Is Mastertech actually allowed to poost his own news on the front page?? Is Rosco going to have to delete all of his bookmarks to Warp2Search and find another computer news source? Andrew, you had your website on the front page of Warp2 last week, and all you are going to do now is start inflaming this news site.

just dont visit the site, he gets money for people going there. i have to agree, this troll shouldnt be allowed to post about updates to his site on this site. its not like every update of the msn page gets a mention. and beside the fact that 100% of his facts are incorrect (stats taken from a sample of "myths".) see anyone can make up bs... though that probably isnt bs the last time i read the site there wasnt anything actually correct for example "ie can handle xhtml better than firefox"

The only Myth here is his website.

Advisories do not equal Vulnerabilities. Check again! Some "Advisories" have multiple Vulnerabilities, some up to 9 per advisory = 72 vulnerabilities. Ut oh Firefox doesn't look so "secure" anymore. As for: "ie can handle xhtml better than firefox" That was never said rather that IE supported more changes to the XHTML 1.1 standard than Firefox. Which it did before the data was updated, once it was that was removed as you can clearly see. But what you said was never claimed. I have been "attempted to be ridiculed" by Firefox fanboys. None have succeeded. As for those blogs: Both of those are outdated, lame attempts at refuting the Firefox Myths page. Both have been completely distroyed by the facts. I did this many, many times. Do not fear the truth!

I know the page can be pretty shocking when this information has been hidden from you but at least now you now. I recommend deep breaths.

I don't care about whether his myths are true or not, im sick of his site being posted on the front page every time there's a .0.0.1 update to it, come on do we need to see this news item multiple times a week? Admins shouldn't be allowed to spam their site on w2s frontpage, let them keep it to the forums unless there's some major update.

TSThomas, I realize this is very hard for you you to comprehend and you may have difficulty with Math but let me try to explain it to you again: ADVISORIES DOES NOT EQUAL VULNERABILITIES. There are 72 VULNERABILITIES covered in the 27 ADVISORIES. Some advisories have multiple vulnerabilities, anywhere from 2-9. Yes Firefox does have 72 known VULNERABILITIES. And no Secunia is not lying, that is where I got the number from. Persian, I see you could not resist a chance to bash my site. So typical of you. Yet again, I never post about your site.

Persian, You jealously of my site never ceases to amaze me. You have now jumped on the Firefox Fanboys bandwagon. Bravo. Maybe you can start writing some lies about me as well. I would never put anything unprofessional past you. As for you ever being "nice" that is a crock of sh@#!. You have took every opportunity to bash my site.

Persian, Your obvious jealously comes out everytime you take cheap shots at my site. People can check for themselves everytime you have negatively commented on my site with ZERO comments made by me about yours. You go out of your way and then personally attack me each time. Pathetic. You deny being a Fanboy but side with them anytime it suits you needs. In this case to bash my site for your gain. Your intentions are clear. My goal is to educate. Don't sit here and tell me what MY goals are or attempt to create more propaganda about me. Every single Myth on the page I have heard more than once. NONE were "created" by me. The reason this page has been updated so frequently is due to the enormous amount of Myths the fanboys keep creating. If they would stop making things up, I would have nothing to write about here. But they don't get it. BTW I have a whole list of stuff I am still researching and many more updates will follow. I haven't misled anyone. Firfox is a decent browser but it is far from perfect as the Myth Spreaders would like you to believe and I have debunked. I've also never claimed Firefox is a completely flawed product. I said it was a decent web browser. As for your other FALSE allegations about me, keep them to yourselves or saddle up with your Fanboy friends and spew more lies. You are off to a good start. I lost my patience with you a long time ago. Anyone who can't comprehend Windows XP Prefetching and is completely ignorant about doing accurate research on how it works, has no business giving advice to anyone.

Yes most Linux users are Fifefox Fanboys, unfortunately. Your usage of Windows doesn't usually mean much.

So you are calling Mark Russinovich and Ed Bott liars? You are calling the Microsoft Devs who coded Prefetching liars as well? Or do you just pat yourself on the back in your own blissful ignorance? Do some research as you have already embarrassed yourself with your previous prefetching comments.

That Article is incorrect. Try speaking with Mark Russinovich. We already went through this. Every reputable source disproves that once inaccurate article you keep referencing. Stop embarrassing yourself like this.

I work for myself. Get over it.

No kidding, some blog post is newer than a source I reference. Get a clue, master of the obvious.

Reality - Firefox is anything but Secure with multiple unpatched vulnerabilities allowing exposure of sensitive data to local users. You only need one vulnerability to be insecure. Since Firefox v1.x was released, users have been exposed to 72 security vulnerabilities and counting, 39 of which are rated as Highly Critical and 1 Extremely Critical. The Mozilla Foundation lists 64 "known" security vulnerabilities, 18 of which are rated as Critical and 13 High.