Linux Format forums

[linix]

Hiya,

I had resisted reading this article but i am starting to run out of things to read on this site (thats not to say i understand it all though).

So i read what this fellow has to say, now i am biased from my hard facts of use of my computers over the past two years. I had several re-installs when i used to use IE from various infections including a dial-up thing which cost over £70 on the phone bill, trojan,slammer, you name it ! I have set up a lan with 3 comps on it 2 using win98 with IE 5.5 only for updates and firefox 1.0.7, i have downgraded from IE6 on both of them because i don't ever use on-board e-mail any more and when you upgrade with sp pack 1 it installs OE and generally smothers the comp. BTW he is quite wrong with his info on how much power the cpu has to have to run IE6, one comp is a cyrix 200mhz from 1997 the other is p11 350mhz and a further one a HP/Vectra from 1995 P(r)-166mhz all run it !

Anyway he has succeded in causing me to worry and i will be installing opera on at least my moms/family P11, my and by far the best comp, that i have built since christmas is linux/suse only.

He does damage his own authoritive self though, with the info at the end of the article,

"myth, Firefox is compatible with every web site"
reality 15% are not,

Then directly underneath it say's

Scivisum found 1 in 10....

The maths do not work !

Furthermore, and finally to the post header. I understandably wanted to read the replies and clicked on "opining" and the icey feel down my back from the past with IE came flooding back, Pop-up blocker is engaged and (horrfyingly)? a window comes up offering to "block all Spam".

Invasive (Commercialisim)? Yes it is, and while i am no mushroom (keep me in the dark and fill me with s...), I would ask you remove this link to what is obviously a commercial operation of the lowest order.

If you have got to here, thank you for reading and please understand i had to write this as part of dealing with the ruffing-up that article gave me.

Nick

[TheDoctor]

Didn't you read the rebuttal? Takes the original 'article' (more a list of unsourced straw men with inaccurate replies) to the cleaners (and back)!

Though I'm not sure why the oriinal article was ever put on the front page.

[M-Saunders]