Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
It seems that the mozilla-derived browsers have security issues
requiring updates far more frequently than other browsers like Konqueror
or links2.
I'm curious as to why this is. Does anyone have any ideas?
I'm on dialup and switched to Konq for this very reason but sometimes I
have a website that doesn't work and its handy to see if iceweasel will
view it. (so far the only one is the adobe flashplayer test page).
Doug.
As you can see from the other answers, nobody has a clue if the
mozilla-based browsers are less secure than the konq or not. I haven't
inspected the code either, so I don't have any more facts than anyone
else. I do NOT agree with the other answers however.
If there are fewer security alerts with Konq the only reasonable
conclusion, if you don't have strong facts pointing the other way, is
that Konq is more secure, and that this is partly because of better
code. The larger userbase of Firefox is very likely to generate a larger
number of discovered security issues, but as far as I know, no one can
tell you how many more bugs are generated per user or per extra
programmer, and probably no one can tell you the how user base and
security issue rate correlate more precisely. From this, the most
reasonable conclusion is that Konq is more secure.
Anyhow, the basic fact that there is fewer security alerts in Konq makes
this a more secure browser, whether this maybe is because only of a
smaller user base or not.
/erik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]