Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
It seems that the mozilla-derived browsers have security issues requiring updates far more frequently than other browsers like Konqueror or links2.I'm curious as to why this is. Does anyone have any ideas?I'm on dialup and switched to Konq for this very reason but sometimes I have a website that doesn't work and its handy to see if iceweasel will view it. (so far the only one is the adobe flashplayer test page). Doug.
As you can see from the other answers, nobody has a clue if the mozilla-based browsers are less secure than the konq or not. I haven't inspected the code either, so I don't have any more facts than anyone else. I do NOT agree with the other answers however.
If there are fewer security alerts with Konq the only reasonable conclusion, if you don't have strong facts pointing the other way, is that Konq is more secure, and that this is partly because of better code. The larger userbase of Firefox is very likely to generate a larger number of discovered security issues, but as far as I know, no one can tell you how many more bugs are generated per user or per extra programmer, and probably no one can tell you the how user base and security issue rate correlate more precisely. From this, the most reasonable conclusion is that Konq is more secure. Anyhow, the basic fact that there is fewer security alerts in Konq makes this a more secure browser, whether this maybe is because only of a smaller user base or not.
/erik