Slashdot Mirror
Gecko May Replace IE In AOL/CompuServe
ShaunC writes: "According to this C|Net article, pieces of Gecko have been spotted in a beta version of the next CompuServe client, and AOL has confirmed that Gecko is being tested as CompuServe's default browser. AOL 7.0 is shipping with IE, but perhaps future versions will widen the gap between AOL and Microsoft. (I'm glad we won't be seeing AOL-TW-MS-NBC.)"
Gecko renders very well but it still has javascript and IE compatibility issues.
Users will yell if something that worked with IE don't work any more.
However, there will be a lot of bug reports, and those will make Mozilla better.
{{.sig}}
If CompuServe 7 comes packaged with Gecko, it could be one step toward rekindling the Web browser wars from the late '90s. Once the hands-down leader of browser technology, Netscape Communications, now a division of AOL, has let its browser slip into the middle of the pack.
Yes, but this time, the browser wars will be a fight to provide customers with the highest level of web standards compliance, rendering speed, cross-platform capability, and truly useful features. I, for one, think that this sounds like a good thing. (Even though I will probably not be using anything but Konqueror ever again.)
If you take this artcle about microsoft wanting to deliver "AOL like services", this seems to be a logical step for AOL.
;-)
This could get very interesting, I don't think this is a browser war, I think it's an ISP war...
Would YOU distribute software of your newly aquired #1 competitor??
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
I use mozilla. It rocks. It has tabs, it has mouse gestures, it's fast and it's really stable. I can theme it any way I want. I of course have IE installed but I never fire it up unless I visit one or two percent of the sites that insist on it.
Besides Mozilla does not leak my personal information, it does not have cryptic option names designed to fool me, it does not keep sending me to MSN, it does not accept activeX controls, it does not execute viruses automatically, and best of all it allows me to turn off popups on page load.
Mozilla is the best browser on the market and it's not even version one yet. This is because it focuses on me. It wants to help me have a better web browsing experience. IE wants to deliver me to advertisers. That's a significant difference.
The number one reason AOL should go with mozilla (or gecko) is because MS is planning to implement smart tags and has already implemented 404 redirects. The last thing AOL wants is for their customers to be redirected to MS sites anytime they click on anything and besides why give aid and comfort to your enemy.
By switching to mozilla AOL will also discourage people from building IE only sites and that will be a good thing for all of us.
War is necrophilia.
What do you mean? Have you actually tried any other browser for Windows. On my windows-box I only use opera, and I fail to see how IE6 is better than Opera in any way.
Some DHTML is not yet supported, but that's the only drawback. IE falls short on any of the above mantioned features.
-s-
Christopher
Mozilla
It's not like that. The site is simply checking. If it isn't IE and isn't Netscape 4.x, then print "your browser is not compatible, upgrade to IE, blah blah blah".
In other words, the site WOULD work if not for that stupid check. Yes, we can make the browser pretend it's another browser (Konqueror and Opera do that quite easily), but we shouldn't have to...
The Tlog - a technology blog
I knew that Mozilla was a fantastic project, and I always understood how it might have huge value for whomever wanted to adopt it. The one thing that I didn't see was how AOL was going to make money off of it. Seeing as how they're the ones bankrolling the developement right now.This seems to make it all clear. They wanted Mozilla available as an alternative to IE if they ever needed to part ways with MS.
Interesting.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
On the Mac (a more level ground for comparison) I've always found Netscape just as stable as IE. On Linux, just as unstable as any other browser.
Hmmm... I thought your "previous statement" was that we shouldn't try to fix it at all?(Which anyway is a lost cause, from what I hear. IE = "All your prefs are belong to us!")
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Did I say anything about running flash type stuff on the server? When I say complicated, I'm not referring to graphics and buttons and stuff. Yes, a mechanism is needed which can do some things without having to go back and forward to the server all the time (like to say "you must enter an email address").
Oh, and yes, I do appreciate that, for IE, COM is used for plugins. Looking at IE, how else would you do it? "Standard plugins" though are a world away from any bit of executable code which someone might feel like running on your machine - and don't give me crap about "certificates" making it all OK.
Done arguing now.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
The thing is, everyone should be designing their sites to be standards-comliant. That way, it would work with all standards-compliant browsers. IE6 is coming a long way with this, as is Mozilla, and Opera. That way, noone would have to modify their sites if a new browser came along.
I think that cases like this are actually a detrement in some ways to open source and its philosophies. Typically, when we smile upon businesses for using open source software, it's because they've made the fruits of OSS developers' labor part of their process. In cases such as this, corporations are making open source software the product. I find it somewhat disturbing as in this case, AOL are profiting directly from the product, meanwhile, they contribute nothing back to the open source community (except bug reports, but what AOL users submit those).
;) (Hell, it's only karma.)
You may ask, "what about other companies 'selling' open software, such as IBM?" My response to this would be simple. I don't have a problem with anybody capitalizing on open source so long as they contribute something in return. IBM is doing this - they are partly an open source development shop. Furthermore, with their case, even if IBM weren't contributing, they are selling a product that doesn't equate to software. Hardware running open source software. That's different... they make their money on the hardware, and try to benefit the customers for it. AOL, bear in mind, sells a service and I doubt many benefits (aside from the quality of Gekco), such as reduced costs, will be passed onto the end users.
I'm also kind of annoyed that this will favor AOL's position. They're strengthening themselves, and inherent to their relationships with other large corps. like Microsoft, it may be bad for OSS in the long run, but only in some facets.
I hope I do not sound pig headed. I am not trying to bash needlessly, or say that open software shouldn't be used in as many places as possible. It's just a thought.
Why bother.
Well, pack me off to Bugtussle, Beulah, seems this swamp ain't as nice as it looked.
Big hint, here, guys: standardizing on defacto standards owned by a company that demonstrates allegience to no one but itself (check out the recent enterprise licensing schemes if you think MS cares about its customers one whit) is a reliable way to get screwed.
That's especially true when you consider that, in this case, "standardizing" means making a conscious decision to exclude a portion of the browsing public. Can't be the fairest thing to do when you work for paying customers who need the biggest bang for their buck.
Big cheers to AOL if they go ahead with this. I'm damned sure that most big sites will not tolerate web developers who lock out that much of their audience. I neither like nor use the AOL service, but I promise to say nice things about it if this happens.
One interesting feature of Konqueror is that it allows you to change the User-Agent string on the fly ... it's the frog icon on the alternate toolbar.
That's the wrong way to solve the problem, because when a site has a good reason to check your UA, such as a known crash in your version of Konq, they won't be able to redirect you away from the crash.
The shareholder is always right.
No doubt it would be quite risky for AOL to replace IE with Gecko. They might lose customers.
But if they go through with it, they'd certainly force lots of Web sites to become more standards-compliant. So other makers of standards-compliant browsers would benefit hugely, with no risk to themselves. This would be a very good thing.
Personally I suspect AOL is just testing the waters, and won't go with Gecko until it is very much better than IE.