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.)
MozillaZine.org has a pointer to a news.com piece too plus additional comments.
Maybe this will finally convince my banks that Mozilla is a real web browser. It's annoying having to switch back to Netscape 4.x to use online banking just because they haven't bothered to test and adjust for Mozilla. And yes, I know what it takes to make a major web site Mozilla compliant. (I was formerly employed by a large rodent. ;-) ).
- Stealth Dave
Evil is as eval("does");
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
How do you figure that? I'm using Opera exclusively, and I harldy ever find sites that look messed up (once a month or so).
On top of that, it's lighter, has mouse gestures and a much better interface (once you get used to it). I'd say, try it.
"leaps ahead of any other browser". What does that actually mean? That people have keep buggering about with HTML (yes, I know there's more to it than HTML) so new versions of browsers are constantly needed in order to keep up. What effect does that have? Well, with an MS browser, upgrading generally means replacing half your OS with files (OLE*.DLL amongst others) that cause old apps to not work - even if they had any disk space left. And why is it changing? Generally to please a load of graphic designers (make the bastards work with a 14.4 modem) plus the people who market stuff like Dreamweaver and C*ntpage. Do you think it's rewarding work for web developers to have to code and test for all these different browsers?
/. looks the same to me.
What do you actually need in a browser aside from fast HTML rendering (with CSS), a consistent Javascript model (so you can do stuff without having to go back to the server) and an architecture which supports common plugins (Flash, SVG). OK, you can make an argument for Java Applets if something more complicated needs to be done on the machine, but downloading and running some other muppets native executable code (ActiveX) and running it with my priveledges - no way. I can do enough damage with my own code. If it's complicated, why isn't it running on the server? What ever happened to thin clients?
Stop the madness.
PS I appreciate the irony that I'm posting using IE 6, but I'm at work and I'm testing whether it offers anything over our standard IE 5.01. It doesn't -
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
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.
If Gecko is replacing IE all we need now is something to replace AOL & Compuserve
If you've kept track of the history of Netscape, especially the history of AOL since buying NS, you'll quickley figure out that AOL has been using NS to have it's way with Microsoft. Whenever there is a dispute over AOL icon desktop placment with Windows, or whatnot, AOL quietly leaks that it is considering NS6 / Mozilla for it's next release.
.95, which I am happy to report is the first version of Mozilla that I feel is 100% usable and I'm actually *happy* to use. (I run an old AMD K6/2 and previous versions ran too slow for my tastes, as did IE I just switched to Mozlla from NS4 early this week.) That said, I *hope* that AOL does decide to use Gecko for AOL and / or Compuserve, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, it may be more strategicly advantageous for them to continue using IE's engine.
I do support Mozilla, in fact I am writing this on Mozilla
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Christopher
Mozilla
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.
Here in Spain AOL has just launched a service called AOL avant.
It is a iMac type box which you can have for about 20 dollars a month with internet connection. It uses Linux with Mozilla as the web browser. It's made so your grandma can use it.
They are looking for an inital roll-out of 500,000 units, moving up to about a million. They are doing this in conjunction with a national bank.
So, AOL is already using Gecko/Mozilla, maybe just not in the USA.
Personally I believe that this is a trial of a service that they wish to rollout in many other countries. I think they choose Spain to try not to generate too attention on it. It wouldn't suprise me if they had plans to roll this out in many other European countries, and perhaps Latin America.
More 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
As I understood it, AOL used to have about 40% of the consumer market, and as a result a large number of the browsers otu their were I.E, albeit wrapped inside AOL. with mozilla embedded within AOL, the number of eventual mozilla users goes up by several million. Ace! I've been following mozilla since they released the source code all those years ago, this is one of the few rays of light with regards to any kind of widespread adoption of mozilla.
anyone know of an open source VB-Script engine? part o the problem with using mozill ain corporate intranet stuff is that lots of developers tend to end up using VB-Script because it's easy - with an opensource VB-Script we could implement XPCom bindings as well as page level DOM stuff in VB-Script.
ps.slashdot: what the hell is this invalid formkeys error? I get it when it try to post in mozilla - a slashdot/M$ conspiracy if ever I saw one..
Saying they contribute nothing is a bit unfair.
Also, AOL has actually released a few other Open Source applications. Take a look at AOLserver for instance.
AOL isn't my favorite company, but they aren't all bad all the time :)
There is discussion about the box on Barriopunto (Spain's version of Slashdot) here.
Comments on it vary. Some people say it's OK for Joe Public. Others say it sucks and hangs up. One says that the Mozilla and Linux distribution is very heavily modified and it is difficult to tell which versions they are using.
Someone points out that the box is basically the Intel Dot.Station Web Appliance. The spec. for the box is here.
The spec. says:
* Custom Intel browser based on Mozilla-- the world's most standards-compliant browser technology.
And later:
* Custom Linux operating system for increased flexibility and innovation.
More information about AOL avant from Intel's web site here.
I find this strange. I build web sites for a living, so I have to use IE a lot even though I'm not too fond of it. And until this week, NS 4.76 was my browser of choice (I downloaded Mozilla .95 Monday and haven't looked back. I downloaded every milestone build since .2 and this is the first one I thought was more usable than what I was using.)
.95 (even though I think HTML rendering is a hair slower) the window rendering speed is now acceptable. I'd say faster than IE 5.x / 6.x but still a bit slower than NS 4.x. But that's okay. It's worlds ahead of NS4 in terms of stability and it's just a wonderful browser to use... especially for a developer.
That said, I think it's clear that I use these browsers more than just once a week or so. All of them get heavy use from me so I can g et a lot of comparison time. My machine is a K6/2 450 running Win ME (I do lots of multimedia editing, hence ME is better for me than 98se)
Here's what I've found from my observations:
IE: SLOW AS MOLASAS (SP?). NS4 kicks it's ass hands down.IE is slow to render windows, slow to render HTML when a window has been rendered, and (most anoyingly) is slow to respond to UI. I have a habit when I am searching for something with google to do the following: Search google, open page in new window, hit ctrl+f and start typing what it was I was looking for so I can find WHERE the relavant thing is on the page. I consistantly type faster than IE can keep up. Ler's say I'm looking for "widget". I hit ctrl+f and then type w-i-d-g-e-t [ENTER]. I look up... only to see the "et" in the word "let" highlighted. The search window appears so slow that if I don't remember to wait for it (only about a second, but still...) then the leading characters get truncated. Consistantly.
NS4: Not bad... until I got a broadband connection. NS4 consistantly blew away, IE, NS6 and Mozilla. (Except in HTML rendering speed for Mozilla). It's biggest advantage was the fact that it's windows would render instantly on even the slowest system. The only problem was that once I got broadband and it started downloading larg web pages FAST, it would freeze... pause really before rendering the HTML. Some pages rendered faster when I was on 56K. I think NS4 just has a problem with parsing large HTML files rapidly. If it gets them spoon fed, it renders them as fast as it can, but if it gets a page of HTML dumped on it, it gags and chokes and generaly has a hard time. That's when I started using IE a little more than I had to...
Mozilla: The first thing I noticed when I first downloaded Mozilla (ditto for NS6) was WOW, these Windows render slow as hell! I could draw the windows with an etch-a-sketch faster than this! Then the next thing I noticed, blew me away. HTML rendering was blisteringly fast. I had read about how one of the goals of the Mozilla project was to create a wonderfuly standards compliant browser, so I ran some informal tests against old and new pages I had saved localy on my machine. Some were standards compliant and others were "real world" compliant. Amazing... the standards complient pages rendered just as they should! They were pages which I hade taken down from my sites (and replaced with non standards complient ones) because either NS4 or IE didn't render them correctly. Mozilla rendered both NS4 and IE's buggy pages right. It even rendered the nonstandard pages the way I wanted them to look! IT took me a bit of digging to figure out why... Mozilla includes a "buggy" mode that treats pages without a DTD declaration as non standards complient. That way IE's known bugs that were designed around, show up fine! Wonderful! Since then, I've downloaded every Mozilla milestone and now, at
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
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.
pieces of Gecko have been spotted in a beta version of the next CompuServe client
Actually they've spotted pieces of Geico, which can save CompuServe customers 15% or more on car insurance.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31
(Red Letter Edition)
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
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.