As the author notes in the comments, this might better be titled, "Could Firefox kill spam". I know that Firefox' antiphishing features are not uncontroversial, but spam remains a real problem.

"So what that tells me, is that even though the stable channel is supposed to be more stable, if you're looking for the best security when running Chrome you might be better off running either the dev or beta versions."
OK, I am confused. There is the dev, the beta and stable. And the stable is the least, erm, stable? Seriously, Google's use of the term "Beta" for what is essentially production software does confuse me, and I am sure I am not alone.

Friends ask me when there is a new Firefox version (like 3.0.9 yesterday) what is going on. But a process that allows for frequent and transparent fixes is the best way to ensure user security. Hoping that you can keep your problems obscure will probably mean that only those who wish to exploit them secretly will learn about them.

I think Jeff Waugh's point about Ubuntu's branding is a very good one, and one I feel that most respondents on his blog miss. Once more: it does not matter if you like or dislike branding – what counts are the signals it gives, the feeling it conveys. Ubuntu was the best branded OS out there, including Mac OS X. It seeped identity, purpose, distinction. The new gdm login screen? Not so much.

Of course, it's not all about speed, but yes, Firefox 3.6 (which is a ways off still) is exciting.

"The problem is that open source development is not a democracy." I have to agree with Sergar Yegulalp's argument here: calling open source software "democratic" software would confuse the issue, and offer little additional understanding. His suggstion, "publicly developed" is better, but I think "open source" remains the least worst way of describing it (or just "open" ?)