Security threats Toolkit

Story: Firefox continues to gain ground

• 
• 

Whatever dominating browser wouldn't make me happy. I would rather see 6 or 7 browsers or so that each have 10 - 15% market share. Only then will there be enough diversity around to ensure innovation, cooperation, standarization and security in future proof ways.

In short, only when the browser of your choice is just as important as the colour of your car can we say that we've achieved something meaningfull. Until then we're just learning and struggling.

That said, two dominating browsers are still better then one.

And for those still thinking that one dominating browser is the only real answer. If you really believe that then start demanding from Microsoft that the Vista version of IE7 must be made available for all Windows versions still in use widely (say, Windows 98 and up) without functionality loss. Because if you don't you either are not as well informed as you think you are or you're not that interested in a single dominating browser afterall.

Alternative ways to help make Microsoft understand that you want the same IE version everywhere: don't buy Vista, don't buy products with Vista pre-installed, replace Vista if it gets in anyway, don't install IE7, re-install your PC if IE7 gets installed anyway, ban IE7 only websites, always browse the non IE7 version of websites that offer choice, don't buy products that require IE7 (or Vista), demand a refund for products that turn out to require IE7 (or Vista) anyway or ditch them and don't install IE7 even if that's the only way to get that much needed security patch (so do disable Automatic Updates and WSUS in time). Nowedays we call this: consumer choice.

Basically what we all want is a single standard independant of vendor, platform, version and browser. So why are we as consumers not given what we as a market want? Might it be because that consumer choice that we seem to have is not so easy to invoke afterall? But if so then what value has consumer choice anyway? Could it be that there are in fact other forces in play that in reality determine market demand yet wrongfully claim 'consumer choice' as the reason? And if so, for what purpose? Surely not to use this so called consumer choice as an instrument to make markets (believed to reflect consumer choice) behave to meet the, maybe political, demands of someone's hidden agenda at that moment in time? Just to move in for the kill once the cards lay of the table as they want perhaps? If so, would that be some form of cheating that requires not to be misunderstood counter actions that repair damage done as much as possible or behaviour we would like everyone to adopt because we agree it leads to desired results?

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread