague about "compatibility issues" Maybe add some examples?
I was looking at that virii thing after I wrote it, actually, as I wasn't sure if it was a real word or not. I just did a define:virii on google and it gave me a result, but I suppose that's not always too accurate, heh. -edit- Looking back at the result, it's right from wikipedia so I guess I just ignored the last line of that result. :rolleyes:
>> I'm thinking it should say "onto." Same thing for "into" in your first sentence of the conclusion.
Gah! I always make that stupid mistake. :mad:
>> The end of that sentence sounds kind of funny..I don't know how to explain it. Maybe you should say something like, "so it is still useful to switch over to Internet Explorer in some cases."
Fixed.
>> You're also kind of vague about "compatibility issues" Maybe add some examples?
Added how TGA transparency isn't really native to IE, it needs a bunch of extra code compared to Firefox, which supports it natively.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think you need to be careful claiming something like this as a fact:
1) Sure, I'll fix the bug myself, but does that help the other million users?Quote:
As much as Firefox’s popularity statistically has shown that it will become a larger target for hackers, its popularity is also what keeps it secure, ironically enough. Firefox is built upon what is called open-source software, meaning that anyone can contribute to Firefox at any time (with limitations in place to avoid abuse of the code). Because of this foundation, bugs are fixed very shortly after their announcement. Internet Explorer has a problem in this area because any bugs reported must be thoroughly tested by the Internet Explorer developers before they can be fixed, while if someone finds a bug in Firefox they can fix it themselves.
2) I think the IE team have a lot more to consider before fixing a bug. If theres a bug in Notepad, it's probably an easy fix. If theres a bug in Visual Studio, theres a lot more involved, even if its still the same sort of bug. Microsoft have to go through so much overhead in fixing the simplest bug.
I'm not saying the IE team is better than Firefox, or making an excuse for them. I just think that paragraph comes accross as "Firefox is secure because it's open source." I realise you didn't say it directly, but you should be more careful about how you've worded it.
By the same token, I could claim that I could patch a bug in some (closed source) software I wrote at home, before the Gnome team would patch it, and there for closed-source software is more secure.
Edit: Also, none of that shows how bad the unpatched bugs actually are (I'll forgive you for that though, since it's probably very hard to get that information). For example, the unpatched Firefox bug could let any script kiddie compromise your computer and get all your credit card details, while the IE bugs render a <hr /> ignoring the CSS "padding" property. Also, you'd need to get reasons from both groups as to why the bug isn't fixed.
Edit 2: Before someone tells me I'm in bed with Microsoft, this is coming from a FireFox user who's done a tonne of GPL/LGPL projects.
>1) Sure, I'll fix the bug myself, but does that help the other million users?
The idea is that you make your patch available to the other million users. Whearas MS won't get a patch out until the next official update which could take months, even if it only takes a day to fix the bug.
>2) <...> Microsoft have to go through so much overhead in fixing the simplest bug.
I think that's the point he's trying to make.
And it's a valid point. I could likewise claim that due to being red, most Holden cars reguarly beat the blue Ford cars in the V8 supercars races. Holden do usually beat Ford, but it's got nothing to do with being red.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspective
I didn't say his point wasn't valid. Yes, the Firefox community have a capacity to fix things faster than Microsoft. I just said perhaps he should consider rewording it so it doesn't read "Firefox is more secure because it is Open Source".
The closed source Microsoft Notepad has a lot less security flaws than the open source Firefox, so is it fair for me to claim closed source software is more secure than open source?