Wikipedia:Peer review/Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox/archive1

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox
I didn't write this article, but this article definitely deserves a peer review. -- Selmo (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fairly weak. It's very short (more like a list) and the prose needs some work (too much passive voice, for example). I also question the perspective on some issues -- especially ActiveX. Why is lack of support necessarily a criticism? As the cited Cnet review notes: "Firefox doesn't support VBScript and ActiveX Controls, which are often the source of attacks and vulnerabilities within IE." -- bcasterline • talk 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't use it per severe lack of features and unreliability compared to Opera. I have not read any independent reviews on this myself, but I guess some would exist somewhere.  Just a thought.--Konstable 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Web Controls, such as Active X, are seriously over blown to make it APPEAR they only pose security threats. I atribute this to the average FireFox noob (a sect of the FF community) who does not understand what Web Controls are. In the IE6 Crits they referenced an IE4 article stating that Active X controls can allow a person to takeover your computer, obviously we are not working with IE4 as IE6 and IE7 have enhanced security procedures in place.

Active X is often used on any site containing media that is run with software currently on the clients computer or will install the software needed. For online installers (such as mcafee) Active X is cruicial in deploying their software to the clients computer, it protects mcafee against illigally distributed versions and also makes it easier because they only need to update certain files rather then the whole installer. Because FireFox does not support Active X (I believe all 'Active X' type controls have to be manually implemented by plugins. Not certain though.) it can not experiance the media web as easily as browsers that implement Active X.131.247.243.121 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strict web standards compliance - I don't understand how this could possibly be classed a "criticism" of Firefox ! It reads to me more like a criticism of Internet Explorer. Following w3c recommendations is, by definition, correct behaviour for a web browser. Not following the standards is buggy behaviour.


 * A similar argument could be made the previous section "IE Compatibility". A developer who codes a page in a particular way to work around or take advantage of a bug in one browser, shouldn't *expect* that quirk to work in any other browser. The fact that the Mozilla developers have taken the time to accommodate developers who don't follow the standards is not even necessarily a good thing. It encourages developers to continue coding in the same way, and doesn't alert them to possible problems in the future (for example, what if that quirk were to be removed from a later version of IE ?). On the contrary, you could make a better argument criticising Firefox for having such a "quirks" mode !


 * The article should also mention the particular version which is being described, since new versions are released on a fairly regular basis. For example the section about "Memory usage" may be correct as of the time of writing, but could very possibly be fixed in a later release.


 * Overall, I think this is a very poorly written article, and in fact it seems to violate the NPOV policy of WP: - the article seems heavily biased in favour of the idea that the way Internet Explorer does things is "correct", and everything else must be incorrect.

--Salsa man 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is not really necessary. Information could be taken from it and put in a subheading under Mozilla Firefox, but it is not written well enough for it to stand alone.  I agree with Salsa man; the information should be kept, but not in its very own article.P.L.A.R. 01:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)