That site is amusing in the author's apparent inability to look past his own bias. Many of the points that he makes are misleading at best and just plain false at worst. Certainly a lot of Firefox advocation sites aren't much better, but this site seems created simply to fan existing flame wars and really provides no useful or unbiased information. Firefox is definitely not the best -- Opera 9 is looking very, very nice, and may become my primary development environment -- but it's really hard to give any credance to an IE defender, especially after all that I've seen in my years of computer repair and Web development.

By the way, only the first F in Firefox is capitalised.

Yeah, I know the article is utterly biased, probably by a disgruntled Firefox user who turned to Opera (or something else). I found it funny, though.
Although I prefer Opera myself, I positively know Firefox is a great browser, which I have installed on many of my friends computers. I believe Opera is aimed towards nerd folks so far, Firefox is more user-friendly for beginners.

Heh, I *knew* Snover would reply to a thread about Firefox. Where have you been hiding?

In the bat cave.

Showing that blonde the 'ol bat-mobile?

IMO it's not "browser vs. browser" issue, it's generic and essential issue.

From POV of TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) - systems develops to greater flexibility and usually ends up as a kit of functional modules. For software this usually means: programs designed as a minimal core + vast set of plugins.
Little monsters like Firefox, Thunderbird, Miranda, Winamp shows once more why this happens.
And if you want to have in MediaPlayer something as small as a new visualization or generation of "now playing:" line in mailer - what you can do ?.. 😕
Opera may be quite nice, but considering how many Firefox plugins are available and there's not a shadow of customization beyond skins on Opera site - i even don't want to test it.
Program which cannot be easily adjusted and "knows better what to do" is source of problems. Program which can be adjusted precisely as needed and asks user what to do is solution of problems. Example: McAfee Firewall vs. Agnitum Outpost Firewall.
Plugin-based systems have an obvious advantage here.
With regard to usability - as advanced user (and probably like most advanced users), i want to have program which will do what i want - which i can configure to my own needs... and i'll prefer to have one program with known set of non-critical shortcomings and minor bugs instead of dozen of small utilites each with its own set of bugs. Those bugs would be fixed in next version, which i can check at once, and which probably will be released, since such a big program usually have considerable dev team and decent tech support. It's an advantage of large module-based systems, and universal plugins-based programs like WinAmp or Miranda IM, or Firefox.
Especially considering that there may be (and frequently are) multiple plugins for one function, then only core bug could be real problem.