Firefox ****ing sucks!!! It loses it's settings evertime you ahev a minor error and it doesn't even have to be opened!!! I am sick of this crap ware that doeasn't ****ign work crashes all of the ****ing time. **** YOU AOL AND YOUR MOZILLA s***!!!!!!

Well, good for Firefox. Glad to see that a browser could climb so high so quickly.

A lot of these comments have been fun to read too. Especially stuff posted by Mastertech. I think I figured out his system.

MT: "FireFox myth X"
User: *explains away with sources, common sense, etc.*
MT: "IE is still better"
User: *shows how it's not*
MT: "Opera is better."

And so on.

Basically, Mastertech's goal is to show that every other browser put together is better than Firefox. If IE lacks in one area, he brings up something about Opera. If that fails, he brings up another "myth" about Firefox.

Humorous debate ensues.

You've been outsourced repeatedly on multiple issues.
Apparently a sufficient source for Mastertech = Blogs, 6+ month old articles &/or unknown developer.

Refuting points with (more recent) info. from Security, Anti-virus & other vendors, plus security researchers for some reason don't seem to hold up to his single sources.

Get a more balanced view here or here & have a laugh at the depths of Masterlies dishonesty. Or check out the Firefox Myths parody.

Hey Andrew, you sad little attention-starved infant, I got some links for you:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/
http://nanobox.chipx86.c...12/re-firefox-myths.php
http://www.thingoid.com/...refox-myths/#comment-43
http://www.evilavatar.co...s/showthread.php?t=8269
http://robert.accettura....fox-myths/#comment-7469
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
http://www.jeffevans.us/firefox_myths_comment.txt

These sites link to dozens more, all debunking and/or banning your sad little butt (after a diaper change).

And a list of sites you have been banned from:

• 3dgpu
• Anandtech
• digg
• Forum bX
• Geeks to Go
• IntelZone
• Lunarsoft.net
• MozillaZine
• Nanobox
• Neowin
• PCMechanic
• TechSpot
• Urban Anarchy
• Web Devout

The only reason you remain here is a bit more liberal policy towards trolls. I'm guessing BetaNews just finds you amusing, for now.

Thank you Jebus! I wasn't aware there were any more sites where Mastertech wasn't banned. Nice to know the fun can continue here. And by 'fun,' I mean excruciating circular logic and wordgames.

All browsers are imperfect, but some browsers are more imperfect than others. And by 'some browsers,' I mean primarily Internet Explorer.

Bottom line, Firefox is great, I.E. is still light years behind, by the numbers or not :)

IE7 is still way behind when it comes to customization. Firefox rulez for now..

IE7 is way behind Firefox and Opera in standards support.

http://www.webdevout.net...ser_support_summary.php

And yes, the IE7 engine has been finalized and those numbers aren't going up further.

That is a bit extreme, but Internet Explorer is indeed falling back. Since they've held a monopoly for such a long time, they have had no reason to innovate their product. Now that alternative browsers are available, simply being the only choice is not holding the market share for Internet Explorer anymore. Internet Explorer 7 has a lot of great improvements, but it also is entering the race incredibly late in order to impact Firefox's share all that much.

Firefox rocks, IE6 is a crusty old fart, but IE7 will be huge. Only problem for MS is that only fan boys and their grandmothers are still using IE6. IE7 and vista will come on new PCs, someday, but until then how do they get the timid default dwellers to download a new browser?

My prediction: Some morning in the near future you will wake up to find your PC rebooted overnight and IE7 has been installed as a “critical” update.

All that you care about. It is still missing many key features (somewhat because it's in beta, mostly because it's not planned to be included).

Andrew K., you still spreading your narcissistic crap around the web. You must enjoy getting your butt kicked.

Here in Finland the share was 38% for Firefox some months ago.

And on one of the largest most active sites in Finland Firefox has a 68% share.

Enter the FUD-Master.

MasterBaiter is back with more debunked BS. Dude, nobody believes your crap anymore, so find some other way to get the attention you need.

Dude. Give it up. Your sources aren't credible, your facts are just the opposite....you got nothing.

I hear slashdot's always looking for a few more torlls. (Of course, you'd have to do a tad better there, they outclass you there by leagues)

No, not because I say so.

Google 'debunked firefox myths' for sources.

Nothing is ever 'because I say so'. You see, I form my opinions and get my facts from hundreds of sources.

It's called 'research'. Intelligent people use it as a tool to form educated opinions and to be able to argue those opinions based on actual fact.

Something you might want to look into doing someday.

Let's take a peek into Mastertech's dictionary:

Fanboy - dissenter of Mastertech's beliefs and/or opinions

Exactly! MasterTech is a jackoff.

"Fanboys are noted for a very emotional attachment to their chosen subject, often taking negative remarks about it as a personal attack. They may readily engage in debates, but will fall back on emotional responses" Yes, you sure do;

"As usual you didn't read what I said."

"Unlike you I am actually able to read the sources linked."

"Anyone infected by Spyware on IE doesn't know what they are doing, this apparently includes TSThomas."

"Please provide a link to back up your bull s*** claims."

"Blah, Blah, Blah."

"Stop scaring people about ActiveX because you don't understand how it works."

"Wow! Shocking news!"

"Hey it is a member of the Firefox Fanboy Spammers."

"This is massively misleading."

"And I got nothing because you say so. Thanks for nothing."

"I forgot the lack of logic you fanboys use."

Tsk, tsk, don't you know that Foul language & personal attacks will not be tolerated on BetaNews?

hmm...where else have i read that at? oh yeah in the article above.

"In the US, Firefox has a 12.81 percent share, and in Canada, 16 percent. However, in both cases Internet Explorer registered about a 2 percent gain, and in the case of Canada, at Firefox's expense."

and as the article above points out, as does the link you provided, IE had a slight decrease world wide while firefox had a slight increase.

so my question is this. how is this article massively misleading when it is quoting the source you listed?

I used to be a big fan of IE, but as things stand right now, I try to avoid using it as much as possible. I hate to say it, but ActiveX controls are too vunerable. I don't feel safe on the web with IE anymore, as it's a large target for rogue coders. Maybe that will change with IE7, I hope. For now, I will to continue to use FireFox, simply because of extensions like adblock and noscript.

In all of the time I've been using FF, I've never once had a spyware or virus scanner flag anything as dangerous (knock on wood). Unfortunately, with IE, I did and have seen many friend's computers fall victim to BHO that can infest Internet Explorer. I'm not saying FireFox is perfect, but I feel safer using it than Internet Explorer.

Yes, get the facts on ActiveX indeed;

SANS
Most of the flaws in IE are exploited through Active Scripting or ActiveX Controls....

Washington Post
Smith found dangerous security problems in ActiveX controls distributed by dozens of other major companies, including PC manufacturers & even some of the nation's largest Internet service providers. In a letter he sent last week to the CERT Coordination Center -- a group at Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute that studies computer security vulnerabilities -- Smith noted that the results produced by his tools so far paint a grim picture for the current state of ActiveX security.

iD Software's Brian Hook
"ActiveX, for those that don't know, is a "technology" that allows you to download a piece of natively executable software from any arbitrary location (e.g. embedded in a Web page) & let it run.

If this seems insanely unsafe, that's because it is.

I can make an OCX that basically formats your hard drive, stick it on a Web page with a tag, & if your security settings are set low enough, you'll start formatting your hard drive the minute you visit my Web page."

http://en.wikipedia.org/...tiveX#Internet_Security
The embedding of COM into the Internet Explorer web browser (under the name of ActiveX) created a combination of problems that has led to an explosion of computer virus, trojan & spyware infections. These malware attacks mostly depend on ActiveX for their activation & propagation to other computers. Microsoft recognized the problem with ActiveX as far back as 1996 when Charles Fitzgerald, program manager of Microsoft's Java team said "If you want security on the 'Net', unplug your computer. ... We never made the claim up front that ActiveX is intrinsically secure." ActiveX as it is currently implemented is intrinsically insecure & is the biggest weakness of Internet Explorer not addressed by Windows XP Service Pack 2.

According to Masterlies; Some even openly admit to being unable to stop something as elementary as Malware infection when using Internet Explorer - hardly reputable sources to dispute anything!

Apparently he believes IE users affected by the above are idiots.

These are what the experts have to say; "the sources are irrefutable" as you're fond of saying. Or perhaps the SANS Institute, security researchers & iD Software employees have all missed something which you in your infinite wisdom have not?
That's quite a statement you're effectively making.

Well, there you have it folks. If you get infected using IE, then in Masterlies view, it's your own fault & you don't know what you're doing, even if it's because of auto-installion due to unpatched vulnerabilities, as has been the case within the past months. Despite this, he believes it's your own fault, no-one else to blame. It's completely unreasonable in his eyes for someone to get infected by spyware, even if that's down to unpatched vulnerabilities.

Masterlies words sound a lot like those of a fanboy, don't they?

The experts have spoken, the sources are irrefutable. Take it up with them as you seem to have wisdom they don't.

Yes & they are quite clear in what they say. Any Browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX. That's why IE7 locks down ActiveX use by default.

If you don't like the fact that SANS, noted security researchers, iD Software staff... state ActiveX is "insanely unsafe" then perhaps you should contact them with your eWeek article & register them as fanboys as they disagree with you & your infinite wisdom of computing.

Yes & a widely respected programmer at that. When such people speak, people listen.
That's right SANS didn't say insanely unsafe - he did, I never said SANS did either.

In the view of such persons & many security experts - ActiveX's an exploited attack vector which other Browsers lack, i.e. any Browser which doesn't support is more secure. ActiveX "equivalents" are irrelevent as ActiveX controls can't run them (XPCOM).

http://news.com.com/Micr...6053961.html?tag=cd.top

http://www.sophos.com/pr.../2005/12/msexploit.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/?p=801

Auto-installing spyware as documented by Sophos and Websense. And please save that pathetic 'show me a link' whine.

Yep, that's what he said. But even if you choose to ignore him, that still leaves SANS & security researchers. Perhaps you'd care to write them off too?

You're right about ActiveX; it is a method to install something - in many instances malware. Washington Post;

The most recent high-profile scare over an ActiveX control came as part of the recent controversy over a flawed piece of anti-piracy software installed by certain Sony BMG music CDs. After the label released a program to help customers remove the software, security experts found that the program left behind an ActiveX control that any Web site could use to plant any files -- even viruses or spyware -- on a visitor's computer if they browsed the site with IE... Smith said his research indicates that the Sony BMG case is just the most visible example of a far more pervasive problem with the way companies design & distribute such controls.... "In some cases, these insecure controls come pre-installed on a Windows PC from the factory," Smith wrote to CERT. "In other cases, insecure ActiveX controls are silently installed as part of application software packages. In most cases, these insecure controls are being distributed by brand-name, Fortune 500 companies." Last year, Smith told telecom & Internet-service giant Verizon that the account-setup CD-ROMs the company sends to new customers contained a misconfigured ActiveX control that a Web site could manipulate to take over an affected user's machine... Smith found another vulnerable control created by computer maker Hewlett-Packard that shipped with millions of brand new HP machines... Another similarly defective ActiveX control made by a major Internet service provider was factory-installed on certain brands of computers starting in 2003. In that case, Smith found that the faulty control was active even if the user was not a customer of that ISP."

As the above indicates, ActiveX is used as an attack vector. Not supporting ActiveX means you cannot be affected in that way. Therefore any non-ActiveX capable browser is more secure as they cannot be attacked in that way. Simple.

Wow, so some no-name software developer and writer at eWeek knows more than US-CERT, SANS, and even Microsoft, who all explain quite clearly the security issues with ActiveX?

SophosLabs is a global network of highly skilled analysts with 20 years' experience in protecting businesses from known & emerging threats... internationally recognised virus detection & removal certification from such organizations as ICSA Labs, West Coast Labs, & Virus Bulletin.

Despite this Masterlies is likely to respond insisting a link to a site containing these exploits is provided. The word of experts on the topic is never enough.

I think we know his answer - Sophos is run by "Macintosh, Linux & Anti-Microsoft advocates".

"Using ActiveX Scripting to deliver Spyware does not make ActiveX unsafe"

That's right Active X is insecure even before it is exploited.

"ActiveX asks you every time to run the script"

If you have the updates and your security setting right it will, but the original version was a rush job hack with more holes than a sieve. Now, years later, you're almost safe. Just watch every step like you would walking in a cow pasture, if you click OK on the wrong window you will need new shoes.

Why would anyone ever think a browser that can download and run native code is a good idea? Because it locks-in a platform - that's why. I just want use software that puts my objectives before it's own plans for world domination.

Links already provided.

That's because security vendors don't provide links to such sites, because that would be stupid & would only increase the number of exploitations. They report the existent of such sites instead.

Apparently in Masterlies world, the statements of Anti-Virus, Security & other vendors count for nothing. & as we've seen here, in cases where he's been discredited he still refuses to acknowledge so. Let's see what Microsoft has to say about createTextRange() in the latest security bulletin - When this security bulletin was issued, had Microsoft received any reports that this vulnerability was being exploited?
Yes. When the security bulletin was released, Microsoft had received information that this vulnerability was being exploited.

So that would make; Secunia, Sophos, Microsoft & multiple others confirming exploits in the wild for the above vulnerability for some time before being patched. Yet Masterlies will respond once more with "link a site".

That's it Mastertech! Keep your head in the sand, that way nothing can hurt you, and we can all have a good laugh at what an arse you are! Thanks!

Lets see what Microsoft had to say on March 28th; I wanted to make everyone aware of some recent developments regarding the “Create TextRange” IE vulnerability. First off we're still not seeing increased spread of attacks, & in fact have been very active in taking down sites as they come up with law enforcement. But attacks are still occurring so we certainly still recommend up to date AV software & our safe browsing guidance while we work on the update, & have updated the security advisory with a list of VIA partners that are currently providing protection. As always we’ll keep an eye out & we continue our work with law enforcement to take down any new attacks we see.

So just to confirm; despite Microsoft stating quite clearly that they in fact have been very active in taking down sites as they come up with law enforcement... Attacks are still occurring you refuse to believe?

Just to repeat; Microsoft, CERT, SANS, Sophos, Symantec... have all verified & reported auto-installations, yet apparently you 're unable to accept that as proof.

Firefox has had more security bugs than IE has in it's short history. 1.5 alone has had to have many bugs fixed in the last few weeks.

Now saying that, I use Firefox because of adblock and extensions. But those claiming it is a secure browser are sadly mislead. It's not more secure.

Hello?

I seem to remember two weeks of auto-installing spyware on IE due to the CreateTextRange vulnerability not so long ago, plus other similar episodes. To get auto-installing spyware on FF you need to be running 1.0.4. Fixing bugs does not make a program less secure. Not fixing bugs makes a program less secure.

How'd you figure that? Going by Secunia the vulnerabilities count for Firefox is around half that of IE; not to mention IE has significantly more unpatched, isn't vulnerable to ActiveX (As it doesn't support it).
This doesn't make Firefox perfectly secure of course, but no Browser out there is perfectly secure anyway. That fact does remain that they are "more" secure than IE.

Agreed! Faster fixes make a huge difference.

& Firefox isn't vulnerable to the significantly greater number ActiveX vulnerabilities (link above). Where's the slew of vulnerable extensions anyway? I recall there being 1 for Greasemonkey that was fixed ages ago.
Considering Extensions are all optional & that updates are automatically searched for, 1 would imagine it's inherently safer.

You mean compared to how fast these vulnerabilities in IE were never fixed?

2003 Unpatched vulnerabilities;
2003-06-06 - http://secunia.com/advisories/8955/
2003-06-17 - http://secunia.com/advisories/9056/
2003-11-07 - http://secunia.com/advisories/10155/

2004 unpatched vulnerabilities;
2004-02-09 - http://secunia.com/advisories/10820/
2004-02-27 - http://secunia.com/advisories/10996/
2004-04-01 - http://secunia.com/advisories/11273/
2004-05-10 - http://secunia.com/advisories/11582/
2004-07-13 - http://secunia.com/advisories/7277/
2004-08-16 - http://secunia.com/advisories/12304/
2004-09-18 - http://secunia.com/advisories/12581/
2004-10-29 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13015/
2004-11-09 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13124/
2004-11-10 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13156/
2004-11-17 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13203/
2004-11-17 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13208/
2004-11-26 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13317/
2004-12-08 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13251/
2004-12-08 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13396/
2004-12-09 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13404/

While Firefox features 2 unpatched vulnerabilities from 2004, 1 of which applies only to Mac when using certain Plugins.

See above ActiveX commentary.

Masterlies apparently believes he knows better than the SANS Security Institute & noted security researchers.

Opera has vulnerabilities the same as every other Browser. As you say "it only takes 1 vulnerability to be insecure". It's moot as Secunia doesn't necessarily list all vulnerabilities anyway;

Note: All vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia Research are reported directly to the vendors in a responsible manner, giving the vendor two weeks to reply with a confirmation & details about the expected release date for the security update. Secunia always wait for the security update - as long as the vendor keeps a reasonable time frame for issuing the update & actively co-operate with the Secunia Research team.

Correct. That's what SANS says - Most of the flaws in IE are exploited through Active Scripting or ActiveX Controls. They didn't say - Most of the flaws in IE are exploited by users launching an executable file.

You'd better contact SANS & other security researchers as to your discovery.

Yep, more vulnerabilities will be published for all Browsers, including Opera.

Opera for Windows has had an extremely critical vulnerability, while Firefox for Windows hasn't.

Opera has had 7 advisories where Secunia noted public exploits, compared to Firefox which has had 4. (Internet Explorer has had 31.)

Opera has taken a mean average of 101 days to fix exploited advisories (median of 52 days), compared to Firefox that has taken a mean average of 35 days (median of 10). Only comparing advisories marked Highly Critical and above, Opera took a mean and median of 1 day and Firefox took a mean and median of 3 days, which isn't much of a difference considering that Internet Explorer took a mean of 79 days and a median of 53 days.

This data comes from Secunia, as summarized here: http://www.webdevout.net/security_summary.php

Tsk tsk, resorting to semantics.
Everything has been fully sourced & cited from security experts/respected programmers. The myth is accurate; not supporting ActiveX removes an attack vector & accordingly provides improved security.
Deal with it.

Anyone who goes to that site for facts needs to be shot. A site more loaded with BS I have yet to find...

And yet everything mentioned on that site is well-substantianted and full sourced. Hmmm. I could care less which browser — or any other software — you use as long as it works for you.

I just want it to become CSS3 compliant asap.

Do you think that just adding a source makes what the site claims correct? A source is only as good as the quality of the source. In several cases, the site uses an MS blog as a source- hardly unbiased opinion- and it always picks a source to support its claims, even when an internet search will pull up many more equally valid sources that don't. In the worst example, the site also sources the author's own blog, without making clear that he is the author. The most remarkable source is of course the one used to support the statements that IE has 'good' support for web standards, and that Firefox has 'incomplete' support, who has challenged the obvious bias of such statements from the beginning.

To top it all, the author has misquoted those who have criticised the site to make it appear that we actually endorse it.

MS IE developer blogs are a source of opinion not facts.

The web standards source's disagreement with your interpretation of his statistics seems pretty relevant.

'Unscrupulous Misquotes of my critics' would be more honest.

Only you would claim they are a source of 'cold, hard irrefutable facts'.

Oh dear, Masterlies is once more spamming Betanews with his site.

I guess he's still not content after having been exposed on Evil Avatar (After repeatedly denying himself to be the author, & referring to himself in the third person "The author isn't debunking CSS... He says that right here: "even without fully supporting XHTML yet... That is what he is getting at here."), banned on Neowin...

Excellent post, very interesting. Confirms everything most of us ever thought about MasterTech and his FUD.

That's great news. 11.79% is a very good feat in a 1.5 years. I don't believe IE numbers will stablize, they're going to do so at around 75%.

...

"Internet Explorer fell
slightly to 85.17 percent
from 85.82 percent in
January, while usage of
Firefox rose slightly
from 11.23 percent to
11.79 percent in May"

...

~That's~ grasping at straws !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

I had no idea that Canada was a hotbed of dump Microsoft sentiment.

course, to be a naysayer cause i've done my share of praising, this is off by +- what %? heh

they need more market infiltration, most of that current share are just people like us who are net savvy

if they could get used in a movie or have tv comercials or maybe even have an animated series based on the lil fox it'll jump by another 20%

If it's 'off by one', they've got a lawsuit on their hands. ;)

(If you don't get it, don't ask.)

Well Yeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaw! :D

Competition is a beautiful thing.

Yup. I love it, they always try to make their products better.

One of the main reasons for the success of Mozilla Firefox is that developers can add their own extension. For example I use Wikipedia extension to search articles. I also use Tamil (My Mother Tongue) Community Edition which having own IME (Input Method Editor). Apart from that it has nice tabbed browsing. Overall it’s a great browser.

It's also one of the main problems.

Extensions have no oversight. Many of them are coded by folks who *shouldn't* be coding.

Heard of the infamous Firefox memory leak? 90% of the folks, who after applying the fix and *still*notice memory leaks are blaming it incorrectly on the browser, and not the extensions.

Forcastfox, for instance, is notorious for it. Hell, it's popping up on people well after they've closed all browser widnows. (This may be fixed in that specific extension).

I agree that it's a great browser, and I absolutely *love* the extensions I use, but users have to be careful with them, or we'll simply end up with another IE on our hands.

The best browsers on the market are W3C standards complient. A browser should pass the Acid2 test to be worthy.
Safari passes with flying colors, Firefox is not far behind, and IE6 is a joke. Hopefully IE7 will fix things. I'm looking forward to websites designed with 100% CSS without any IE hacks! Microsoft really fell behind.

http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html

Passing Acid2 does not neccessarily mean they are standards compliant.

It oculd simply mean they coded it to 'pass' Acid2.

Because, we all know, if it works on one page, it'll work on *all* of them, right?

I'm just waiting for someone to get burned by this.

I have stated from the very beginning that no true oversight of FF's extensions is its primary weakness. 'Tis entirely true that any idiot can write some "useful sounding" extension and have millions download it.

All problems I have experienced with FF have been extension-related. But without certain extensions [theoretically written] to enhance its somewhat limited "out-of-the-box" usability, Firefox not infrequently falls short.

However, no Browser is fully W3C compliant. Acid2 for all it's usefullness, only tests for a specific range of features/error handling.
IE 7 makes no appreciaable difference in Acid2, download the Beta & try it out, it's little different to IE6. Then again Firefox 2 doesn't pass either; Firefox 3 seemingly will, though I don't think they updates have been merged into the nightlies just yet.

Opera renders the Acid test perfectly.

FF was frequently crashing, but now FF 1.53 has less crash. Memory leak still present.

Not in Firefox.

Use any one of the numerous guides available to disable or limit session cache.

Uninstall your extensions. Memory leak solved.

Re-install your extensions. Is it back?

Adblock
Filterset.G auto-update
Greasemonkey

What else do you need?

I suppose TMP is handy.

All of these are well tested and have few, if any issues ATM.

Opera9. Not released yet.

True;
A non-final release of Opera passes Acid2
A non-final release of Firefox passes Acid2

You may be surprised to learn this - a Beta release is not a final release, thus my statement is correct.
The only final, non-Beta, release Browsers passing Acid2 are Safari, iCab & Konqueror.

Counting non-final releases, Internet Explorer is the only Browser not passing Acid2, Nor is it planned to - I’ll go ahead & relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships... As a wish list, [Acid2] is really important & useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE 7.0.

Fasft bfcache isn't the sole cause of memory issues in Firefox, there are plenty of Memory leaks filed at Bugzilla. Stating memory leaks are in fact a "feature" is just another example of ludicrous bias on your page. Fast bfcache only exacerbates already existent problems in many cases.

"Download Opera 9 Beta and try it yourself:"

Mastertch's hypocrisy in recommending Opera here is incredible when you read what he said about it elsewhere:

http://s4.invisionfree.c...?showtopic=544&st=0

All in the hope of driving a few users away from Firefox because of his Firefox phobia. Read what he says as Andrew in the above link and gape. And if he denies it's him, here's the proof:

If the fact that you link to the Poptech blog/forum at the top of the OptimizeXP/Firefox myths site, post there as Andrew, identify yourself as Andrew at the bottom of the OptimizeXP/Firefox site, and say exactly the same things on both sites isn't enough to convince anybody that your are either a)schizophrenic or b)lying, here is the proof:

1) You have posted a reference to Firefox Myths on the Poptech forum, where one of the forum members identified you as the author:

http://standards.spiralmindsinc.com/misc/Priceless/

2) You refered to the OptimizeXP site as 'my' guide on the forum:

http://72.14.203.104/sea...uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

3) You used the name GeneralAres for an image folder on the Poptech blog site. This is the other name you use for posting pages from OptimizeXP/Poptech on forums like TomsHardware, PCMech and AnandTech, and is also an email address you use when posting as Mastertech.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?

After all of these facts were poited out to you, you tried to cover up the truth by deleting pages or renaming folders, but unfortunately Google retains a record of your guilt.

Give it up Mastertech. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit what you have said?

A lot of people complain about the Firefox "memory leak(s)". All versions of Firefox no doubt leak memory - it is a common problem with software this complicated. We look to fix the issues where we can.

Yep, nothing contradicting what I already said. Although, according to those few lines it does contradict your assertion that it proves all Firefox memory leaks are an intended feature. Good job on using a source that directly contradicts your point.

congrats firefox