Slashdot Mirror
Netscape Backs Away From Browsers
gutier writes: "It seems that Netscape has recognized that it has lost the browser battle, and has decided to restructure itself into an "Internet Media Hub". Information here." The article does not say that Netscape will stop making browsers in favor of various media-integration tools and business offerings, but it does hint that strongly. I don't think this is the first time that an analyst has said "It's not going to be Netscape, but rather Netscape.com," either.
The premise of this posting is wrong. AOL cannot get mega-traffic without browser integration. How else do you think MSN gets so much traffic? It sure isn't the killer search engine. hotmail gets them loads of traffic, but hotmail has much of the "market" for free email. netscape can survive and people wont just pick up their email addys and go the ns
And what exactly does .NET compliant browser mean? That is. other than vague hypewords that can be used to FUD competition.
> With dot NET around the corner, there is no need nor room for a Netscape or any other non-.NET compliant browser anyway.
(maybe it was supposed to be funny, in which case I missed the joke)
Uh ? This is marketing bullshit.
I saw too much "products around the corner" that were supposed to render everything else pointless to buy to such an argument.
Analyst used to tell people *not* to upgrade to MS-DOS 3.3 because 4.0 was supposed to be multitask.
.net will render nothing irrelevant, like NT did not preclude win98 and ME. Or 1995 version of MSN did not replace the internet as it was supposed to.
CORBA did not replace internet protocols. Java did not replace C. There are hundred of examples like this.
Cheers,
--fred
That doesn't mean Netscape won't release a NS 6.x at some point or that AOL won't use Gecko. It's just that the Netscape portal will accept hits from anyone.
OS X. It's Unix, but it's touchy-feely; you can use it without ever being aware of the the console. Hell, you can probably convince your users that OS X is Windows XP for about six months (until OS X 10.0.9 or so comes out and they notice that their computers at work aren't crashing quite as much as their computers at home are). Just don't let them sign on as >console.
/.ers haven't seen the inside of AOL since it was the poor cousin to MCI mail, but c'mon); I'm not sure that you can successfully combine the smarts to improve one's experience of web technology and the smarts to improve one's experience of web content.
Only problem is you'll have to replace all your hardware, but hell, you said you don't mind paying. There are a couple of browsers out for it now (not just IE), and (serious here) I am still not convinced that Netscape is going to just abandon all these years of work on Mozilla just when they finally are in sight of a superior product.
AOL has tried this two-tiered service business before (what was the name of the genuine ISP they had a few years ago? Around the same time they went to unlimited usage?). Funny, what happened to that? And AOL's content isn't exactly stellar (I know most
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Personally I ignore all these types of ratings and stats. As you said, there is *so* much that can be done to weigh the odds in your favor, or to show the odds in favor of whomever you want them to.
I hate to break it to you, but the list of platforms you describe is basically irrelevant. So Netscape has cornered the dark back alley of the internet. [...]
;)
That's all well and good for *you* maybe, but I still use netscape, because I don't happen to run an os in the "95%" range you mention. I am forced to use netscape for mail (unless you can find me a linux mailer that does x509 certs). I've found that recently mozilla and galeon give me the ability to totally dump netscape as a browser, but the hpux/sun/irix's of the world might not be as lucky.
So while your argument may be true, it doesn't mean that there aren't people still here in the back alley. How about the stats that say that 99% of people in your hometown aren't homeless (or whatever). Does that mean that the 1% that are homeless don't matter? "What? donate to a foodbank? Why, 99% of the people don't need it, so lets just ignore it for the rest".
The majority is great if you are in the majority. Those not in the majority feel quite different
which is a common, but evil, bug in the graphical browsers. OK, it's part of a family of bugs. Users should be able to override *all* of the silly things that page designers do--text size, color, and font (FoxNews dark blue on black, anywone), using plugins instead of external applications (No, I don't want to give up a page of real estate while I watch crossfire. OK, realplayer doesn't apply to me until the next election cycle or football season
hawk
I can't tell you anything about the windows version, but under unix, you can choose broswer-applications within preferences, and remove the association to the plugin.
This still doesn't let you force the launch of an external program when some nutball coded his idiotic page for a plugin . . .
hawk
People, come *home*. That's right, even though you've strayed from the One True Browser, Lynx, it will open you back with open arms. Make sure that your lynx.cfg has
COOKIE_ACCEPT_DOMAINS:
(so you stay logged in) and
COOKIE_REJECT_DOMAINS: (anywhere else you go regularly),
EXTERNAL:ftp:wget %s &:TRUE
(to catch files)
EXTERNAL:http:xterm -tn xterm-color -T lynx -geometry 80x50 -e lynx %s & : TRUE
(so that with a . you can open a new browser on a link) and finally
COLOR:0:black:white
COLOR:1:blue:white
COLOR:2:yellow:blue
COLOR:3:green:black
COLOR:4:magenta:white
COLOR:5:blue:white
COLOR:6:red:white
COLOR:7:magenta:cyan
so that you get a light background (the default colors don't work well on a CRT [save a full text console], but are readable on LCD).
At that point, you are close to Salvation, I tell you. WHen you open lynx, hit "o" to get to the options, tell it to save options to disk, and set the editor to "vi" or "vim," and with a cry of "Hallelujah!" save your options. You can then hit "^Xe" to edit your comments for slashdot with the One True Editor, and free your soul of the abomination called EMACS."
My brothers, once you've done this, you can see the internet as it was *meant* to be seen. All will be forgiven (except for any web pages you've written that blink, use java, or javascript), and once again, you'll be browsing at high speed and without annoying flashing things and dorky sounds.
brother hawk, leader of the faithful
this post void in Utah and for anyone who thinks that Windows works properly
Sorry it has to be said -
:)
Konqueror is pretty damn good competition... sure it doesn't have a built in JVM, but then Microsoft's isn't exactly compliant - download a JDK from IBM or Sun, install flash, and Konqueror 2.1 is very usable
Its much more viable than the behemoth that is mozilla anyway.. imho
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The server is / was. The Netscape browser was just that, a browser. Since IIS doesn't run on UNIX, the two choices are Apache and Netscape iPlanet server (yes, I'm aware there are other servers out there, but iPlanet and Apache are the two market dominators). This isn't the invitation to start a flame-thread about Apache vs iPlanet, but realize for Fortune 100 companies still want a commercial entity behind their web server. /dev/null
Again, please rediresct all flames to
Secret windows code
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
I don't understand what you mean by Lost the Browser War. It's not something you can win or lose, unless you're talking about giving up from the frustration caused by the monopolistic, anticompetitive tactics of a certain company.
As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux. Konqueror is making inroads, but nobody has as complete a market as netscape.
Umm, you could also buy Internet Explorer in a boxed set at the store for $40. Or don't you remember that?
Both browsers were available as free downloads from day #1. It might have been only a beta version, but those beta versions were extremely popular at the time because people didn't feel compelled to pay $30 for a browser.
It's very difficult to argue that Netscape ever intended or made any money off browser sales. The only people who paid for it were corporations.
Microsoft has already promised to release the source to a reference implementation of C# for Unix as part of their standards compliance process.
The companies you are referring to were once making end user software for the Microsoft controlled desktop. Then Microsoft kicks them out.
they blew their (first) chance to be dominant on the platform used by 90% of browsers by failing to design their software in a scalable fashion and failing to allocate the resources to software development required to maintain their lead over Internet Explorer. They blew their second chance because of lack of focus on the important goals in developing Mozilla, with too much focus on the standard of the week from w3c. And yes, Netscape/AOL employees *are* the main developers of Mozilla.
use a different theme. the default "Classic" is ugly. I prefer "Modern" of the two, though I'd like to research some other themes.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Hrm... I guess if Apple wouldn't threaten people duplicating its look and feel, a Very Aqua Theme[tm] would be a reality. But I mean, hell, they should create their own. :-)
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Actually, the fact that Acrobat files come up in the browser pane isn't, as far as I know, the result of a page designer's choice, it's the result of Acrobat Reader running as a plugin.
Perhaps I've missed something, but I didn't see any point in the Acrobat Reader installation process, at least on Windows, where I can tell it not to install the plugin, nor did I see any obvious way to tell Netscape 4.73, at least, not to run the Acrobat plugin, but to just run the Acrobat Reader binary.
So, unless I have missed something, it's a silly thing that Adobe and the developer of your browser did, not a silly thing that a page designer did, but it still doesn't seem to be overridable.
I found that sufficiently annoying (with all the extra screen real estate at the top of my browser windows, the actual display window in which the Acrobat reader appears is too short for me to be able to see a full page at a font size that I can read without moving my head right up to the screen) that I
- uninstalled Acrobat Reader;
- renamed my Netscape directory under Program Files to Fuckscape;
- installed Acrobat Reader - it didn't find Netscape, so it installed no plugins;
- renamed Fuckscape to Netscape.
Fortunately, either the Acrobat Reader installation process on various UNIX-flavored OSes lets you say "no plugin, please", or the plugin isn't found because, on FreeBSD, I'm using a BSD version of Netscape and a Linux version of Acrobat Reader, so I didn't have to get out the chainsaw to fix this on my FreeBSD partition at home.I think I might have tried that only to have Netscape whine that the DLL was missing, rather than just running the Acrobat Reader program. But it was a while ago, so I may be misremembering....
If you've been staying away because of speed, stability, etc...you might want to give one of the latest nightlies a shot - they've gotten considerably more stable (at least for me, YMMV) over the past 2 weeks or so - and runs *nearly* as fast as konq (it may be graphics slowdown from the overly intensive "modern" theme I'm running, until x.themes.org comes back with thinice ;) ).
t /
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/lates
* Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday, since Gates already made the error of selling his browser for free.
Not quite so - MS released IE for free to *undercut* Netscape's prices, and gain marketshare. They also used illegal bundling practices to hedge Netscape out of OEMs - preventing Netscape from coming pre-installed on many consumer-level computers. It was all a ploy to get rid of Netscape - and it worked.
Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run...
Wrong again. There's a big difference between "free" (IE: no cost) software, "Open Source" (IE: you can look at and report bugs in the source) software, and "Free" (IE: you have the same rights as the author) software.
Giving away "free" software is just a major undercut of your competitor's pricing, and could only be outdone by either giving away a better package, or paying people to take your software. It destroys (in some cases) much of the "value" of commercial competitors, since as long as your "free" alternative is "good enough", many people won't pay extra for your competitor's software.
This is how MS played the cards with IE. You could get IE for "free", and it worked "good enough" that most people didn't go get Netscape, which at the time cost around $50. MS went a step further by "bundling" - but that's another discussion.
"Open Source" software means that you're letting people (in some cases the public, in some cases only a select few "chosen" people) look at the source code, and possibly be able to report bugs - but there's no freedom to use the source code - only to look. While this might prevent some security flaws from going unnoticed, it provides no real benefit to the consumer (at least, IMHO)
"Free" software is just that - once you have it, you have the same rights as the author. Compile, run, modify, redistribute - you can do it all, and you are encouraged to. Many companies (most notably MS recently) are *scared* by this, since it is very tough to compete with on an even level.
Just bcause a company gives away software at no cost doesn't mean it has embraces the Open Source or Free software movements, or that eventually they will. It just means they're trying to undercut their competition and gain marketshare.
* Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.
I won't argue with you here, although Mozilla is (finally) turning into a mighty fine browser =)
I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon.
They don't sell their browser as a standalone product - but you pay for it every time you buy a computer with Win* preinstalled, or purchase a copy of any MS software. (Win, Office, etc...)
MS doesn't need to sell it's browser - by bundling it with the OS, it gets to people anyway. It also makes it extremely tough for *anyone* to sell a commercial browser. Look at Opera - they recently started giving away an advertising-supported "free" version of their browser, but they still have very little in the way of market/mindshare (but they *do* have an excellent product). Can you really justify buying Opera when you have IE for free? (as well as Mozilla, Konq, etc...) It's tough.
Thanks, Netscape. Rest in peace.
Yes - Netscape has left their mark - even if they die a slow, horrible, painful death by "portalizing", they have left their mark on the world.
Yes. Opera is significantly faster, and believe it or not, it saves me time. I think the small fee is acceptable to save 20 minutes per day and allow time for a "coffee break". It adds up over time.
I'm glad you've found enough value there to justify the purchase. Opera is a damn fine product. They're just trying to sell their product in a market where most, if not all of their competition is given away.
But the superior quality of the product isn't enough for the vast majority of people to justify buying a browser - just as the vast majority of people don't change their browser's default homepage - sad but true. They've been conditioned to eat what they're given, and that what they're given is "good enough".
I wasn't saying it's impossible - I was just saying that for many people, it's tough to justify that purchase.
Hehe - I love Konq =) It *is* what Mozilla was trying to be.
But I do try to keep track of the others - and lately Mozilla's been making a lot of headway. I think Konq is still superior at the moment - but they're both miles ahead of Netscape 4.7 =)
Another point is that when you compile a C program you have the source code and can add the missing delimiters. When you read the web page you cannot fix it, no matter how detailed the error message is (and Netscape produces NO error message).
It is shameful that people here refuse to say that MicroSoft does anything right. In fact, ignoring the exact letters of silly standards is what the original Unix designers did (that's why we have single-character newlines while Windoze and all others have ^M^J and the unnecessary complexity that adds, and why 8-bit characters work), and it really does result in an easier-to-use system, and also makes it a lot easier to program.
MicroSoft only does evil extensions when they produce data that can only be interpreted by their programs. This must be fought, but simple changes like this, where the result and how to use it are clear, is not evil, it is just an attempt to be user friendly. People here have got to see the difference.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The nightlies still sucked when I tried them about a month ago. Last week, I switched to Konqueror and haven't loaded the old NS4 since. I vaguely miss some of the wizzier features of Mozilla (saving http-auth passwords, form input, themes, etc.), but the speed and reliability of Konqueror is well worth it.
Plugins actually work, too. Hell, Acrobat files even come up in the browser pane. I don't particularly like that, but it's cool to see things work like they do everywhere else.
CSS seems a little off with regard to text colors, but I'm probably doing something wrong.
Try Konqueror. You'll probably be impressed.
--
#19845
I use Windowmaker, with a GNOME panel (currently only for GnomeICU, but eh); konqueror and kpasman are the only KDE apps I use. As noted earlier, some KDE libs are required, but you're by no means forced to use a full-KDE desktop.
--
#19845
Exactly, and that's why Opera can't be successful. I know two (and a half) people who use Opera as their daily browser (on Linux). The first time I saw it I guessed it was Opera, from what I had read about it (big honking ad as part of the browser... that's kind of distinctive). I looked at it and I hated it instantly (I don't like the interface and I don't like the look and I don't like installing something that I couldn't compile by myself). When I asked these people why they liked it they said it was more stable than Netscape (I told one one them about Mozilla, but at the time PSM and Java where flaky and they are not the kind of people that put up with bugs, least report them, every know and then). This "more stable" meant "Opera crashes 1/10th of the times". When I asked if they planned on registering Opera, they said "what for?". When I asked if they didn't find the ads annoying, they said "nuh". As far as I understand the WebAd bussiness, you make a profit if your clients actually *click* on the things. If these people I know represent the opinion of the majority of Opera's users, how's this company going to make money?
Fuck, name a non-fixed security problem in Apache at all...
You obviously don't remember, then, Navigator being sold in the store for around $40? It wasn't free (except to education and maybe non-profit orgs) until after The Man gave away his browser for free (and subsequently integrated it into the OS). After Netscape's marketshare started slipping, they decided to follow suit and tried to make money off of their other services, which you pointed out. Sadly, they never could.
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
God I love starting responses like that. :)
Ever since AOL ditched the Netscape 4 codebase in favor of the AOL supported but still independent Mozilla code-base, I always figured that AOL and Netscape had gotten out of producing Netscape as a browser. To slap a Netscape icon on Mozilla and package in AIM does not make it Netscape. For all intents and purposes, Netscape died when Netscape Inc. opensourced it and the Mozilla crew tossed the old code-base and rewrote the thing in their image (a badly needed thing). I _am_ surprised that only now is the media catching on. What, do we have to hand-feed them now? Are they too lazy to keep up with stuff? Sheesh. Netscape is gone. No more. 4.77 is it. Netscape 6.0/6.1 is based on pre-beta free software - I'm ashamed that AOL did that. How dare they take a very incomplete and unready Open Source project and unleash it on the world as a "finished" project. Is this what goes on behind the closed doors of commercial software makers? "It's good enough - package it, give it a high version number and ship it." - what a crime. Because of that, people's attitude of Open Source software, and Netscape in general have plummetted. I sure as hell wouldn't use Netscape 6.* on Linux or Windows. BUT - I do use Mozilla 0.9 with great zeal and eagerly look forward to future releases. I've installed Mozilla 0.9 on several different platforms and have it out in the "wild" being used by my clients. I migrated from NN 4.77 to Mozilla 0.9 - so I missed most of the pre-alpha/beta stuff except my very brief foray into NN 6.0 (I promptly vomited that bad apple from my system). The guys at Mozilla are quickly doing final cleanup in preparation for the official Beta release - look at the updates on their site. It has the feeling of the final dusting and cleaning before a new house is sold. It's feature complete, rather stable (better now than Netscape and that's with Java, Javascript and CSS enabled) - and acceptably quick, all things considered. The primary focus on the 0.9 - 1.0 is final cleaning and _Optimization_ - following the regular development cycle of "Features first, then Debugging, then Optimization" I'd have to say that they're on the last legs of debugging and already in the midst of optimization. Future releases will be quicker, start up quicker and be stabler. Mozilla already has more features than IE by far - it's a powerful application platform where IE is just some cheesy Mosaic clone with a few improvements and OS integration.
In summery - Good Bye Netscape. It's been an interesting ride, but I'm glad it's over. Hello Mozilla. Your market share sucks, but since when does market share have anything to do with Open Sourse and Free software anyway? Of course, Mozilla now seems to be our best chance at keeping Microsoft from totally Microsoftizing the Internet. They've got their hooks in pretty deep - we'll see. If you've used an older version, try newer ones periodically. Migration from IE in inevitable. And, future versions of at least RedHat Linux will be shipping with only Mozilla and not Netscape (so they say). Lets hope more distros follow.
Please be aware that Mozilla is about producing a darn good browser (and more) that works on multiple systems. IE is about maintaining a monopoly. Do the math... Don't ditch your Netscape 4.77 for IE - give Mozilla a try. If it's too slow - give it a while and try again.
Why not lose the lizard in the netscape topic icon?
mozilla is it's own topic now, after all...
jwz has a new post-post-mortem that is relevant to this article at http://www.jwz.org/gruntle
No, layout won't change. What'll change is IE specific plugins and x86 Win32-only binaries downloaded to your browser will be expected to run......
Layout is irrelevent. Why bother controlling that standard when you can "extend" the Web experience to make it Microsoft-only.
That's what scares me.
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
--
"Merging into heavy traffic at near light speed!"
"Merging into heavy traffic at near light speed!"
"Our inertial mass ever increasing!"
1) Netscape 6.0 was terrible -- Virtually everyone in my office tried it (once). These are people in the tech industry and therefore somewhat infulential. Ironically, it seems to be hated more by the Netscape 4 people than the IE people. Of course, that's just not news anyone here.
/., but NOWHERE else. When I try to tell co-workers and other tech people about it they seem rather dubious and don't go out of their way to try it as they did with NS6. My theory is that "Moe Zilla" is just too cheezy and bad shareware sounding.
2) Mozilla is just not advertised enough. Sure, there's lots of good word of mouth here on
3) Microsoft advertises the IE beta on "WindowsUpdate". I bet lots of people get the "Critical Update Notification" and go up to download a new IE patch and end up with the 6.0 Beta. (Generally, MS Beta browsers are not a good bet for average users, so it's strange placement right below the "critical" stuff.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The browser wars shall never end until every IE user is purified by fire!!!
Wow, how the times have changed... :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Based on Microsoft's past actions, the current level of standards support in IE is there to gain market share. Once they have captured enough of the market, they will begin making their own standards in order to prevent anyone else from competing. It's a means to an end, it's not really because they're serious about standards in a meaningful way.
Speaking as someone who was recently using Netscape 4.x on HP-UX, there's really nothing on any of those sites that you can't get along without. Now that I have access to Netscape on Solaris and Linux, which do have somewhat more plugin support, I still don't use them because I've learned the hard way that that sort of thing doesn't really add any value to my web experience. If web sites don't work for me, I go elsewhere - there are usually plenty of other places to find what I'm looking for.
Not that it wouldn't be nice if all web browsers could work together with all sites correctly, I just don't think it's a crippling problem if they don't.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
No, of course not. Why would anyone ever think that of Microsoft? I can't imagine ever having any issues with Microsoft's standards support - the very idea is unthinkable. After all, you have to embrace the standard before you can extend it in non-standard ways, you know.
Don't confuse what makes your job easier with what's better for the public - look how nice it's been when almost everyone uses one broken email client, after all. Anyone having 100% market share is always bad in theory, and almost always bad in practice. If there's anyone I would trust to have 100% share of a market, it's not Microsoft.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
And it's available on Linux I presume....
..you are probably right
probably because their main product (Netscape Browser), does not make any money, but is very expensive to keep developing for. Not only is it not making any money, it would be _impossible_ for it to make money. It is free(beer).
:(
They are a company, they need to make money.
Is an Internet Portal the way to do it? probably not
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Have they said when, and what the license would be?
Well, even if they have, I won't hold my breath. They are widely know for "optomistic" release dates.
And for last minute changes to the license.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
http://www.fuckedcompany.com
Why do the better allways lose? Because the not-so-good is allways made by the Evil. And Evil allways wins, 'cause they have more means for winning.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Netscape users are STILL 15%-20% of the market, maybe more.
Not in my world. Netscape has dropped below 10% in all my logs. I'm at a point where IE specific code is getting really hard to argue against. I really doubt that Netscape can turn this around and have any sort of real market share. Sure Mozilla 1.0 should be around RSN, but for it to hit 30%? I really doubt it.
For Netscape this has become less of a holy war, and more of a struggle to keep out of the red.Gee, you don't hear that every day!
--
You're a suburbanite.
I believe Mozilla stands a pretty good chance:
1) The muckups that NS 6 and NS 6.01 made of the Mozilla image won't be there anymore.
2) IIRC, the NS development staff have already all but pulled out of Mozilla development.
3) The latest Mozilla builds are starting to *SHINE* and that alone will give it momentum.
4) Neither Konq or Opera have the same level of DOM and JavaScript support as NS or IE (Sure, nearly, but not quite)
I actually use Opera 5.0 for Linux for most things, but still use Mozilla a lot of the time because some sites require either IE or Netscape, and Mozilla is close enough to Netscape to be acceptable to these people.
I'd like to see a more level playing field in future, with Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla and IE all keeping eachother in check. Without a reasonable number of players, IE will just walk all over the idea of standards based browsers.
--
Enjoy Y2K? Roll-on Year 2037!
ask your mom if she would rather visit is portal, or an internet media hub and see which one she chooses.
"What's that again, dear?"
deus does not exist but if he does
Actually, the browser is usable, even on this obsolete machine (using a 712/100 is roughly comparable with using a Pentium 133, to give you an idea). Perhaps you want to disable URL autocompletition, though.
There are some problems with image dithering (on a 8 bit display...), but for the rest works fine. I really suggest you giving it a try.
FYI, since Mozilla 0.8, there are prebuilt binaries for both HP-UX 10.20 and HP-UX 11. I know there have been some also for older milestones (M18, IIRC). They are made available some time after the Windows/Linux/Solaris releases.
Unfortunately, it seems you have to build and install GTK and the other libraries (i.e. libjpeg, libungif, libpng and friends) by yourself, which isn't exactly a painless process on HP-UX 10.20 (I don't know about 11, but it should be definitively simplier).
OTOH, if you really want it, IE 5 is available for HP-UX 10.20 (just search the microsoft site). At least it seems to work enough...
wish I had mod points...
nosig today
"Netscape Navigator" will likely never be a product again. This is no shock. It will almost certainly be given away (free debugging!), but AOL's primary interest is clearly in developing the next-generation of platform on which to build the AOL client.
They are trying to gain control over the browser platform for basically the same reasons that Microsoft did. Mozilla/Netscape helps them do this.
The interesting thing is that AOL needs Netscape more than ever. As MS begins to flex it muscles to see how far the Bush administration will let them go, AOL needs to be very aware of how easily a few key media deals could cripple their market, and having their own browser platform will help make them a little bit more independant.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
Netscape still has a very strong brand name and while it's no longer the case that Netscape == the Internet, the brand is still very valuable and recognized. Wasn't there a story here a couple of days ago about the top-4 web sites receiving 60% of all clicks. Netscape was one of those sites and it sounds like AOL will start pushing it even more now. It's much easier to build on something existing than starting from scratch. When AOL bought Netscape, everyone assumed it was because of the browser. Even if that was the case, the weight has definitely shifted now and unfortunately, it's much because of the failure of Mozilla.
And yes, I know Mozilla (1.0) hasn't been released yet so it's theoretically too early to call it a failure. But that's the whole point - three years later, it's still not at 1.0 and Netscape 6.x was a flop of monumental proportions. Neoplanet has backed away from it and now it seems AOL is too.
Yes, that's the kind of stats I've seen too. What's even more shocking is that Mozilla and Netscape 6.x combined have less than 0.5% market share and IE 6 beta has above 1%, despite the fact that Mozilla and Netscape 6.x have been out WAY longer. Netscape's market share is hovering around 10% and dropping, IE's is closing in on 90%.
...Netscape will become Pathfinder for the GenX crowd. Only that when Pathfinder was live, only us "GenXers" (I hate that term too) were using the Web in the first place, and you know how Pathfinder turned out.
:-)...
The browser war is dead anyway. The coming war will be Web-based services (think IM, stock quotes, money management); MS has the better technology, but AOL has the users... it will be an interesting battle
What I found more interesting however is Microsoft's plans for embedded instant messaging utilities in the next Windows release.
Having effectively now gained control of the browser market does this mean they're likely to do the same for IM? If that means that everyone's on the same standard then that might not be a bad thing, but you're then obviously dependant again on how willing they are to share with non-MS companies wishing to produce compliant clients...
Well, then, don't include that crap in your design. Duh.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
***BBZZZTTT!!*** Thank you for playing.
From the original message in the thread:
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I don't mind the idea in general. It's just that Microsoft's cars come with Firestone tires and fail rollover tests. Where can I get the monolithic Toyota or Mercedes?
There was a time when netscape.com was the most popular destination on the Internet b/c it was the default start page for almost every browser. This was back in the days when a lot of people didn't understand how the Net worked and were willing to be guided by the hand. Amazingly Netscape did absolutely nothing to capitalize on the opportunity to become the critical portal on the web. Yahoo etc wouldn't have stood a chance.
I guess they can try to play catch up, but I'm beginning to think that whatever brand-equity is left will quickly be transformed into a negative image. If they can't make this reorganization work, the name will become synonymous with Betamax (if it isn't already).
For my money 'though, I'm glad that Netscape missed the boat on the web portal opportunity. I don't think the web would be half as interesting a place if everyone had to go there to do anything. The competition and innovation inspired by leaving room for this to be done by others has produced countless successes and failures over the past few years.
----------------------------
Well, it's about time Netscape got with it and jumped on the dot com bandwagon. The whole "media hub" thing is a really cool new idea...I mean nobody's doing that.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
in other words, one more way to get content controlled by the time-warner-aol conglomerate, but this time it's aimed at the "independent thinking people" who do things their own way instead of the unwashed sheeple masses on aol.
bah. phooey. pffffffththththt!!!!!
Karma only matters to me now and zen.
I have a version of thinice that works with 0.9, if you're interested. Email me.
So, netscape.com will become a portal forWeb purists not already using AOL services? These must be some pretty uninformed 'web purists' they're after...
Wah!
I have to laugh at some of the IE postings here on this topic. Seems the Billy's drones are ever vigilant. I've been quite pleased with Opera 5.x. I downloaded the free version and ended up purchasing it. For $39 it just seemed like a great deal. Also, as a programmer, I was impressed that a small group of people could produce such a superior browser - especially for that price. If Gates charged for IE... for the bucks he really spends on developing it... I bet it would cost $200. But then again, stick around... it another year or so, it probably will.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Konquerer requires KDE (they're mated products, like a certain WA company's).
I am turned off by the comic-booky (BAM! POW!!! OOOOOF!!!) style of kde. Personally, I believe that Gnome has a more "civilised" appearance.
Convince me I should be using KDE instead, and I'll try it, but until then, feh.
Without a reasonably strong browser in popular use, how on earth can Netscape.com attract visitors? It doesn't work to simply have other AOL-TW companies plug Netscape.com on air or in print because users associate (for example) CNN with CNN.com. Which, if memory serves, is why Pathfinder was such a roaring success.
The premise of this posting is wrong. AOL cannot get mega-traffic without browser integration. How else do you think MSN gets so much traffic? It sure isn't the killer search engine.
This may be true. I agree that IE is better. So where do I get the Linux version? Oh, I've got to run Windows? Well I think I'd rather keep the glaring bugs in the web browser rather than in the OS...
I'd say if you divided the number of glaring Linux bugs by the number of glaring Windows bugs you'd have a number that is much less than one. So the above is only a relative approximation. I am the one sysadmins for the physics dept. at my university and I must support several OS's. Windows is by far the most problematic and requires a disproportionate amount of our time when compared to the other OS's.
Try maintaining a few labs full of windows boxes and then see if you feel this way. It is rare that a day goes by that one of these things does not self-destruct. Anyway, it has been my experience that Windows is only "user friendly" until something unexpected occurs. Then it is a black box and leaves you in the dark. And in general, I find Linux much easier to use and maintain. What is supposedly "easy" is simply a matter of experience. Maybe it is just that the *nix philosophy that suits me. As far as hardware support goes, I agree that one must be careful to choose compatible hardware, but this situation gets easier by the day.
Umm, only problem is that Mozilla can't yet deal with the java applets I need to run in order for our webmail application to work. So no, upgrading is not an option right now. And no IE doesn't work right either.
Yep, I guess I should upgrade because it makes your life as a content provider easier? Sure, ok. My point is there may be no reason to do this.
If I have an old car that works, I don't throw it out just because its old. Netscape 4.X works well for many people. But as you say, they should be forced to upgrade. Why? When you manage hundreds of PC's upgrading is a fairly nasty task that causes a lot of disruption. If your tech. support measures service levels, a mass upgrade throws a real wrench in the works. The upgrade treadmill, brought to you by closed-source vendors like MS is what sometimes makes IT a hellish place to work (I know for you its different browsers looking at your content).
Theres no real need to be on the upgrade treadmill anymore (thats what's changing MS's liscencing scheme). You can upgrade when you want and how you want. I'll upgrade all the PC's from Netscape 4.X to Mozilla when I want and how I want.
That's not really good for Mozilla. Mozilla needs a big company to support it in order to get some serious market penetration. I still have hopes that AOL will eventually embed Mozilla directly into AOL.
What else can be done to gain some marketshare? IE ships with almost every computer sold world round, how do you compete with that?
If Mozilla only gains marketshare in *nix, that won't really help us at all. We need some marketshare in Windows for Mozilla to become a viable browser. If we don't get that, the web is doomed to become "Windows Only".
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Check out AbiWord.
The point is is that it crashes for HIM. Who cares if the product runs perfect (which it obviously doesn't) for you? If it doesn't work for him then that's his reason for not using it. Personally, IE crashes on my system one out of every three times I use it. Sometimes taking out explorer.exe. The point is, just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people.
I use the Mozilla nightly builds and I am very happy with them. They crash a lot less than IE on MY MACHINE (read that again... on my machine.. I'm not talking yours or anyone elses) and it is faster on my machine (again, read previous statement.)
I don't think that's correct. I believe HTML parsers are supposed to be quite lenient about screwy code. This is bad in a sense, since it leads to slop, but it does allow you to do things like browse the web using Netscape 3. ("What the heck's a style tag? I'll just ignore it.")
Also, you might check the HTML 4.01 specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3. 2.1 ("Some HTML element types allow authors to omit end tags (e.g., the P and LI element types).").
Thanks! So I can take comfort from your statement when my web stats show that 95% of all visitors are using some version of IE? Whoopee
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
A.K.A. What do we do for a press release? (recycle this)
I don't have the links... They probably don't exist anymore anyways.
Before AOL/SUN ate Netscape, Netscape Communications had done exactly what this 'press release' said. There was never an anouncement of any deviation from this model either.
The only change was that Sun would take over the server products (and apparently fail at most of them), and pay AOL for browser development. Go figure.
I'd have to check, but what this is probably a flag for is that that contract for browser development is probably coming up on running out and AOL wants to transition the Netscape brand into something it can make money from without looking like AOL.
Yes. Opera is significantly faster, and believe it or not, it saves me time. I think the small fee is acceptable to save 20 minutes per day and allow time for a "coffee break". It adds up over time
I feel the same way, I really get a lot out of Opera; however, they really burned me up when they made me pay AGAIN to get into the 5+ series. Seems I supported them too soon. If you bought your first Opera license before a certain date, you only got half off the current 5+ series. That makes me hesitant to ever pay them again.
Only Lynx, Opera, and Netscape 4.77 run acceptably on my older machine. For over a year I have heard "try the Mozilla nightlies, they're good!" I cannot use something that to this day takes so long to load and runs so slow. I'll miss them swirlin' Netscape comets.....they served me well for years.
probably because their main product (Netscape Browser), does not make any money, but is very expensive to keep developing for.
Good point.
However, there simply has to be enough battle-scarred, experienced PC developers in their midst (especially from AOL) for them to realize that, once they concede the browser, MS will leverage that platform for its own business objectives, just as they have leveraged and continue to leverage the OS for their objectives from the get go.
Be assured the new "features" of IE 7 will "work best with MSN".
And, BTW, the business objectives of MS includes promotion of MS sites and portals, since growth of the company requires new markets, the old markets for OS, Office and IE having been effectively conquered and saturated.
If I were Netscape, attempting to compete on portal business with someone on an equal footing (say yahoo, for example), that would be one thing, more than a sufficient challenge. In such a contest, may the best portal win!
But, if I were competing with MS, I'd live in fear of the day the ax would fall and end my pitiful existence, as any worthwhile features I developed would be embraced, extended and repackaged by MS. And, when the next version of consumer Windows is "released" (on all the new hardware, as is typical), their market share will inexorably climb, as the complexity factor prevents most of my target audience from untying all the knots joining Windows to IE to MSN. And I would end up playing catch-up ball, trying to adapt to the new standards.
Netscape is simply following a tactical decision here to die more slowly, giving up the better long-term strategy because they haven't increased their browser market share in, what, 5 years?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
people who think it's as simple as that should keep quiet until they get out of kindergarden.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Why the fuck is this insightful? It's actually the most uniformed, retarded post here. .NET emits pure HTML to the client browser. If the client browser supports ECMA-Script then then it gets richer client-side controls otherwise it's just more roundtrips to the server.
There's no such thing as a damn .NET Compliant Browser.
"internet media hub" is 150% buzzword compliant.
\ =\=\=\=\=\
ask your mom if she would rather visit is portal, or an internet media hub and see which one she chooses.
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Why would AOL buy a browser? As a result of Microsoft "cutting off their air supply" the browser has been free for years. When did it become free, late '97? I remember because the place I work was in the process of a software audit to register the shareware applications, etc., floating around the office, when Netscape went free for businesses too.
Netscape users are STILL 15%-20% of the market, maybe more. You'd be shocked how many are around, and that's will Netscape 4.x. Mozilla will bring more if Fizzilla (the Carbon Mac OS X one) and the core system improve AND Mac and Linux both gain marketshare... both reasonable assumptions.
Mozilla helps Netscape IF Netscape ships a branded Mozilla (which they STILL will). Mozilla users => web logs indicated Netscape 5 or 6 or whatever users. If 30% of my traffic is Mozilla based, I can't ignore the browser. This let's Netscape stay competitive by their browser being supported.
Remember why AOL bought Netscape. They wanted to reach more Internet users. ICQ users and Netscape users are a VERY different kind of user than their AIM/AOL users. Most of my friends at school were using AIM, so I slowly moved in that direction, but it's telling who is still on my ICQ list and hasn't moved over.
AOL wants to sell their stuff everywhere! They have a LOT to sell.
Netscape remains valuable because users with Netscape.com as their home page ARE NOT users that normally use AOL products. They would have no easy way to reach them on the Internet. Netcenter (or whatever they call it THIS week) changes that.
Alex
Too bad Konqueror is a much, much better browser than Mozilla. Which would you rather have: Something shitty, but OpenSource or something that works great and closed source? Myself, I'd take the later. I'd probably run IE if it was on Linux.
OpenSource is nice, but only if it leads to a superior product.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Nice.
I use IE5.5 every day for browsing /. and many other web sites.
It crashed only around 10 times, plus it takes out EXPLORER.EXE 0% of the time. I don't understand what's the point you were making...
Yea, no one cares if IE runs perfect for me. However, it also runs perfect for many others. I'm not the first one to say "IE works great!" here on /. Most of the time it's configuration/user problem that causing IE to crash.
> Personally, IE crashes on my system one out of every three times I use it.
Oh, poor, you should spend time to fix your setup... No wonder Mozilla crashes a lot less for you. Don't get me wrong, I would like to switch to Mozilla when it is rock stable.
Er, it's still not obvious. I agree with you that 0.9 is very solid (though Mozilla is showing a disturbing tendancy to miss deadlines by a greater and greater margin each time), but let me reprint the poster's original comment for you again:
Without a reasonably strong browser in popular use, how on earth can NETSCAPE.com attract visitors?
(Bold and caps mine) If Mozilla magically becomes the dominant browser, believe you me, it ain't gonna help Netscape one bit. Netscape will still need to get people to use their "branded" version of Mozilla, which won't happen unless they at least keep it up to date with Mozilla.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Wrong. The use of "newline" as a line delimiter is compliant with the ASCII standard revision in the 1970s that says that LF should imply CR, rather than simply moving the printing position vertically. That, in fact, is why UNIX uses LF, not CR, as the line delimiter, and that's in one of the early UNIX notes.
Microsoft will probably start to put things in HTML that lock out non-Microsoft authoring tools and non-Microsoft servers. Expect to see Visual Basic start to replace JavaScript, a mechanism for including sections in Word format, and something that replaces Flash. Or maybe Microsoft will just extend Windows Media Player to handle the full MPEG4 set of navigation objects and such (with, inevitably, "Microsoft extensions"), and migrate authoring to Media Player format.
And then only Microsoft search engines will work, killing off Yahoo, etc.
"Netscape.com's base of registered users has grown 37 percent to more than 40 million worldwide from 15 million in February 2000, the company said."
... its no wonder why netscape lost the war
I actually think a better analogy is that you have the same car, but since time has passed they are starting to repave the roads you drive on. But since you have an old car, they need to add an extra lane because your old car can't drive on the new roads. So your old car is holding back progress for everyone, even though most other people already have new cars. Oh yeah: you could get a new car absolutely free.
because ASP.net works with components that generate the HTML for you, based on what the browser is able to render, so Netscape can survive the .NET age. In fact, .NET development makes it easier for webapplication builders to support more browsers, by just writing 1 codeset, so netscape users are not forced to upgrade when they want to use a certain webapplication.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Ya know, this could actually be a good thing for mozilla. Now that AOL has basically told us it isn't interested in making a browser any more, the importance of Mozilla becomes very high. IE cannot be the only browser, but Microsoft competing with AOL doesn't make much sense. IE is simply better than Netscape. But having an open-source alternative which runs on most platforms is important. Maybe it's time for someone other than AOL to fork Mozilla and take over development. I'm a big believer that large scale open-source won't work in today's age without corporate (or NPO) backing, but AOL just isn't cutting it.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
And of course, I am cynical about how all of these optional features are now suddenlly urgeant core features of the MS OS, but that is a rant for another day.
/. reader, but this is the sort of thing that the average consumer will want. This is what will cause the average consumer to give more money to Microsoft so MS doesn't go under. This isn't just some greedy MS concept, all companies do this. If they don't they are a (or should be) a non-profit organization.
Simple. Most people that have Windows, have absolutely no need to upgrade. It already supports everything the average user needs. In order to make money, Microsoft needs to keep adding more features to their main product, so the average user sees a reason to upgrade.
These may not seem urgeant to the average
I can see why people don't like MS for strongarming other companies, and spying on consumers, but I will never understand why everyone complains when MS adds a new feature to their major product. If a car company adds a new feature, and I'm looking for a new car, the car with the newest, coolest features are going to stand out in my mind, making the car manufacturer more likely to get my money.
In the more recent versions of IE, standards support is remarkable, which is a change from older versions. I'd like to link to a nice summary of browser/standards compatibility, however, I couldn't find one a short amount of time. Does anyone know of any?
I said Heaven, which is supposed to be perfection. I do understand that in real life 100% market share is not the always the best. Competition always decreases prices and causes companies to work harder in order to maintain market share. It was merely wishful thinking, which will hopefully become irrelevent once XML becomes widespread.
And besides, this broken up market share hasn't been good for the public either. It is almost necessary to have multiple browsers on your computer in order to visit all of the sites that you might happen across, if only for the latest plugins that might not have been developed for your browser of choice.
Based on Microsoft's past actions, the current level of standards support in IE is there to gain market share.
That would make a lot of sense; however, standards for HTML will soon be completely unecessary (XML again). XML is relatively agreed upon (excepting schemas). Any issues aren't created by the browser companies, but instead by other XML organizations that feel XML is becoming too bloated.
If web sites don't work for me, I go elsewhere - there are usually plenty of other places to find what I'm looking for.
I fully agree with you there, although at times companies seem to have an overabundance of flash plugins on their websites when you need to access their websites urgently. Flash, Java applets, and ActiveX controls are some of the most unecessary things a website could possibly possess.
I have seen too many companies been bought out by MS where the technology vanished, never to be seen again.
This is a sad fact. MS sees a new company, with a new product that they think that they can use. Management decides to grab it, but at the last minute the economy changes and they discard the idea. Instead of some small company failing, with the technology becoming widespread, it is possessed by those with money and tossed into the back closet for future use, if ever.
And where if you didn't want to sell out, your product became their innovation in the software, or the next urgeant core feature to the OS.
If they think that that product or service will be the next big thing, then of course they are going to make it urgeant and copy that product or service. This has been going on for ages. If Compaq hadn't thought that the PC would be the next big thing and reverse engineered an IBM machine, most likely computers would never have gotten as advanced as they are today. MS is extremely competitive, which is why they succeed where others fail.
And the result is that this guy has thousands of dollars of software that he has never even used once. Things like Photoshop, PageMaker, etc. because of this clueless urge for the latest thing.
Personally, I feel that this is nature's way of making up for the people who have at least a small clue (enough to know that they can use the key from their friend's cd) who have this software for free.
Most people seem to forget about how the W3C works, and see this as a reason to bash Microsoft.
Microsoft would not ignore the standards. Versions 5 and 6 (so far) of IE, have incredible support of most (CSS2 stands out like a sore thumb) of the standards. The extra things are added for the advancement of the web standards. If something is popular, it is added to the standard; otherwise, it is removed in later versions of the browser.
The thing about IE that I love (as a proffesional web developer) is its support for practically anything I need. If something is programmed one way for NS4, it is different for Mozilla, but using IE, I can write the code either way.
Mozilla isn't too bad; it does support non-standard properties (eg. innerHTML), but Opera is another matter. It supports nothing new. It can never help advance the standard (Is this needed with XML coming up?), and therefore is merely a bane to web development, weakening modern tools.
Heaven is when one browser has 100% of the market share, works cross-platform, and could bring newer, more modern, and more useful features to the public.
Sorry about the rant, but I do get tired of writing, checking my code in six different browsers (Have to check in Op4 and NS3..*shudder*) all the time.
Bill Gates has made this point in some speeches. Geeks might not like it, but he's right. And Gates operates a business: he is giving the customer what the customer wants. This definitely contributes Microsoft's success.
At least we've still got lynx to fall back on.
They seem to be forgetting that the web is much more than just Windows desktop systems.
If you want your apps to work with Linux, mobile internet, console devices of the future etc, java is probably the way to go.
Netscape has realized that end-users aren't where the money is: Iplanet products are. Microsoft's "enterprise" software doesn't even begin to compete against the likes of Enterprise Portal, ECXpert, Directory Server, and such. M$ is just now making a foray into such technologies. Netscape has been selling them for years. I have been working with Iplanet software for about six months now, and now see why no one who really knows anything aobut enterprise-level systems considers Microsoft a contender. Active Directory is an attempt, but it's still not nearly as powerful or flexible as directory. Nor is it mature or as stable. Everyone is talking about AOL fighting M$ on the end-user connectivity side. No one seems to notice the enterprise-level battle going on between win2k and Iplanet, who is also owned by Microsoft and AOL/Time-Warner, respectivly.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
It's out there, on hard drives, fully compilable. I'd say it's safe.
But I have to agree that Netscape as we know it is dead, has been for a while. AOL has the code, but so does the rest of the world, and we already have one spinoff (Galeon). I don't think the Netscape name is even worth much of anything anymore.
So my thought -- use Mozilla if you want, and if you don't feel free to strip the body for parts.
/Brian
When AOL took over NS, it was made clear then that the focus of Netscape would change to being the access point for AOL content. AOL would continue supporting Mozilla development for its own purposes.
This is like Columbus "discovering" the new world; forget those pesky inhabitants who have been there for millenia.
It has been obvious for a while now that browser technology has become "jellybeaned" (so common it is like a factory cranking out jellybeans), and is insufficient to be the sole support for a company. Of course what AOL wants is software that can be embedded in any box imaginable, delivering AOL/Time Warner content, where the real money lies.
Some Mozilla spawn on a wireless Linux webpad would be just perfect. Jellybean that , please!
Mozilla has gone down the stairs?
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Netscape has fallen way behind other browser makers, even the Mozilla project which came from Netscape itself. It doesn't surpise me that Netscape is going to quit making browsers.
A friend and I were talking about Microsoft and AOL breaking off talks a little while back and he brought up a good point. This is one of the best things that AOL has done in awhile. With AOL breaking off talks, this means that IE may not be the browser used in future versions of AOL's software and that Netscape would surely be. This would kill off .Net at the head because all those AOL users wouldn't be able to access those sites because they'd be using Netscape, not IE. That fact alone would make web site developers hesitant to develop for the .Net platform because they'd be missing out on millions of users.
This is where Netscape becoming a portal comes in. What happens now that Netscape may not be developing a browser anymore? AOL may start using Mozilla, or it could stick with IE and then MS would basically control the internet. We'd be helpless to stop it because we'd be so dependant on it.
And Then...
I mean, even I back away from Netscape's browser..... "Slowly, slowly......... It's gonna blow!!! RUN RUN!!"
Allan
...Netscape hasn't lost, everyone has. The way HTTP was designed was to make all kinds of browsers be able to easily get information from all over the Internet. But the way people fight over it, it looks like a fight between a couple of browser. But what we stand to loose here is not one or two or three browsers, but a way to gather information! As it seem at the moment IE will "win" this battle (Ironic perhaps that the most common browser is IE, while amongst the servers Apache is most common). As long as IE isn't multiplatform, or securityconserns or the likes make you unable to use it, we're only seeing the top of the iceberg when it comes to problems we will see later as plug-ins only are available for IE, websites uses IE-specific tags or ActiveX.
This is not the death of Netscape, it's the death of HTTP. What's the use of W3C when there's only one browser?
--
Geir
"I Wonder why Americans are so afraid of communism when their already overrun by Microsoft..."
How will this affect the future of Mozilla?
Yes, its under a free license, but let's not
forget nearly all development is still done
by Netscape employees.
If 80% of the developers have to work on other
stuff, it's going to be Nomorezilla fast enough...
--
GCP
And Aol is pushing to have the AOL Instant messanger be the standard or else it will start converting lots of its users to Netscape. or something like that
This somehow ties into the fight over Windows XP. The big companies didn't care as much when microsoft was going after smaller companies like Netscape. Now suddenly it is their lunch on the table, and it becomes important.
And of course, I am cynical about how all of these optional features are now suddenlly urgeant core features of the MS OS, but that is a rant for another day.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Why is it that all companies have to become Portals after they give up their main product and before they die?
How hard is it to change the name from Mozilla 0.x to Netscape 6.x? Oh and you got to change the little logo too... The real work is being done by those handy dandy Mozilla contributors...
The worst vice is advice...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
I would venture to say that Netscape, with the difficulties NS6 has had, and the difficulty Mozilla has arriving at the 1.0 release, still has served an important process in the development of the internet itself.
This may sound simple, but think about it from the side of Linux, or simply Open Source. How many browsers are based on the functionality and the rendering engines of Microsoft's IE? And even when I was on a Win98 system, I personally declined to use IE due to the seemingly weekly announcements of security problems. Netscape provided a set of html tags that improved the browsing of the internet. They were a reason for IE to get better, and vice versa. This is not to say that IE is worthless, simply that it is because of Netscape that there was at least a choice. So we arrive today at a place where we argue here whether or not it is appropriate that web browsers ought to transmit all the data, such as audio or video. that they are technically capable of.
Plus, for those of us who are Linux users, browsers like Mozilla and Galeon would never have come into existence if it weren't for the opening of the Netscape code.
If Netscape wishes to become merely a portal, then so be it, however; they are and have been indispensible in the process of bringing the web up to it's present girth and functionality.
Who the hell modded this down to Troll?
It's a legitimate concern that a lot of applications that are available on the client side will become unusable because no one can agree to continue something that has become a defacto standard. The disappearance of the Netscape web browser is going to hasten this, because while the web is not a windows desktop, as someone pointed out below, stats show that IE is the dominant browser, so much of the userbase is IE. The other largest portion is Netscape, and that vacuum will quickly be filled whether you choose to think that is an informed response or not. Whatever fills it will not be the same cross-platform tool that was there before, so things like Netscape Calendar Server, buggy as it may be, are out the window. Sure there's Mozilla, but it's too alpha for anyone to seriously think of putting in place at any corporation that might have standardized on Netscape. Everything else is just a wanna-be joke if you have any sense of what it takes to support a large company with these tools.
Rant rant rant
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Sure, you and I and all the other power users can do the things that appear simple to us, but the grandmoms and lusers of the world, which make a great majority of the user base, will not have the first clue about how to deal with this and will just use whatever is on their machine. No, you didn't need javac, but somewhere in there was a jar file or something else working at the strings, which won't be there anymore. We'll have a plethora of ways to set up Java which will settle into an inconvenient and somehow incompatible mess.
At that point you'll snap out of it and wonder what all the hue and cry about C# is from the management.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
That's what I meant by it being COBOL-ized into the background. There are people still programming plenty of valid applications in languages that most think are dead/dying but are actually alive and getting good use (see LISP). Java would still live on in the background as something that powers the engines of the net on the server side, but it would not be the applet driving Java that was in our faces for the past 7 or so years.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
That's capital S assrot.
Sad to say I have to agree with you.
:-(
The thing that hurt Netscape was the fact they released Netscape 6 based on a relatively old version of Mozilla code (Version 0.6). No wonder why everyone hated it; it was sluggish, had a look and feel that was totally different from Netscape 4.7x, and many web pages wouldn't render properly either.
I just hope Netscape might just redeem itself by releasing a new version of its browser based on Mozilla 1.0 code due later this year. It would also help if AOL 7.0 defaults to this new browser, but at the rate things are going that might not happen.
Java doesn't stand or fall by inclusion in the browser, in fact very little serious Java coding is done in the form of Java based applets.
I'm a Java developer and all the projects I've worked on have focussed on server-side technologies (servlets, EJB, JSP and b-to-b services). I know how to write an applet but I'd need to have a book open to do it!
Better the pride that resides in a Citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colourful rag is unfurled
How exactly is an 'Internet media hub' different from a portal?
And how exactly do Netscape intend to make any money from it when companies who have been doing it from the start can't?
--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
"Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won when Microsoft made IE available for free." :/
OK, I guess it depends how you define "won", but using the generally accepted definitions, M$ did indeed win - there are far more copies of M$IE in use round the world than there are of NS. Heck, depending upon which figures you use, there are far more copies of M$IE in use than ALL other browsers put together
Oh yeah, and how on earth does M$ releasing IE for free mean NS won?!?! I guess, using your own argument, M$ won the OS wars because Solaris, *BSD, Linux, ANX, BeOS et al are all available for free, right?
"As the philosophers say, once that camel's nose gets into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent. Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday,"
Oh dear! You quote a saying and from that draw a completely unconected conclusion.
Just because M$ give IE away for free (for now) doesn't mean they will Open Source it. Nor, indeed, does it necessarily mean they won't start charging for it again in the future if they feel the can get people to pay for it.
"Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run..."
Yeah, right. And selling software is the first step toward realising that Open/Free Source is an inferior marketing strategy in the long run, using your own argument.
I hate to burst your bubble, but software can be given away for free without it evenr being Open Source.
"Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free."
Ah yes, of course, because there was no free software before NS were forced to release their browser for free (note - FORCED, not CHOSE TO, but FORCED to in order to "compete" with M$ who gave their browser away for free to try to beat NS).
"I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon."
You do realise you are talking about the company which charges people real money to beta-test M$'s software for M$, don't you?
If M$ thought they could con enough people into paying for IE, it'd be sold rather than given away again tomorrow.
Of course, they can give it away for free because they just subsidise the costs via all their other software anyway.
--
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
The browser is a major development expenditure, for which there is no real revenue stream. A "loss leader", as it were. Looks like Netscape is trying to stanch the cash hemmorage.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Maybe now Opera will take off.
~sabine,
who misses BeOS's browser also
You should try IE Beta 6, it's even better. This is good news for me, since I work in tech support, and almost eveyone calling that has a problem with our website is using either Netscape, or the AOL browser. That, plus our webAdmins suck, should make it less likley for me to roll my eyes when I ask what ISP they use, and they tell me, "Oh Ize use Netscape."
I really hate Dan Patrick.
I'm sorry, you cant make excuses for it. The Netscape 4.x browser sucks with a capitol S. The old car analogy is good though because driving navigator is just like driving an old car with burnt out shocks and struts and a cracked engine mount. It doesn't even render HTML 4 correctly and its CSS implementation is horrible. like it or not web developers are going to use things like CSS and if you cant see it properly because your using a badly written program that's your fault. Now that it looks like Netscape may go the way of Mosaic maybe we can all get on with the job of supporting good HTML standards (like css).
So how is this going to effect AOL and the role netscape has been playing to keep MS in check? Like the recent talks about AOL wanting to preload AOL software onto XP. Very interesting..
1. Start-up -> Overnight Success
Start telling everyone that the old economy is dead and that you're the only one with any new ideas. When your stock options mature, put your hand over your winnings and tell the dealer, "let it ride, my man!"
2. Failure of the Core Business
Your competition has eaten your lunch. Those bridged you burned in step 1 are starting to look like mistakes. Maybe your mom was right, giving stuff away is no excuse for a business plan.
3. Bring in the Cavalry
If your customers abandoned you, perhaps the federal government will be more sympathetic. It may take years to reach any kind of legal satisfaction, but hey, at least history will remember you better this way.
4. Become an Internet Portal
During your hard road to financial catastrophe, you may not have garnered much cash, but you have earned a commodity far more important in today's economy: name identification. Parlay your fame into portal success until the money runs out completely. This is also a great way to lay off large numbers of employees quietly- in the same way that letting the air out of a balloon slowly makes less noise than a pop.
I think I know the next big dot-com to go under.
"...but I mean Mozilla 1.0 without major glaring bugs."
I don't know if this is relevant really. I mean, since when did Microsoft ever release any software package without glaring bugs in it. Remember Windows 95 that used to crash after every 57 days (or however many) when the clock cycled. IE hasn't been much better. They nearly always release an updated version within days of the first release. Obviously Netscape releasing Netscape 6 so early is another sign that really the version number means nothing. The difference is with the Mozilla guys is that they are being patient and wisely not pushing something out until they are 100% ready. However, it doesn't mean that Mozilla isn't already stable in 99% of the cases. Actually, I can't even remember when my Mozilla last crashed. I can't even say that it is slow, sluggish, lacking important features. Sometimes, I even wonder why they don't just release 1.0 because I can't see anything wrong with the latest builds. However, they are being meticulous and should be commended for that.
I don't think it really matters if they end up taking 4 years to fix up Mozilla enough for a 1.0 release. At the end of the day, when 1.0 does finally come, at least the Mozilla team will be able to comfortable say they delivered a storming browser.
Also, in many ways I think the superiority of IE may already start to crumble away. There definately haven't been many good innovations in IE for a long time. And for non-Web stuff like reading emails Mozilla already kicks IE. Outlook Express is one of the biggest piles of trash that MS have ever written. They should be embarrased to release such a thing.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
Some of the newer Java client technologies are quite cool (jnlp from SUN, weblets / directDOM from IBM), but still, the vast majority is on the server side (no, I don't have actual figures, but I am a java developer): EJB, servlets, JSP, anyone?
Actually this probably isn't the case. The vast majority of java development (for a couple of years now) has been server-side. For many companies, the main strength of java as a language is not platform independance, but the comprehensiveness of the APIs available for it.
Maybe this will send a message to the people using the 4.x versions of Netscape. Web design utilizing things like, oh, CSS isn't feasible if you don't want to alienate your Netscape audience. Rather than upgrade to something more suitable, (like Mozilla or IE) people seem to hold on to their old browsers and complain when things don't render properly.
I won't miss the Netscape browser, it's been a pain in the ass for far too long already. If any good will come from this, it's that it will force people to upgrade.
Your examples of the diversity of operating systems sound like a Democratic fundraiser. It's diversity for the sake of diversity. I'm very glad for users of those OSs that they have a fairly modern browser available to them, but WRT the current topic, they don't count, since we're talking about sheer numbers and market share. Every AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, etc. user in the world could use Netscape, and even pay $100 a copy, and they're still not a player.
Of course, I'm not counting MacOS, that would be a lot of money, and if you count Linux twice (like you did ;) that's a chunk of change, but they both have superior (IMHO) alternatives.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Mod this up. It be a good idear.
information is immaterial
Now that was a link fun to follow. I clicked on 'parent' for your post, and had a good laugh. Thanks, o anonymous one.
information is immaterial
- Microsoft can't argue that there is competition in the browser market (one area that the DOJ has tried to bust their balls on)
- IMHO, Netscape sucked because it was so damned strict on tags... you miss a single table tag, and the browser gives up parsing the file.
Besides, maybe this will mean Javascript will stop changing every 2 weeksquis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
What happens to the people at Netscape who have been working on Mozilla? Will they still be there with the rest of the company moving in a different dirrection. It would be a big loss to the Mozilla project to lose them all. Also, does this mean no Netscape 6.5?
The browser war, Microsoft versus software vendors, Microsoft versus OSS, these are all variations on the idea of a monolithic computing environment versus the standard computing model of an OS and apps. Microsoft wants to make its Windows environment a complete system where users are not inclined to add or replace components. Like a car today. Few people replace the radio or the seats, or even wheels and tires. It comes as a unit. Microsoft wants your computer to work this way. That's why it's bundling everything in XP. The rest of the world, especially the Linux/OSS camp, wants to have the computer be a skeleton on which they hang all their neat toys.
I can't imagine why a browser will remain a viable tool in the next few years. Microsoft and others will be putting little pieces of net content into very app, serving small pieces of data content rather than pages and links. The browser and page-based content is a cumbersome way to do business. It's going away some time soon, I'd bet. It's another step to the monolithic computing environment.
- Sig this!
Another sucessful story Open Source beats commercial product: we have Apache, now Mozilla....
Wait....who is the winner if Netscape fall? Mozilla....or IE?
I work in a large corporation where my job is to help set and implement multi-year technology strategies. One of our fundamental principles is to exploit 'open' technology standards whereever possible (Java, IP, browsers, etc.). The underlying goal in this is to avoid vendor lock-in and give us room to maneuver.
We run quite a bit of our internal admin function on a browser, so here's my problem with the whole Netscape fiasco. Since they abandoned the browser business (had to be prior to the garbage that is Communicator 6.0!) my choices for a corporate-standard browser are pretty limited. I have a lot of Win32 desktops (arrghhh!!) and I'm pretty much stuck with IE. Whether you like Netscape or not, at least we had a veneer of mainstream competition for the browser.
I have the current dilema of moving 10,000+ desktops off OS/2 over the next few years. Since browsers play a factor in deciding the new o/s we'll use, what are my options? I'm serious folks! I'd love to consider some flavour of Unix client, but I need a standards-compliant browser from a reputable vendor that will provide support if I need (I don't mind paying!).
So, I think the Netscape debacle (for me) is all about erosion of choice - especially for large corporations that are fairly conservative about who they bet the business on. Tell me I'm wrong folks!
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
> I wonder if [open source and/or the demise
> of Netscape] will tip the tides in the
> konqueror/mozilla battle.
Oh, are a couple of feathers beating each other! Cat fight! Ooooo, that's so erotic...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> This may not seem obvious if you only tried
> Netscape 6.0 and don't use nightlies.
Nightly whats? Huh?
When I start Netscape, it doesn't tell me there are any updates. When I go to their site, it's months between version number changes.
Until the product auto-detects updates and offers the upgrade, it will never get out of the garage band stage into something a real consumer wants.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
My friend you've just stumbled onto the entire reason MS reoriented around the Internet five years ago.
With a virtual machine residing in a piece of software (say, called a "browser") and real, hard-core apps like office suites running in the browser virtual OS, what need hath one for MS?
When Netscape started putting out NAPI -- Netscape API for apps to integrate browsers into, the MS panic started. When Lotus or whoever started a Java-only complete implementation of an office suite, they really got in gear (not to mention the FUD of MS s***-d***s at conferences.)
Why? Because if an office suite runs in a browser, i.e. a virtual OS, then all you have to do to is port the virtual OS to other machines and Bang! All the apps go along for the ride for free.
And as any old-school Mac user knows, the reason people buy PC's is because 99 of 100 software packages only run on PC's. If they run on other OS's, then MS dies overnight.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
One thing I hate about all the portals is that they are built for dummies. It gets really annoying. Also, all the portals are simply ugly, and that should also be taked care of.
BTW, I think Netscape Communicator is dead. Mozilla is taking over, and there is no doubt about it.
With .NET, we'll soon be at the mercy of MS. Sure, it will be nice and compatible with all browsers in the beginning. But as soon as they have a significant marketshare, MS can change the rules of the game. They can shut down support for a specific browser. They can shut down support for all browsers except MS ones ("sorry people, we will no longer support Opera 7.2, since it hasn't got ").
Netscape and friends will then be obsolete. It's extend and embrace, in a way.
Sorry for being somewhat off-topic.
My karma ran over your dogma
With .NET, we'll soon be at the mercy of MS. Sure, it will be nice and compatible with all browsers in the beginning. But as soon as they have a significant marketshare, MS can change the rules of the game. They can shut down support for a specific browser. They can shut down support for all browsers except MS ones ("sorry people, we will no longer support Opera 7.2, since it hasn't got ").
Netscape and friends will then be obsolete. It's extend and embrace, in a way.
Sorry for being somewhat off-topic.
My karma ran over your dogma
If Gecko were implemented as the one and only engine in the AOL client, its userbase would increase dramatically until it were a formidable contender against IE, and so the Web would move away from IE standards and--dare I say it?--to W3C, which Netscape claims to adhere rigorously to. (The other possibility is that people will get tired of Gecko incompatibilities with IE stuff and just launch IE on top of the AOL client, but I really doubt the average user would bother or even know it was possible.) If this new "Internet media portal" is really Netscape's new focus, I wonder how much it will retard their browser development and diminish the possibility of the above scenario.
The coolest voice ever.
And since SONY has sold around 10 million PS2 units(WITHOUT killer apps like GT3, FinalFantasy X(I), Metal Gear, etc), netscape could end up with a couple of new users.
Mozilla is protected. This is what Open Source software is all about. I wonder if this will tip the tides in the konqueror/mozilla battle. I, personally, don't use Mozilla (was never impressed too too much) but I'm glad it's OSS/Free Software.
Thanks Netscape,
-EvilMonkeyNinja
a.k.a. Joseph Nicholas Yarbrough
Security Grunt by Day
Programmer by Night
-EvilMonkeyNinja
Mild Mannered Host by Day
Wild Hammered Programmer by Night
I hate to admit it, but Microsoft were probably right about the browser becoming irrelivant. The web should now be integrated onto the desktop as it is with any desktop worth using.
Philip
Signatures are broken
Tecnofile reports: Netscape, the creator of the interweb and famous for its Netscape Explorer browser today effectively reported victory in the so-called "browsing wars" and will therefore no longer need to offer such software to the public. According to well-known sauces, Netscape has "re-focussed its open-ended online strategy with a blue-skies oriented total bravery type approach. Goals-fixated rigid thinking has been replaced with new economy style whiteboarding with a resultant upswing in morale and perceptions among those not reassigned to uncompensated voluntary positions. The future is bright."
Quite simple really. They were 'fat and happy', and then IE comes and starts kicking their asses, and they start work on a browser that is basically unusable! dum dum dum ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!
TODO: Something witty here...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Heh... *snort*. Windows has quite a few bugs... but most users rarely experience them. Linux, on the other hand, is not only significantly more difficult to use, it has quite a few problems. Hell, it never worked properly with my modem, soundcard, monitor, etc. Drivers for those pieces of hardware do not exist for Linux.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Eek. Does anyone have a reference for this? I ask because I'm in the middle of developing a slew of corporate Intranet apps and I was thinking of switching from ASP (it was free and MS, as required) to Java. Lemme know.
Opinions were like kittens / I was giving them away
I thought Netscape backed out of the browser market ages ago.
No wait need it one more time when Netscape.com dies.
A much easier approach:
1) File + About Plug-ins
2) Note path to Acrobat plug-in DLL
3) Delete dll.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Isn't that how they're supposed to make money with open software?
Knowing how full of holes IIS is and how easy it is for developers to find and repair security-bugs in Apache, it's a good thing to use it! Why else majority of worlds web-sites run Apache?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
As far as I'm concerned, both IE and NS/MOZ are awful. At some point, they became a battleground for vast corporate interests, not programs to display and browser hyperlinked content in a way that is convenient for their users.
Now that you say it, I did realize that this idea of user interface could relly work. Not for the techies, but for the baseline users. But then what do we need the desktop for? To the basic user (win that is) desktop is just a handy place to have your most importan doc's and games.
.NET if all its programs were "browsable". No more desktop. No more programs. No more difficult filesystem to handle. Just "computer". This could really be popular. Easy. PPL would love it.
On user level, it would be pretty revolutionary, if your computer would not have just a GUI, but a BUI (browsing user interface). To the user this would not be an OS but an single browser to browse your programs, and hopefully as easilly as browsing channels on TV.
Imagine the popularity of
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
Perhaps not GNU, and while I'm okay with Konquerer, and even lynx in a snazzy transparent Konsole, where will the masses flood to when they snap outta there Microdream?
At one point Netscape was the new kid on the block and was hungry.... then they got swallowed up by the Corp aol giant. Its time to goto Opera...
MS Goon > Yeah, we're going to go ahead and NOT package AOL with future versions of Windows because it's browser is based on Netscape. AOL > What Netscape? And the talks resume. Anyone else see something here?