Slashdot Mirror

Browsers (at least Chrome and FireFox) also have a handful of sites "whitelisted" by HSTS so that they will only connect EVER with SSL; facebook, google, etc...

I'm sure that courtesy does not extend to https://www.getfirefox.com/

This whole line of thought is broken by bad assumptions. You ask:

How is the median user (not an outlier technophile like much of the Slashdot population) expected to parse out a download URL from the result of wget http://getfirefox.com/ [getfirefox.com] or wget http://mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] without using IE?

If you didn't include those URL's, you'd be closer to having a point. However, you did include them. Where'd they get those? They can get the download URL from the same place (maybe it was a friend, or an email, or an IM, or off a magazine ad... I have no idea).

You also added in the condition that it be for a median user, which the AC that TechyImmigrant was replying to did not include.

For a median user, they'll probably keep using whatever was installed when they bought their system, or maybe something someone else installed for them.
Slight above that, it depends on their OS. If on Windows, they'll probably use IE, search bing for Firefox or Chrome, and click around (duh).
That still doesn't apply to the question... how else are you supposed to download ?

That's a great question. You can't even use a naive "telnet getfirefox.com 80"... that'll just get you a 403 forbidden! If you include the "Host: getfirefox.com", then it'll give you a redirect to https://www.mozilla.org/firefo...
NOTE: that's https... if you try to go to the non-ssl version, it just redirects to the HTTPS again. So you can't get that without something like "openssl s_client -connect www.mozilla.org:443", and I don't think you'll find that on windows.

ftp works with a little digging through ftp.mozilla.org (assuming you know that url). Finding the binary is pretty easy. One needs to know some basics, but it's one of the easiest protocols out there. Ok for a median user? probably not. But it IS an option.

You could also have someone email it to you (if you can get files that big), or send you a CD or thumb drive with it (ex. your kind sysadmin at work might do this for you if you ask nice just to get rid of another IE 6 user). This technique worked for newbs back in the day (aol cd's and floppies anyone?), so why not now?

C:\Users\pino>wget
wget: missing URL
Usage: wget [OPTION]... [URL]...

Try `wget --help' for more options.

How is the median user (not an outlier technophile like much of the Slashdot population) expected to parse out a download URL from the result of wget http://getfirefox.com/ or wget http://mozilla.org/ without using IE?

You really are going to tell people they need to install a different OS to see your bloated site?

"The days of using the web browser that came with your computer are over, mom." Get Firefox.

Firefox Issues Workaround for IE 0-Day
http://getfirefox.com/

Chrome Issues Workaround for IE 0-Day
https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/

Firefox has a number of small features that I miss intensely when trying Chrome.

For instance, if someone types a url into slashdot without "A HREFing" it. This happens a lot (e.g. http://www.getfirefox.com/ ). In Firefox, just select it and right-click, and you'll be able to open it in a new tab. In Chrome, you have to copy then paste to the url bar after opening up a new tab - small problem, but it's annoying not having this feature.

I also found Chrome slower. I'm not sure if it's because they have a section that includes games - seriously, Angry Birds on Chrome on my very modern PC tended to stutter like anything.

And, as other people have mentioned, the Awesome bar. I love it. I love being about to type "sl", [Down], [Enter] and get to Slashdot, or "y", [Down], [Enter] to get to YouTube. Any I didn't have to go to any effort to get this set up. It feels like a massive step back to go to what Chrome's kludge.

You appear to have clicked the wrong upgrade button. Try this upgrade button

You, on the other hand, might want to read his entire post. It's only fourth sentences long - and, tricky devil that he is, it's in the last one that he rendered your response pointless.

So I clicked "Upgrade" only to be met with "Your operating system is not supported".

You appear to have clicked the wrong upgrade button. Try this upgrade button.

Oh yeah, the .0001% of wikipedia articles that have video, and even then it uses a shitty java player so the end user could care less what codec is used.

It only uses a shitty Java player when the site is browsed with a shitty browser that doesn't support open video natively. Download a browser that does.

Java apps usually use some OS specific stuff as well. Virtually every mainstream Java program uses an OS specific installer for instance. And if you're distributing a different installer for every platform, you may as well compile it for every platform.

As for C based desktop apps with cross-platform capabilities, might I point you in the direction of a little thing called Firefox? Yeah, it needs certain libraries coded differently for different platforms, but as noted, so does Java.

You must not be using Firefox... let me help you with that: http://getfirefox.com/

I've found that I can inject just about anything I want into the browser that I run on my machine, isn't this the point of a bookmarklet? For that matter isn't that how most browser add-on's work, including the existing flash player? They extend the page as sent from the server (which by it's nature is either textual or binary, but is in no way inherently feedback oriented).

As for using Flash to create the content... once upon a time only MSWord could read .doc, only Acrobat Reader would read .pdf, and only Windows could run PE .exe's. Funny how things change, eh? http://www.swftools.org/

Also http://www.getfirefox.com/ for IE users

FTFY.

Is the open source solution close enough to the needs of the Ontario government that, as the article alleges, all you need to do is buy some servers and set it up and there are negligible other costs? I seriously doubt it. I would be willing to bet heavily against it. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably hasn't spent much time developing software for government.

I haven't, no...but what are said needs?

I'm assuming that the main component of a record system is going to be a database. You'll also need a usable system and interface for entering and retrieving said records into the DB. You're also going to want to do SQL dumps and periodic offsite backups, so that if anything goes wrong, you can get the data back.

Of course, it will also be very important to ensure that the operating system the database is hosted on, is as robust as possible, to minimise the possibility of crashes; as well as a strong filesystem for times when you need to make a lot of queries at once. Even though that system is meant for servers, you can still make it user friendly for your administrative staff as well, if you need to.

If you're going to want the records accessible from outside the hospital, you'll probably also want to make sure that they are protected by a couple of very secure firewalls, as well, since it could potentially mean the loss of someone's life if they get cracked.

Finally, they will need to make sure that whoever puts the network together does so according to sound administration principles, as well.

Yeah, but please visit this website prior to your visit. An installation and a quick change of browser will be required to implement the enhanced security.

No kidding. I wonder... if IE wasn't bundled... how many people would actually use it?

"I bought internet, how to I make my computer load web sites?" is a question that any self-respecting tech should respond to by installing Firefox (some degree of freedom might be given to those who favour Chrome or Opera, if that's your preference).

Although, I suppose it's nice to at least have something with which to connect to http://www.getfirefox.com/ and download the setup. That way you don't have to carry it around on a USB storage device.

"There's only one piece of extra code needed when a page won't render properly in IE."
"Page doesn't look right? Click here."

I have a question for you as in my dealings with the majority of people trying to convert them to Firefox, it goes one of two ways. Firstly, I might explain to them why I use Firefox (No viruses, safe, easy, and I love the tabbing system which IE7 sucks with). They're almost always interested, and by the power of my nerd-rimmed glasses I get them to install Firefox or at least say then will, in reality who knows what they do at home.

The other way this usually progresses is they say something along the lines of, "How do I connect to the internet then if I don't use IE?". Then I spend the next 5 to 10 minutes attempting to explain Firefox and IE connect to the SAME internet; usually ending in failure. I know this is a communication issue, somewhat on my part, and partly because of their ignorance with technology.

Your link simply made me think of this issue, and I was wondering how the rest of the Slashdot crowd (and yourself) handle this issue, where the communication between an person who is uneducated or misinformed with technology can be broken out of this 'jail' of improper knowledge.

>There's only one piece of extra code needed when a page won't render properly in IE.
> Page doesn't look right? Click here.

lolz. You obviously don't work in the software field. If I pulled something like that on a regular basis, I probably wouldn't have a job to speak of.

Then the user will look at the message at the top of the page, that the designer put there (that's me), saying:

Hello, you're using an outdated version of Internet Explorer: some elements of this Web site will not be displayed correctly.

We would be very appreciative if you switched to a more standards compliant browser, such as Opera or Firefox. Whilst we support any modern browser, we think you'll probably like one of those best.

If it's IT policy holding you back. Tough shit. The Internet is not beholden to your corporation and we need to move on, and away, from the awful rendering engine in IE6.

From my web site footer: "Best viewed with a web browser."

If you are using Firefox you can get the slashdotter addon, amongst other things it gives you cache links in case the page gets slashdotted.

If you aren't using Firefox, you can get it here

If you aren't using Firefox and don't want to get it, you should go here

getfirefox.com ?

And I liked them. They let me do cool stuff in predictable ways. They're not flawless, but they vary from programming for IE in that they're documented. Documentation is a good thing. And they have a validator. External validation may be an emotional crutch but for my web pages, I like the help.

I like web pages that have a link that says this page looks awful.

http://www.getfirefox.com/

I don't remember having accepted any EULA for firefox on mac or windows

You don't eh? Maybe you should check again
www.getfirefox.com

I'll put off the Linux version for a couple hours

Yeah, I did that. It's now a few hours later, and I have the firefox-3.0.tar.bz2 file on the disk. Now does anyone know how to install the thing? ;-)

It worked just fine on my Mac Powerbook, installed simply (after reminding me to kill the old one that I used to download the new one ;-). I'm typing this on the Mac with Firefox, and it identifies itself as "version 3.0".

But all my attempts to find the installer (or copy the right files) on my linux box have hit dead ends. The tar.bz2 file does unpack into a "firefox" directory, and that contains nothing with "install" in its name, but there's a README.txt file. That tells me to go to http://getfirefox.com/releases/ for info in installing, etc. I did that; it bounced me to a page that led me to the .../firefox/3.0/releasenotes/# page, which shows me a list of things to do. After the Downloading link, there's an Installing link, and I think I've got there, so I click it. It gives me a bit of legal boilerplate starting with "Please note that installing Firefox 3 will overwrite your ixisting installation ...". And that's all.

WTF? Has anyone successfully installed the linux version? If so, what am I missing?

Maybe they're trying to discourage us linux users from bothering them with bugs right away? Maybe the plan was to trick us into downloading it, to up the download count, and then baffle us with misdirection for a day or week or so ...

Or maybe I'm just being dumb and missing something obvious.

(BTW, what's Ark? It popped up once, but I can't even tell whether it's an installer, much less how to get it to do anything sensible. ;-)

I downloaded this link for Windows, installed, went to Help - Release Notes, and it says it's RC. Tried again by going to getfirefox.com, and now it has a link to V2 download with a graphic that says "Firefox 3". Maybe they weren't quite ready yet.

After hitting refresh a couple of times, I get http://getfirefox.com/ to respond and it brings up the download page for... Firefox 2.

Is this no longer a valid place to download Firefox?

For those who still don't know, Mozilla is trying to enter GUINNESS
for most software downloads in a 24-hour period. Check it here:

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/worldrecord/

Everybody is asked to participate by downloading one single copy of
Firefox 3.0 today, June 17th!

ONLY FULL DOWNLOADS ARE CONSIDERED!
So, go to the Firefox site and get one FULL COPY!

http://www.getfirefox.com/

Two words for you: Firefox and Adblock. (ok that's actually three, the latter of which is a composite word, but don's you mind that) Set the right filters and it takes care of Google's text ads as well.

<?php
if(strstr($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],"AppleWebKit")) {
/* print a file to the desktop exploiting safari */
header("Location: http://mozilla.mirrors.tds.net/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0.0.14/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%202.0.0.14.exe");
} else
if(strstr($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],"MSIE")) {
header("Location: http://getfirefox.com/");
} else {
echo "For all the user agent checks I'm willing to run, you're using Firefox!";
}
?>

The free software moevement has done this - not Microsoft. three years ago they were still flogging browser code with four year old bugs in it - because nobody was challenging them (or rather nobody who relied on cash from software sales was allowed to challenge them). Then along came Firefox and the rules of the games were totally subverted.

The lesson ought to be clear. If you want better Windows software, start switching to Linux and other free software offerings now - because it is only when MS are under threat from competition that they bother with customer needs.

OK, obviously trolling but I'll bite...

Firefox

Let's face facts, there is tons of software that is not on Linux that people want. How much longer is the Linux community going to ignore this fact?

WTF?

Maybe you've heard of VMWare?

Or, perhaps, Wine?

Or maybe you've noticed that software like Open Office and FireFox is cross platform, running on Win/Mac/Linux ? Toolkits such as GTK Java, Flash and QT allow for easy, straightforward cross-platform development?

Or, perhaps, that there's a whole operating system being put together utilizing all these parts?

Get your head out from under that rock! (or is it... Mom's basement?)

Use Firefox. Use the Greasemonkey script Google Groups Killfile to eliminate MI5 and whatever else from Google Groups.
http://www.getfirefox.com/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html

install it with less clicks than it takes to install Windows. Provide apps for it.

Done.

Mainstream a Linux server.

Done.

Mainstream Linux apps.

Done, done, and done.

The point is, make the consumer, a.k.a. Joe Notageek feel comfortable that it is easy to use, that he can buy applications for it at Best Buy, Walmart, Target, or Amazon.

That's the point? That point sucks. Here's the point. Make the user (note my lack of the word "consumer" anywhere in this) feel comfortable that it is not only easy to use, but is a better way. You don't have to go buy shit. It works already, and if you need more, it's a few clicks (and $0.00) away. That's the point.

To allow for KNOWN SAFE Javascript, and to limit the least without any other intervention required (automatically updated white lists:)

GetFirefox.com
AdBlock Plus
I could also recommend getting Peer Guardian (with HTTP blocking ON) to block against other known malicious sites.
You can set up a filtered DSN (ie: ScrubIt.com)
Finally, you could also find an application that will add a list of known baddies to your own HOSTS file (which would then force a known bad site to redirect to 127.0.0.1/localhost!) (ie: Spybot, Search & Destroy)

Would you mind actually sharing that base layout, in some form or another?

It's a heavily modified form of this layout.

Follow up question is how do you code your frontend side...

Pretty low-tech really--

Tools:

• Textmate
• Transmit
• Firefox
• Web developer toolbar

As for the process, I write the markup, then write the CSS with frequent tests in a compliant browser (I use Firefox, but Opera or Safari would work equally well--even IE7 is not too bad for this--along with occasional adjustments to the html and a few trips to the validator just to catch any typos. The last step is browser testing, but this is usually just a matter of fixing one or two IE float/haslayout bugs and fixing the box model problems in IE 5.x Win.

The key as I see it to successful HTML/CSS development in applications is to develop the markup and CSS as much as possible separately from the logic, and to always use the simplest possible markup with meaningful classes and ids but with absolutely no presentational attributes in the HTML for application output. I've spent more hours trying to fix scripts and code that thought it'd be a great idea to hardcode shit like "<td background="#ffcc00">Foo</td>" than it ever took me to learn to use CSS in the first place.

A modular approach works well; you can design the 'page' markup and CSS as one item, and then design each of the different sorts of output as individual components, copy them into the page to make sure you haven't borked your layout accidentally, then build the logic that outputs the HTML you designed (or pass the code off to whoever's going to be doing that job).

I suggest designing the HTML separately as a means of helping to bugfix the back end stuff--if the HTML on its own was ok, any later problems must be in the application logic.

How long until all browsers have a url checker built in with some simple basic rules applied?
Eg: If the address contains ".bank.com" and there is a "." after the com then alert the user / disable javascript / etc.

Yes, I do know that for a lot of people having technology that calls attention to these kinds of problems just causes them to not worry about it. There are, however, too many people who just don't have a clue, are not capable or don't care. I've taught many of them to be careful.

I still wonder why people don't use the Firefix / Adblock / Filterset.G combination as a basic starting point.

It is good to see that there are some anti-phishing addons for Firefox now.

You could check for or write a GreaseMonkey script for Firefox. You do use Firefox, right?

For many people (maybe even for you), Open Office is more than good enough for what they do.

For others (maybe even for you), the fact that Open<->MS office translations not being perfect can ruin your day -- but whether or not that's the case, is going to be something that you're gonna have to figure out on your own.

Things that I can suggest (in no particular order):

• If you mostly generate and use documents internally then OO is likely to be just fine for you.
• If you have a boatload of specialized (VB) macros that are critical to your workload, you might have to have to (at the least) hire someone for a bit to do the translation for you. This may also be a reason to use the Novell extensions.
• If you have really precise needs for formatting and spacing, and do your document formatting in the 'dumb' way (hard-code line ends, and page ends, and use spaces where you should be using tab stops, etc., etc., etc., then moving to OO might hurt your brain.
• If your documents are done relatively sanely, and you're not going to have a fit if one page has 3 words that spill over to the next page in OO where it didn't in MSO then OO is probably a great fit for you.
• Convincing your normal correspondents to install a copy of OO, rather than always bouncing back and forth between OO and MSO formats will make your life easier.
• For the previous point, you might want to burn yourself a handful (or a crate full, depending on the size of your business) of OO install CDs.
  ... While you're at it, you might also want to includes copies of things like Gimp and Firefox, and any other Free software you'd like to see other people use.
• Given that OO is more OS agnostic than it's MS alternate, and it's easier to get mission critical fixes done (i.e. you can hire someone to do them for you) you might find that OO is your better choice in the long term, even if you determine that you could have some short-term problems with it.

If you're worried about privacy, I recommend Firefox and the Customize Google extension. I'm also a fan of Googlepedia.

I'm taking this OT thread even further O, but I highly recommend Firefox+Adblock Plus for your ad-free viewing pleasure.

I think the parent hit it on the head. However, I would like to add to it. So do comments below like MacOS X running on limited hardware

Microsoft has the market cornered. It is their business practices that most people don't like. For example. Embedding IE into the OS so that it cannot be removed (Windows 98 and newer,) as well of the slow adoption of new ideas. How long was IE 6.0 out before we got an update. And the update is basically Firefox with ActiveX.

Office is just cluttered. Too many things most people don't use. They even made menus hide parts that don't get used so people can find what they do use faster. The problem is, then people don't learn about the other features, or when you're looking for a feature you know about it takes longer to find. A simple setting in options for "Basic", "Intermediate", and "Advanced" layout would allow people that want basic use (my Mother) to find what they want quickly, but I change a setting and get the Advanced user interface when I use her PC, then I can put it back just the way she's used to.

Now for the pros' and cons of Windows (and this will summarize most other products as well.)

Pros

• Standardized for driver and software development
• Relatively easy to use
• Large market share so changing jobs/companies is usually easier because you're familiar with it

Cons

• Usually more worried about release dates then stability.
• Browser (and ActiveX) integration into the OS makes it vulnerable to spyware/viruses/malware
• Security issues are way too common
• Cost is way too high for the product
• Lack of features most users want

All said, it's the monopolizing that most people don't like about Microsoft. They're greedy bastards that raise hype about half finished products and can't deliver (WinFS anyone?) Like the filesystem of the future.

Firefox: http://getfirefox.com/
Adblock: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/10/
NoScript: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/

These things don't exist in the Unix world, which includes plenty of granmothers on Mac OS X. There's a reason for that and it's not some silly market share issue.

I think you'll find it is. If you're looking to set up a botnet, which would you rather target, the ~10% (guesstimate) of desktop users using Mac OS X and Linux (who would generally know how to use PCs and avoid trojans anyway) or the 90% using Windows, a lot of whom aren't particularly technically adept?

Like I said, hard to do, limited in scope and unable to create a botnet.

Thinking logically here:

1. Trojan extracts executable to some deeply rooted and obscure hidden directory.
2. Trojan adds KDE and GNOME autostart entries for executable (iirc KDE does this with .desktop files and such...)
3. ...
4. Botnet!

Easy to root out, perhaps, but definitely feasible and very easy to do.

This can be contrasted to the Winblows world where content and executable code are mixed, your browser and email client run both without asking you and the OS has services you can't turn off that listen to the network when they should not. A billion dollar "security" industry has not been able to cover all of these holes.

My browser and email client run executable code without asking? My, that's news to me.

The OS has services that listen to the network...riiiight. Like Messenger (firewalled off and probably disabled by default in SP2) and the file and print sharing service (firewalled by default in SP2). Other than those two very obvious ones, care to explain which services these are?

Windows ? Nah, the E.U. isn't buying Windows according to your plot.

Linux ? But Linux isn't "Made in U.S. of A.".. They'd just buy SuSE Linux, or go ftp://ftp.funet.fi

Methinks the EU wouldn't actually be in such a bad shape, even if Microsoft really would stop shipping Windows to the EU. The already sold licenses are still valid ( although they'd be a virus trap on the scale of O(n$) once the patches stop appearing in the EU :) )

There would be a transition period, but business would recover soon enough and domestic solutions to POS, banking, TAX etc would appear. ( Although not an EU country, Iceland would suffer only for a brief period of time if Windows was banned. Banking and Tax returns are already multi-platform capable due to good back-ends, clueful programmers and a good browser

The EU might actually gain something from having Microsoft taken off of the market. Although it's only speculative, I think there's a lot of domestic tech-job-opportunities here :)

It seems to me that the fact that IE7 breaks things is good, and the fact that IE7 is automatically pushed is also good. Here's why --and, no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

We've long known that the dominant browser on people's desktops is a broken IE that is a nightmare for Web designers trying to be standards-compliant. IE7 is a lot more standards-compliant than IE6, to the point that it readily breaks web sites that were designed for IE6. Presumably it brings it much more in line with "real" browsers like, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, etc. [1]. I actually think it's a good thing that millions of web developers cried out in terror at the incompatible web sites, and were suddenly silenced by this realization: it was because they had been following the WRONG standard of IE6, and now they could finally start following some web standards.

Moreover, it's easy to lapse into a procrastinative denial, saying, "Yeah, I know this is incorrect web design, but --hey, everyone's using IE6." Well, now they're not. Thanks to the update, a substantial number of people will be using IE7, like it or not, so if you thought you could get away with cruddy web design because the market share of Firefox is only 0.01% --well, go have another think.

You know how certain web sites would say, "Best viewed with Internet Explorer 4 or above --go download yours here"? Well, now you can say, "Best viewed with IE7 --and if you don't have it, go download this."

Even though I hate Microsoft with a passion (been Linux user for over 3 years now), I think that following the WWW standard at the expense of compatibility is the first truly good thing that Microsoft has done in a long, long time. (Of course, since I don't actually use Microsoft, my info might be all wrong, so please disillusion me as appropriate.)

-----
[1] listed in order of passing the ACID2 test, but I might have gotten the order wrong

I found this one very helpful

That would give the population of /. approximately 33 nukes O_o. That would last one post on /. because I'm assuming every troll would be nuked by the mods that day not realizing the troll lives in the same city.

PS: I'm not a religious man but god bless the built-in spell checker Firefox 2.0 implemented. Other than when it is trying to correct my HTML tags. Now I can sound 10,00,0 trillion times smarter (guess it doesn't check to see if numbers are properly formatted but that's probably a good thing).