Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   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?

  Spoken language is not always unambiguous. The expression "you are saying"
can have two meanings with a subtle difference:

  1) The literal meaning: "This is exactly what you are saying".

  2) The figurative meaning: "You are writing this, but you seem to be
implying this."
  Or more shortly: "So basically you are implying:"

  I understand perfectly the *literal* meaning of what he wrote, even
without your useless lengthy explanation. However, that literal meaning
seemed to imply what I said, ie. "since you can't avoid using MS software
if you are running your web broser in Windows, then it doesn't really
matter what software you use, and trying to make your system more secure
is useless".

  Or if we put it in other words: He seemed to be implying that if the
attitude is that MS software is insecure, running Firefox on Windows to
get more security (for the reason that MS software is insecure) is useless
because it will be running on top of MS software. The second implication
from this is that running FF is useless and you could just as well use IE.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message