Slashdot Mirror
AOL Beta Testing Gecko-Based Browser
Bedouin X writes: "MozillaZine is reporting that AOL has released a Gecko client for Windows! Scuttlebutt says that it's based on Gecko .94.2. While I think that the common assumption that AOL including Gecko equals 34 million new OSS users is fallacious (most AOL hits on my site are 5.0), there is no denying that it would be a major - though seemingly inevitible - win and great for a more standard web. Maybe Capital One would quit being the lone holdout of my creditors that don't support Mozilla." Reader SEE also adds a link to a story on CNET.
When I saw last week that AOL was moving to Mozilla last week, that was the best news I'd seen in a while. It *almost* made up for Dubya's nuclear policy mess or Holling's tramplings. (But not quite, unfortunately, and definitely couldn't make up for both, in any case.)
Still, I don't see how you perceive an open and standard web as 'inevitable'. Prior to the AOL move, I would have considered a Microsoft proprietary web considerably more 'inevitable' than open standards.
Most of the public doesn't even truly understand what open standards are or mean, much less feel them important. But these are the same people who take it for granted that the half-inch coarse-thread nut fits on the half-inch coarse-thread bolt, no matter who made each part.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Like it or not, there are lots of AOL users out there. Even if all 30 million people out their don't upgrade anytime soon, there will still be enough to matter. Each day I browser in Mozilla, more and more sites render correctly on it.
Most importantly, sites that say "works best in Internet Explorer" may have to reevaluate their stance on the issue.
Netscape is about to be back in the ring, and just lined up millions of people in their corner. Standards might mean something again soon.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.
I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.
- Rev.What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
While some of them are certainly going to complain to AOL, others will complain to the webmasters. And when enough webmasters make their sites standards-complaint, less users will complain to AOL. Let's hope the number of compliant sites reaches a critical mass before AOL decides to drop Gecko.
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
"notice how fast AOL took on this project?"
Hmmm... They started this project in November of 1998 when they announced the acquisition of Netscape.
So it's taken just over 3 years to get to a beta stage. Fast in geological time keeping, but certainly not what we used to call internet time.
They did this once before, though. If I remember correctly, when AOL made the switch to IE, Netscape had a strong majority of the browser market and IE was still of the very poor quality that you can expect from early Microsoft releases. Websites were targetted to Netscape at the time, there were pages that didn't render right in IE, and yet AOL made the switch.
The other thing to consider is that Mozilla's rendering is downright excellent these days. I haven't had any problems rendering sites with it for a long time now. Are users really going to be getting a lot of error messages after the switch? And even if they do, why would they blame AOL? Years of Windows use has conditioned people to expect errors all the time which they can't do anything about so they shrug their shoulders and move on.
AOL has been testing Mozilla with their Compuserve users for awhile now and the tests have reportedly gone well. I don't think this is a bluff.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
If AOL really does switch browsers, then some interestings may happen that will show us who really has the power to control the Internet. The key issue is whether or not the owners of the non-conforming web sites will fix their sites. If they do, then that would prove that Microsoft does control the net (yet). On the other hand, if the owners of non-conforming sites do not fix their pages, then that proves Microsoft is already in defacto control.
Now some readers are probably dismissing this as too simplistic:
Can AOL really change the net? You gotta be kidding! It's not that simple!
I'm not kidding. I think that it really does come down to AOL vs. MS. The Internet is driven by content, and if a abrupt change by one company (AOL) can reverse the non-conformance trend that Microsoft has been pushing for several years, then that will illustrate just how influencial AOL (by way of it's web brower) can be.
Of course, if AOL's current test is just a bluff to try to improve their business position with Microsoft, then that will prove that MS is already in control.
And that would mean that the sucess of .NET is almost certain.
The answer is: Market Share
No company is going to leave its web site unavailable to 34 million people, not when they can make the site standards-compliant and work in both IE and AOL. Netscape 4.x is a different matter, granted - you almost had to have two copies of your site for a while. But if AOL uses Gecko, then the web's back to only one site for everyone, and all of us using non-IE browsers will benefit from that. AOL's 34 million newbies could be the best thing that's happened to the web in the last couple years (betcha never saw that coming :).
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It's not that simple and all application vendors are faced with this problem. Most vendors solve it by simply requiring red hat linux to be installed, reliefing them of the need to test with other distributions. Differences between distributions include version differences in among others kernel, compiler, libraries, x windows, desktop environment. Each of these may have version specific bugs that may or may not influence other packages. It's nearly impossible to test for all possible combinations. In addition, all distributions are updated frequently and typically have a lot of changes between versions. It's nearly impossible to keep up with that.
Support also is difficult since there are so many distribution specific problems that may prevent a program from working as intended. Imagine a user calling and asking "I can't load any site with AOL 7 on linux" or a similarly vague question. A good heuristic to approaching such a client would be to figure out whether the network is configured correctly. On windows that is easy since all versions of windows have a control panel with network settings and there are only minor differences between the different versions. On linux each distribution allows multiple ways of configuring the network and there are likely to be significant differences between each distribution and even among different versions of the same distribution. Almost certainly a proper solution to any problems with the configuration will require editing text files and work on the commandline. Not a problem for advanced users but a nightmare for the average AOL helpdesk staff and AOL user.
Jilles
I predict that when AOL controls the server AND client, they will take off into an AOL proprietary universe over the next few years. There wil then be the internet and there will be AOL. I mean it's practically that way now. But because they didn't own the browser in the past they had to stick with web standards and people could use other browsers to get to their network. As soon as AOL 8 is completely installed (Still a couple years at least for full conversion) there will be no reason to stick soley with standards any more. They will be a embracin' and a extendin' with the best of them...
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!