the truth is unwanted anymore

This week, I read a good article about Symantec's grading of both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox. It said that, in general, that Symantec found the giltches in Firefox as their developer crew had confessed to and found another set of glitches in the Firefox program that they didn't confess to; and thus had graded it badly. This had resulted in an outcry among developers of the free source internet browser and also big supporters. Amidst those cries, Symantec said then that it had overviewed it's grading of the Mozilla corporation browser and gave it a better grade.

This is all good and dandy. But then, it also raises a few eyebrows.

If Symantec had overviewed it and found those glitches which the corporation did not admit to and thus had to be punished with a lower grading, does that mean that public opinion would change the overall picture?

Since when does a large corporation allow public opinion cloud it's judgement?

This is widely seen in court and other large enterprises?

Does this mean that we no longer want to hear the truth and only what we want to hear? If the Firefox developer crew had any guts in their tight-couch-potato-bellies, they would have sucked it up and admitted to the mistakes they found in their browser and worked on them instead of gruntling like a bunch of unpaid mine workers who haven't been given a day off for a whole month.

I am a wide supporter of this browser. Heck, I'd buy it if I knew I could because I know it's a lot better than Microsoft's rubbishly tarmacked Internet Explorer but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't admit to the faults within the browser so we can work on enhancing security measures and overall performance.