Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Permalink for comment 354157
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Not true. There's a lot of difference if operating systems provide some kind of protective measure or not.
In facts, Miller didn't say Safari is weaker than IE. If you took time to read the article, he said that EVERY BROWSER has holes and bugs.
However, while Windows (to name one) has developed some kind of protective measures to mitigate bugs and security flaws, OS X didn't. And of course that matters. He also joked about the fact that if you want fast cash, you can just concentrate on Safari on OS X.
If I was a OS X user, I would take his words in a serious way, demanding Apple to introduce all those protections other OSes enjoy. He has a good example: Firefox on Windows is very hard to break while the same software on OS X was very easy to break.
For the records, he also stated that he considers Chrome architecture a very good starting point. The fact that Safari (which he considers the weakest) and Chrome (which he considers the strongest) share the same rendering engine is a good proof of what many people say: being open-source doesn't automagically mean secure.
Kudos to Google guys, whose first browser is already a very strong implementation (and you guys know that I'm a IE user...)