Windows IT Pro has a short online article by Paul Thurrott, “Microsoft Responds to IE Complaints“.

Now, it’s perfectly valid for MS to do so - in fact, they would be negligent not to respond to complaints and attempt to better thier own product in competition. The problem with this article is the author lacks the integrity and intelligence to be covering this topic, and then insists on trying to insert his opinion alongside Microsoft’s. Let’s take a look:

Mr. Thurrott states:

And although he didn’t say it this way, he seemed to agree with my opinion that some aspects of Firefox’s development are troubling.

Problem:
If the man didn’t say it, don’t try to slip your words in his mouth. I want to hear what MS has to say about IE, not your unqualified conclusions.

Mr. Thurrott states:

First, who are the people writing Firefox, and why do we trust them more than Microsoft to write good software?

We know exactly who the people writing Firefox are, because the Firefox code base is open. That means every line of code that goes into the project is logged by who submitted it. You don’t know that for MS.

We trust them more than Microsoft because:

• Thier name is “on the line” out there in public for all to see. Not so with MS
• The motivation is “pure”, because this is not profit-motivated. Not so with MS
• Anyone interested can review and/or comment on any bit of code. Not so with MS
• The development cycle is faster, new code can be updated daily. Not so with MS

Mr. Thurrott states:

Second, is Firefox benefiting more from ’security through obscurity’ than it is from being well-designed? That is, will Firefox vulnerabilities dramatically rise if more people begin using that browser?

Thurrott has confused what ’security through obscurity’ means. By the very nature of Open Source development, there is no ’security through obscurity’, because the internal workings (the code) of the project are public. Thus no obscurity. Note this means by the very nature of Microsoft, there is at the very least some aspect of ’security through obscurity’, as the source is not public. Further, note how dismally effective this has been in the past.

The second part of this question does have a point, but it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that Mr. Thurrott seems to desire. No doubt Firefox enjoys some security simply because it isn’t popular enough (yet!) to be a target. Note that this is not the same thing as ’security through obscurity’.

Also, note this is a valid argument for a diverse selection of browsers. The disadvantge to the ‘ecosystem’ of one dominant ‘organism’ has been widely discussed and understood, even in the framework of software and the internet. It’s sad, but not surprising, that Thurott isn’t up to speed on this.

I don’t want FireFox to have a 99.9% market share. I’d like to see a dozen browsers that follow the W3C standards. That’s the best option for everyone.

I won’t address the rest of the article, because it’s not clear in all cases which parts are Microsoft and which are Thurrott. I expect MS to spin things as best they can, and I expect MS to improve IE by copying every bit of Firefox that they think is worthwhile. That’s the way it works.

I don’t expect so-called journalists to insert thier own spin into a piece. Especially ill-considered and sadly ignorant spin. Just report what Microsoft is saying; understand that what they think matters, what Paul Thurott thinks does not. I understand this is a “perspectives” column, I just didn’t agree with how the perspective was inserted, nor the perspective itself for that matter.