David Tenser wrote: > Yes, it's obvious that Mozilla's aim is to make a near-perfect, secure > webpage renderer. Gecko is the heart of it all.
First of all David, Please stop feeding the troll. You probably just subscribed to these newsgroups/lists, but I've been here long enough to tell you that *JTK* is one annoying ... Apparently, he has never heard about constructive criticism. He continues to stick around these newgroups and criticize mozilla. We *know* that mozilla has problems. Nobody is trying to hide that. JTK has been here for god knows how long with his pointless whining repeating the same things over and over again. And now apparently *David*, you're turning into his buddy. I hope you don't end up like him, posting worthless crap in reply to every discussion that takes place. > > The problem is, too few real people are actually using Mozilla, so no > one knows just how many security holes there is in it (and I bet it's > *hundreds*, based on the the number of bugs reported every day). You > simply can't say that Mozilla is a good replacement for IE when it comes > to security. We simply don't know that yet. > > And Mozilla _is_ far behind when it comes to speed and features. > Unfortunately, I cannot blame only them for the speed issues, since one > reason why it's slow is that it is not part of the Windows API. IE will > always be faster than its competitors. But Mozilla could at least have > better (and more) features than IE has. But it hasn't! > > Right, Mozilla is the most standards compliant browser available to > date. But what about usability? Will mozilla ever be as user friendly > and customizable as IE? > > Mozilla should add every little feature they can find in IE/OE, and make > sure they do it all better! If Outlook Express has more advanced > filtering options than project Mozilla, something is wrong. > > The opinions that you put forth already have been pointed out many times before
