Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>> The majority of us (those who use FF for this reason)
>>> *DO NOT WANT* any Microsoft internet-related code running in FF, it's that 
>>> simple.
> 
>> That will be a bit tricky seeing as you have FF running on an OS written by 
>> MS, if you really do not want any MS code running then use a different OS 
>> for web browsing, it's the only way to be sure.
> 
>   So basically you are saying: 

No. Basically he's saying FF is still using Windows graphics routines to 
draw, Windows font handlers to load fonts, Windows TCP stack to do TCP, 
Windows DNS clients to look up hosts, Windows image processing code to 
display images, and quite possibly (I haven't looked) Windows cryptographic 
services to deal with certificates.

If you "do not want *any* Microsoft internet-related code running in FF," 
then you're going to have an awful time connecting out the ethernet port 
that Windows is managing to share with all you other applications, as I'm 
pretty sure FF doesn't come with its own TCP stack and ethernet drivers. If 
MS's track record is so awful with shatter attacks, network hooking and 
redirecting, keystroke sniffing, etc, and your security needs are such that 
you can't afford to have a disabled extension in your firefox directories, 
you probably *shouldn't* be running Windows. Which is not to say running FF 
is a bad idea or less secure. It just means you can't run FF under windows 
without running any MS internet related code, which is *exactly* the bit 
Scott quoted.

But hey, a good hyperbole goes miles towards keeping a flame fest alive, so 
who am I to interfere?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message