Both are incorrect. As Mozilla becomes more popular, it will have approximately the same number of issues. This is due to the open source model. It will never have as many issues as IE, nor will they be as serious. This is also due to the open source model.
I can state this because similiar projects in the open source world have demonstrated similiar patterns. The development environment that the Mozilla team operates under will sack the lead developers if they trend toward more buggy code. This is not true with closed source. Developers get sacked for missing deadlines, not for bugs.
Secondly, IE and Mozilla are entirely different products under the surface. Mozilla is a web browser. IE is part of Windows. When a flaw is found in Mozilla, it affects web browsing. When a flaw is found in IE, it affects web browsing, email, file browsing and more. Since Mozilla is less involved with the operating system, it will never have as many security issues as IE, simply because it doesn't have the ability to affect as much.
I understand what you are saying, finally. I didnt mean to mislead or imply that if Mozilla was as big as IE in users that it would have similar problems as IE or equal problems. I am just saying that if Mozilla was as big as IE in users we would be talking about its security issues, not whether or not its issues would be worse or more frequent or silly as IE's. We could extrapolate from what we know now about FireFox and say it is better, and we would be right. But on the other hand it has not become such an integral part of society where the internet universe circles it yet, so comparisons really cant be made. It in effect has different problems all its own, be they good bad or indifferent.
So we will just have to leave it here. Its a good argument though heated at times.
I do think FireFox is a superior product though and has so far only had very minor glitches that were easy for me to fix, save one but its not important, it will be fixed in time.