B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to Matt
Re: Patches Galore!
Yet amazingly it's not "integrated" with the OS and so it isn't directly affected by 87% of Windows patch requirements.
In any case, I continue to recommend the Mozilla suite over the standalone Fireweasel.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by B  :
Yet amazingly it's not "integrated" with the OS and so it isn't directly affected by 87% of Windows patch requirements.
In any case, I continue to recommend the Mozilla suite over the standalone Fireweasel.
-- B
If you're not applying 87% of Windows patches, you have a much larger problem than what browser you're running. 
--
TripOnThis.net Administrator
"Security by obscurity is no security at all. Don't believe the hype." (c) MntlCase |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| I disagree. I almost NEVER apply Windows patches. I really don't see a need to, unless there's a specific bug to address or unless the machine (server) is directly exposed to the Internet.
I could say, if you're running a generic Windows workstation without personal firewall software and without protection from an external NAT router or firewall, you have a much larger problem than what patches you've applied.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA | reply to B
Firefox and Thunderbird!
What would I want the overhead of the entire suite for when I can have two separate and lighter apps to do the same thing? |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
|
Because the total is about the same anyway, and because the full suite is a more mature and stable product that doesn't require excessive extensions?
(Talking out of butt -- don't know resource footprint numbers.)
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Seven1
join:2002-07-24
Lexington, KY | reply to Matt
IE zealots.. what a joke.  |
|
