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.
Roll on activeX support, then we will have a plethora of freeware and shareware alternative web browsers for windows, no doubt.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Welcome!! - You Got Scales!!!
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.
Take that, mozilla bashers.
Was there any reason not to think that a standards-compliant, easily embeddable, open-source HTML renderer wouldn't eventually become a great choice for network software? It doesn't depend on users taking it on themselves to go get and use mozilla (which I agree wasn't too likely), any more than it depends on them going and getting GTK and making their own browsers. What mattered was whether software developers and companies that make and distribute network software found it useful.
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
It's easy to envisage AOL doing this until one considers that content on the Web has adapted to a large degree to IE dominance.
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.
Yes I know Mozillas recent [good] record on standards compliance, but as it stands MS is holding the baton.
In short, I think this is a bluff on AOLs part, as there's too much commercial risk here, and there's no way AOL is going to take those risks (with a relatively dumb userbase), with the possibility of large user unhappiness.
Farting around not getting anywhere? You know AOL *did* decide to use it.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
If you want to compare Mozilla 1.0 to commercial software, I think you'd have to say "4 years to 3.0 is not good time". How long did IE take to get to 3.0?
are you implying that AOL decided to use it for performance purposes, and not political purposes?
But not to debunk your point, you are still very correct.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
4 years to 1.00 Isn't good time? Well, what version is linux on? Oh my! we're only on stable 2.4.18 !! Well, thank goodness we can use Linux 7.2 ! Version numbers save us!!!!!
AoL is quite a large part of USA based ISP's but do you think EVERYBODY who has deviated from the de-facto standard of IE is going to change thier website so a bunch of AoL idiots can read it?
People will change their sites to fit the proper demographic. If their logs start to show that a large chunk of their hits are coming from Mozilla, they will make a change in their sites, or they will face losing customers.
If they are smart, they will make sure their site works in the browsers of their target audience. At the very least, they will make sure the site degrades smoothly for Moz.
AOL is making a good move by basing its next generation browser on Gecko/Mozilla.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.9 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 6 browser.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 256MB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional. My conclusive results are as follows:Loading
Mozilla 0.9.9 loaded 17% faster than IE 6 and 21% faster using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)IE 6 loaded 5% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 6 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.Reliability
IE 6 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.Mozilla did not crash during this test.
ConclusionsIE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
Cedric Balthazar Rotherwood
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java Platform +
System Admin. for Solaris
If you want to dig deep into the OS, activeX is the way to go. For example, you can use a pop-up ad to bypass ACL and registry security, and drill down into the account database on Microsoft Money or Quicken, if the user has it installed. You can also run stuff as "Clippy", who has full administrator priviledges on an NT box, regardless of the current users account priviledge.
How long did IE take to get to 3.0?
Quite a bit faster since there was no 1.0 (and 3.0 still sucked IMHO - 4x was okay)
There are a lot of 'AOL idiots': on my website, www.accordionlinks.com, AOL provides a few percent of the audience, four times more than number two.
AoL's hated for a reason. Thier service doesnt require the brain power needed to use other ISP's. AoL users are generally regarded as morons.
If they are morons, it might be easier to part them from their cash, so that might make them a good target audience for some...
Yes! It matters a great deal! Those "AOL Idiots" spend money! And if the customer base jumps from 90% IE 10% other to 70% IE /30% other, it might not make a difference to some homemade page, but it will if you're Sears, or Amazon, (or Capital One). Especially when you are not talking about VHS/Betamax, but rather enforcing a *standard* that will only enlarge your customer base.
BTW, if you want to bug Capital One about their poor support for Mozilla/Netscape, send an email over to media.relations@capitalone.com.
I sent them an email this morning. Cheers to the low interest rate card. Cheers to the Frequent flyer miles and great customer service. Jeers to the lousy browser support.
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
Currently, Intel's EDI website only supports IE! not NS 4.x, NS 6, Opera, nothing but IE. I made a rule awhile ago. "Employees/users can only surf the web with Netscape." But Intel makes me look bad when the Sales Reps have to use IE to get Sales Orders from Intel. I tell everyone they can't use IE for security reasons, and they snicker, "sure, buddy Netscape don't even work!". Hopefully AOL will change all this!!!!!! And hopefully that will put me one step closer to expanding our Linux use from the servers to the desktop as well.
Need help finding the flow? http://www.myspace.com/naturalismandbalance
Any buisness not wanting to be the next chapter 11 best comply to standard, else shun 30% of all users in the US. Being on AOL may make you a less likely candidate for a computer security consultant but it does not prevent you from spending money online.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
How long did SpyGlass work on the IE predecessor before being swindled by Microsoft?
I meant that AOL's ditching of IE in favor of Gecko was inevitable. Especially in light of the breakdown in negotiations between the two companies over the AOL client in Gecko.
Sorry for my convoluted sentence structure. =o)
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
I think there are many non-political advantages to using Gecko.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
I'm a little worried that this could all end in a bit of a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I think that standards are a good thing. They're good for developers because they know what they send out, will be viewable in all clients. They're good for end-users because they can use any client and still get the content. However, there is a problem.
I'm just moved from IE to Opera. For the sole reason that I hate having 15 IE windows open. Thats it. Nothing else and I admit it. However whilst surfing the net doing research I find a good many sites are broken and Opera doesn't show them too well. Hell even my own site doesn't work very well.
In fact, i'm to the point of going back to IE. Why?
Because I want that content and I can't get it. Sure, its not my fault that I can't get the content, after all, they've written bad HTML but from an end-users perspective that isn't the issue. They want that information and their browser won't give it to them. Period.
To the end-user, it doesn't matter if the HTML is badly formed, if people see it not working on browser y and it does on browser x then they will automatically assume that y is broken. ("but x lets me see my page, why can't i on y?", "because the pages are badly written", "well if they're badly written, why can i see them on x?" and so on)
Now of course the standard geek response is "well its their fault they haven't followed standards". Well yes, it is. But it also sucks for the individual who wants the information on that page.
"well then, they should go elsewhere". People don't just go elsewhere. They find a few retailers they consider trustworthy and stick with them. Or what happens if that content isn't available elsewhere? Then you're stuck. It also doesn't help when they see their friends using browser x and having no such problems.
Which means that I've come to the depressing conclusion that AOL might even be forced to return to IE. Or they'll put pressure on Mozilla developers to try and cope with dodgy HTML.
This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
"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.
Sure about that? I ran across this article the other day on Google explaining how to degrade websites and it makes several references to IE 1.0. The article is from 1997.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
The really dumb AOLers will stick with AOL and its browser because they don't know how to use anything else. The somewhat smarter ones will fire up IE, (so conveniently bundled into Windows for them by MS), as needed, but stick with AOL as their ISP -- no real loss for AOL either way.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
not really going anywhere with it
*cough*
Realizing it is early, I'll only say this:
Mozilla is the finest web browser, commercial, non-commercial or otherwise, that I have ever used, even at version 0.9.9
The Javascript console alone is worth the minimal effort required to install it. Add the other features (tabs, cookies, custom Javascript) and it just puts Mozilla way ahead.
is the writer of the blurb dumb?
it DOES equal 34 million new OSS users. AOL is Beta esting to REPLACE IE. no more IE for the AOL client means no more IE hits from AOL users.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
However, the major hold up is that my bank refuses to allow me to use it - the site became inaccessible to modern Netscape/Mozilla browsers curiously enough at about the same time the whole thing went .asp-based.
UK Natwest-using Slashdotters - do your bit! I have, I've mailed their feedback section asking when a Netscape greater than 4.x will be supported, pointing out the new AOL announcement. I added Mozilla in too, but this is a mainstream place and hammering on at their Netscape support is likely to get you further.
Query form is here and then select "Feedback" from the drop-down.
Cheers,
Ian
Could this mean a AOL client for LINUX?
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
They still haven't fixed their site?
I cancled my card because I could no longer make online payments after I dropped Communicator from my machine.
Considering Microsoft most likely spent double the money and took twice as long to get IE6 to the level that its at. Lets see, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 years. Mozilla 1,2,3,4 years.
4 years vs 7 years, Mozilla did in 4 years what took Microsoft 7 years without the hundreds of millions of dollars Microsoft most likely put into IE.
So now that AOL is fully backing Mozilla, if Mozilla were to get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding (which at this point its the best so why bother?) It wouldnt speed up development because Mozilla is pretty much the best.
Whats left to develop? All AOL can/should do is make the code 100 percent bug free, optimize everything, perhaps improve the lame XUL or replace it with native interfaces for Windows, Linux and so on. Now that the money is availible theres no need to use slow as hell XUL.
Last the Mozilla team can make sure their browser supports ALL the standards and has the fastest rendering engine, Mozilla 2.0 can improve, but with a strong bug free very well written base, IE is going to be left in the dust no matter how much money they try to spend to fix bugs in their poorly designed and badly written IE.
IE is horribly designed, its worse than netscape, its been patched over and over and over year after year until it became good, also its been intergrated into windows itself so it doesnt seem bloated.
I think this is the end of days for IE.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
it just hurts my eyes to see the hypocrisy that exists here about AOL. just because AOL is using Gecko makes them suddenly lose the propriety behemoth that they are. i wonder what would have been the reaction should it have been Microsoft who had decided to use Gecko.
1) Anything Microsoft does is BAD.
2) AOL users are all morons.
3) If AOL or its users do something that goes against Microsoft, then they're suddenly GOOD.
4) Be nice to Junis
AOL users will be able to surf slashdot.org without suffering from widening pages :-)
Netscape announced this before the AOL acquisition. As a matter of fact, there was wide speculation that the Mozilla project would be shut down as a result. There is an e-mail from Steve Case on mozilla.org addressing this concern. To AOL's credit, they (AFAIK) let the project continue more or less as it was before. I know that there were some layoffs not long ago and many Netscape employees quit early on, but I don't think that these things had a lot to do with a lack of support from AOL. Someone please correct me if they know better.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Been there done that. I keep getting this form reply asking about my OS Version and Browser. I tell them Win2K / Mozilla and they ask for it again! Suckers.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
if you install Windows NT 4 with service pack 3, which i still have floating around in sealed packs then you would have noticed that it include's a Internet Explorer version 2.x with which you cant connect to neither www.microsoft.com or windowsupdate.microsoft.com to upgrade it to a later version you will first have to install some new version of IE from somewhere have fun ;), the reason you cant connect is that you get some ASP error, although i dont understand that cause its server side not ?
If people force me to use windows, then please let it be NT 4.0 its the best windows around if you ask me.
Quazion.
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.
I don't think the latest mozillas have crashed on me when browsing, but when I have the mail client up, it crashes about once per day. I have a mix of IE6 and Mozilla and Opera in day to day use, and Opera is far more "stable and fast" than either of the other two, but less 'compatible' (only slightly ime).
creation science book
AOL Beta Testing Gentoo
And I thought...
OH MY GOD THE DAY HAS COME.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Well since I switched them off of IE we haven't had a single Porn Exploit!!! There aren't any buffer overflows running commands on our system. I think the Stupid person uses an unsecure OS (M$) and then surfs the web with their file manager. Also using Netscape now will make the switch to Linux desktops in the future go smoother, users hate change! Next move switch them to StarOffice 6 (when its done).I'm taking it one step at a time.
Need help finding the flow? http://www.myspace.com/naturalismandbalance
I think it is great that the Mozilla developers have taken their time to come up with a quality browser, rather than rushing it to the market. Mozilla became usable long ago (although it is not my primary browser, I use it extensively for testing (IE is not my primary browser either)), and it keeps improving all the time.
You also write:
"having money behind a project must be nice..."
If you are referring to the fact that AOL are now roughing up the browser market, it isn't mainly due to money I think. It is rather due to a large customer base.
Clever signature text goes here.
I couldn't find -1 clueless. Then I looked for -1 uninformed. Nope. Not there. I puzzled this over in my mind and troll doesn't seem to fit, nor flamebait, and overrated is.. well over-rated.
It just doesn't tell the reader that you obviously know nothing about the Mozilla project. That it has been funded by AOL for years. That most of the initial "farting around" was done by paid, corporate programmers and that the OS community made a lot of useful contributions. Your entire assertation that now there is money behind it completely falls apart because there has always been money behind it.
The reason you see AOL jumping on the bandwagon now is because, imo, they couldn't get a deal done with MS. For years, they've kept waving the threat that they would move off of IE and it is time to put their money where their mouth is now that they are not being given any real estate on the XP desktop.
Next time do a little research. Just like that moderator who upped you should have done before wasting a point on your post.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Mozilla uses the Gecko rendering engine, but Gecko doesn't comprise the whole of the Mozilla code. Heck, Gecko is even used in projects unrelated to web browsing, like Komodo. Can anyone tell us how closely the beta-tested browser actually resembles Mozilla/Netscape?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
http://mozilla.org/xpapps/MachVPlan/MachV_NavPlan. html
Thank god they are fixing the lame-ass bookmark organizer.
Have a NICE day.
I have enough Linux CDs around my house without subscribing to AOL.. Then again, I suppose I could sharpen up the edges and use them like Shuriken to protect my Laptop.
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.
You also have to remember that this browser is competing with IE6 which has taken HOW LONG? If anyone knows me at all, then they know how much I bitch about how Linux couldn't hold a candle to MS products on the desktop.
I downloaded Mozilla on Monday and I was surprised. There are some things in there that even IE doesn't have. The stability is great. Tabbed browsing is great. Holy shit - I might actually switch.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Wow I just opened /. in IE after wondering what everyone was talking about with this widening thing.
With Moz so sweet now, I open IE very seldom, and only to check if some site I made in Moz works in IE. I can't wait for the calls at work from our clients who use AOL wondering why their sites are broken now. I'll walk over to the HTML dudes and say "I told you so" with a grin.
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
I hate to burst your bubble, but AOL is the group that have been funding Mozilla all of this time.
A lot of sites that AOL-users visit are either owned by AOL or by one of their business partners. AOL is actively working to get those sites W3C compliant before the switch. Also AOL is switching 30% of userbase over to mozilla. If they manage to get the point through to their customers, that it's not their browser, but the website thet's broken, that means Admins of "IE only" sites will get a lot more complaints and a lot less (like 30%) traffic. That turns the tables, now it's the webmasters of such sites that have a problem, not the occasional geek browsing with mozilla.
Also i find it notable, that you didn't make an attempt at getting your site standards compliant when you fond out it won't render properly with other browsers (at least you don't say so). You prefer to switch back to IE (cluttering your screen with IE-Windows again) and apparently try to convince the rest of the world to do likewise.
Your argumentation ultimately leads to the conclusion, to accept the Microsoft way and forever follow in Microsofts footsteps (either by just using IE, or by following their crappy implementation of html). The longterm perspective of this is to let Microsoft have their way. But that is not a good idea, because AOL realized, that the Microsoft Way may well lead to their own ruin (when MS decides to use their leverage to extend into the provider-business). So AOL better does something about it while they can.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/mozilla.htm
It can only handle the simplist of ActiveX controls, and there's no scripting. If you want that, get coding!
And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until
the end of days.- Mozilla, 12:10
No, I don't have the opinion that everything Dubya (Were you so strict about Clinton-isms? I wasn't.) does is wrong. In fact, he may be our last, best hope against Hollings. (Senate Dem.)
Certainly a nuclear review can be required every six years, that's not the issue. The issue is coming up with downscaled uses of nuclear bombs. The issue is battlefield nukes. The issue is the resurrection of the neutron bomb. Who wrote the review, and who drove the content?
These things make nuclear war feasible. For over half a century nuclear war was so ugly as to be unfeasible. When Carter discontinued the neutron bomb, I disagreed with him. I have since changed my opinion.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Maybe Capital One would quit being the lone holdout of my creditors that don't support Mozilla.
Huh? I've been happly using Opera (Linux/Windows, from version 3) and Mozilla (again, both Linux and Windows) since 0.9.4 with Capital One's website. Works perfectly.
I think what will happen with the AOL 8.0 client due later this year is that when you install the client, it should give you the option of keeping Internet Explorer or installing the Mozilla-based browser for Windows 98/98SE/ME/2000/XP users.
Having two big web browsers installed and trying to have the system decide which is the default may cause some compatibility problems, and I don't think end users--especially the AOL crowd--wants to deal with THAT! (I think people forget that AOL users are often not as computer-savvy as the normal readers of Slashdot.)
As a developer that already (roughly) conforms to standards enough to create a decent user experience, personally I could care less about what browser what company uses... if we're on the topic of AOL conforming to standards, I'd much rather see them fix their "evil proxies" and "email" issues than trying to appease the open source community or trying to save a buck by avoiding msoft licensing fees.
Several years and a couple jobs ago I fought against our web dev teams moving to a completely IE-centric development for intranet/internet. It appeared we were moving from NS over to IE and everyone wanted to use every flash-bang thing MS was willing to throw at them. What I was trying to point out was that we had just made one browser change, and definately could again.
Since then, MS has made it's business "moves" into the browser market even stronger and won the AOL deal. I stopped browsing the HTML and DHTML newsgroups because I got tired of these newbie web monkeys who defended only writing for the latest version of IE because "it was the defacto standard".
One of the points I brought up was that AOL controls such a huge percentage of the web browsing demographic that if they ever changed their browser again, the "standard" would hardly a standard anymore.
When AOL and Netscape got joined at the hip, I figured people would listen. Nope.
Of course AOL will eventually move to Mozilla. They didn't buy the company just for a web portal. Case has never been particularly kind in his words to Microsoft (two companies that want to own everything, go figure they might not get along).
MS isn't doing itself any favors with it's ridiculous implementation of the HTTP standards.
Moz gets better with every build.
I'm not saying it will be tomorrow...heck it might not even be later this year.
But sometime, somewhere, some hackneyed developer is going to be rewriting his stupid IE-only javascript-enforced for submission because their AOL customers can't submit the form.
Remind me to just post a "told you so" on the old newsgroups.
inkly
This guy is apparently unaware of that AOL already relies on OSS like AOLserver.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
IIRC AOL was under contractual obligation to use IE on its clients. That contract expired around January 2002.
Mmmm.. Donuts
This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind.
Or they can start complaining to the individual sites that their pages are non-standard - and the sites will adjust. They have before, and they will continue to do so.
If you were in charge of the site's operation, would *you* want to handle a deluge of calls and e-mails from AOL users who are admittedly using a standards compliant browser to view your non-functional site? Do *you* want to put the embarassing text at the bottom of your homepage that reads "AOL Users - this site will not work for you" ?!
eBay, Amazon, Yahoo? No. They'll adjust to comply to the standard.
I'm a 2000 man.
It runs acceptably on my laptop, which is a Pentium/MMX 233 MHz with 128 MB of memory. I think that's on the low end of what most people would call a "computer" these days. It takes 22 MB to start it up and load the slashdot front page. The only issue is that it takes 20 to 30 seconds to start up. I'm running version 0.9.9 as packaged for Debian unstable.
Of course, I still prefer Konqueror. :-)
I think you're crediting too many people with some intelligence. The site works for their mate using one browser and doesn't for them using another.
Tell me, what are they going to assume? That it's the site at fault or their browser? I'm reckoning that people will say to themselves "well, it works on my mates browser, therefore it can't be the site, must be my browser".
Yes its wrong. But remember to these people HTML is four letters than doesn't mean very much.
I have no doubt that eBay, Amazon and Yahoo will adjust. Actually, I don't think they will need to adjust because they're already compliant.
I'm talking about the 80% of stuff out there that isn't mainstream, run by people because they have a passion about something, not because they are a paid up day-job web designer.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
That 84% of statistics are made up on the spot.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's cool that they are MAYBE going to include a more standards complienat browser but when will AOL wake up and offer other standard internet services like SMTP servers?
It take approximately 2 YEARS for 80% of users to upgrade to a new browser. So in March of 2004, there will still probably be 6.8 million AOL users with IE based clients.
I'm just moved from IE to Opera. For the sole reason that I hate having 15 IE windows open.
OBOY do I know what you mean, and that's exactly how I used to browse. I'm about to make your life a WHOLE lot easier.
Go download Mozilla and install it. Go to Edit->Preferences. Double-click on Navigator. Click on Tabbed Browsing. Select "Load links in the background" and "Middle-click or control-click of links in a Web page". Also select any of the other boxes that you think you might be interesting. Click OK.
Now go to any site you browse frequently. Use control-click or middle click to open new tabs in the background whilst your main site window does not change.
After two minutes with this feature, you will not be able to live without it. Guaranteed.
Look at it this way, you will have a bunch of people using standard compliant browsers who are generaly thought of last, and even blocked from using websites! This will make using the web with all non IE browsers so much better. One standard, one code, any browser!
While I do consider aol one of the major evils (even more because of tw) they do have lots of very smart and good people working for them. (btw, pretty much the entire IT dept is anti ms, its all sun and sgi's, and maybe linux too)
btw, I posted that aol was doing this on more than one occation, and everyone here said ya right.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
I run junkbuster as my proxy server, and it has the neat feature of setting the User-Agent string. I've encountered a few sites that falsely claim to not support my browser (and would I please upgrade to something on a windows machine..), so I've taken to changing my ua string to "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)".
no complaints yet, except hotmail freaks out and displays a 2 inch textarea for message editing.
Look at Galeon: it's probably the best browser in the world (IMHO). It has way more features than both Mozilla and IE have. I especially like the advanced tabbed browsing (way better than Mozilla's).
Now if Mozilla implements all features Galeon has, then I'd be really happy.
Then they can really tell the public: "Mozilla is better than IE!".
Not alot of people know about this web site, but it's damn handy for a bunch of reasons. I like to check it periodically to see the march toward newer browser versions, it gives you a really good window into how fast people at large are upgrading.
Link
It used to have AOL versions percentages as well, but they've reformatted the page to focus it purely on web browser versions. My recollection is that it takes about 12-18 months for a new AOL version to become the dominate version of AOL software used with about 10-15% of people who never upgrade.
While IE may be a "standard," it is only because sites made for IE work poorly, if at all, with other browsers. A standard, in the traditional sense, is one that any vendor can implement, such as the html, xml and other standards approved by the w3c. IE conforms to a MS-modified subset of those standards. Thus, sites using the MS version of the standards do not render properly in any other browser. If AOL does switch to Mozilla/Gecko, any sites that have IE-only html/javascript will be alienating a huge number of potential clients. The majority of these will rewrite their sites using w3c compliant code, thereby opening the doorway for true competition in the browser market, and ensuring that no one corporation can "own" the internet, as MS is attempting to do. AOL will not have this sort of ownership of the internet, since they will not control the standards, but merely be using pre-existing ones that are open for any developer to use.
I'm guess that Jupiter Media Metrix analyst David Card has never heard of Darwin.
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!
activeX is one of the reasons not to be using IE.
Sure it has soem thigns that could be good in a very controled enviorment. But we are dealing with the internet.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
This will not allow "true" competition in the browser market. You still have all of the underlying technology in the client OS, Microsoft's "enhancements" are specific to the most widely used desktop OS. Mozilla still does not support ActiveX.
I understand that there are reasons for that, and we have the w3c to give us a specification, but if technology exists before the specification is complete that can make the web a more enjoyable and fullfilling, then piss off w3c, your standards don't please me.
I do not want to re-write my site, and lose features because AOL decided they should do something with Netscape. How much did AOL buy Netscape for? Can't just waste the money.
I don't think that AOL should be allowed to sue MS as long as they are using MS technology.
Intelligence is a matter of opinion.
AOL's Mac client for Classic and X are both only at 5. Not to mention AOL 6 and 7 add nothing except an annoying interface change.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
It seems not a single poster got what the parent post meant, so I'll give up my mod points to clarify what he means.
Although I haven't used Microsoft Windows for a few years, I remember back when ActiveX came out it was primarily a replacement for "custom controls." It was only adapted for use on Webpages later, (thankfully) with limited success. The primary idea behind implementing Gecko as an ActiveX component would be that any cretinous (or otherwise, I guess) Visual Basic "coder" could drag-and-drop a Gecko component onto a form and embed an instant browser into their program. I guess it's a good idea.
This has nothing do do with supporting ActiveX controls on a webpage within Gecko/Mozilla.
Intuit (makers of Quicken) have a nice online tax filing system, but no support for linux browsers whatsoever. The site stops you with a list of supported browsers. They list Netscape 6.0 on Mac machines, so probably all they have to do is realize that they already support Mozilla/Galeon in Linux. You can file a complaint here.
I have noticed that most "alternative" browsers (Opera, Konqueror, Mozilla, Galeon) have many extra features that IE doesn't (or didn't, back around IE5) have, such as tabbed browsing, advanced cookie/javascript/window.open() policies, etc, etc. For me, it's always been that way, and I couldn't go back to using IE simply because things I take for granted in any browser just aren't there.
AOL users do not make up the majority on the internet. Why would anyone develop a website with AOL-specific extensions that most web users couldn't even see? I agree that AOL encourages its customers to consider its service as equivalent to the interenet, but I doubt it's executives are dumb enough to believe that.
I consider this a defensive move on AOL's part. AOL-TW is facing off against MSN, and both sides know it. (I heard from a reliable source that MS has posters in its buildings publicizing this conflict.) Anyway, it wouldn't be very smart for AOL to piss off MS and continue using IE as their browser. That certainly detracts from any credibility they may have had.
One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
Is anyone else out there having horrible performance with Mozilla on WinXP systems? If I use Mozilla's quick start option, when I load other programs WinXP always swaps Mozilla out to disk. Then when I try to bring Mozilla back up it takes LONGER to swap it all back in than it does to start in the first place! If I leave a mozilla window minimized, then run several other programs, then switch back to Mozilla, it freezes for something like 5-10 seconds while the hard drive crunches. Often WinXP brings up the "this program is not responding" dialog during this process.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
If only you could see where I work. When I got here there were 150 user running Windows98 and some NT 4.0 servers slowly dying a painful death. I mean MSSQL, Exchange, IIS It was a mess! I was hired to "FIX" the Company. They wanted Top Technology at the lowest cost. Since I'm a lot more familiar and comfortable with Linux, it was an option. Given the Cost, Stability, and Security, it was the logical choice for the servers. (You can't argue that logic) All the Desktops run 98 and office 97, Holly Hell do they crash a lot. But what choice is there for a stable Corporate desktop. NT? (old, insecure, unstable, and slow), 2000? (not new, expensive, insecure, still unstable but better, still slow ), XP? (Do I even Have to go there? "Where would you like your cartoons today", and $$$$$EXPENCIVE$$$$$$ ). Linux? (best desktop OS ever but, not enough support for business apps yet, Crystal Reports type stuff). So the best choice is to wait a year and switch to Linux when corporate America is a little more ready. In the meantime I'm getting them off the M$ centric environment. But I can argue with you because you think that if its not M$ then its bad for business. You know what's bad for business, "Spending $800 per desktop to do what my computer at home does better for free!!"
Need help finding the flow? http://www.myspace.com/naturalismandbalance
After reading the posts on this topic I decided A little history lesson was needed to understand why AOL is doing this. WAY back in 1995 AOL approached Netscape and offered to design and support the Netscape portal netscape.com and in return AOL would use the Netscape browser in it's client software. Netscape laughed at them and said running a portal was easy and anybody could do it. Netscape WAS interested in getting their browser into the AOL client so they began negotiations. Meanwhile AOL decided to begin secretly negotiating with Microsoft to use IE. At the time IE was doing poorly and wasn't making much headway against Netscape so Microsoft rolled out the red carpet for AOL. They supplied API's tools and whatever else AOL wanted to make IE work with their client. Netscape finally came to an agreement with AOL to include AOL IM with the Netscape browser. The same day AOL announced their partnership with Microsoft to use IE in their client. This did not sit well with either MS nor Netscape. The inclusion of IE in the AOL client tipped the scales for IE and topled Netscapes browser dominance almost overnight. Netscape folds and gets bought by AOL. MS has a 5 year deal to have IE included in the AOL client (1995-2000). After the contract expires MS and AOL negotiate as to whether AOL will continue to use IE. MS, however, now has a new toy called MSN network and AOL doesn't like it at all. MS doesn't want to let AOL get installed automatically with every new copy of XP. They fight and argue and both go home angry. AOL decides that it is time to get a return on investment of Netscape. Netscape is almost ready and has been steadily improving the last year. BAM! AOL switches and now IE's share of the browser market drops over 30% BTW, AOL/Time Warner owns some of the biggest properties on or off the net. You don't think they will make sure those sites are compliant?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
President Bush was elected.
Read the news occasionally. There's more to the world than what appears on slashdot.
And this just in from (Seems like AOL/TW is putting even more $$ where their mouth is):
Mozilla.org has been investigating the large number
of reports problems associated with attempts at downloading the
most recent 0.9.9 milestone release.
Early investigation points to a large increase in the traffic
and demand for this release. To date it appears that
approximately 135,000 downloads have been
successfully completed, plus additional as yet
uncounted downloads of localizations, stub installers and source code.
We are uncertain about the additional download requests
that we haven't been able to support.
We are looking at options for quickly increasing ftp download capacity.
AOL/TW has volunteered to provide additional network and ftp services
to accommodate this unprecedented user demand. We are hoping to have
additional resources in place very soon, hopefully later today. Please
bear with us and be patient until we finalize a plan and get this extra
capacity on-line. We'll post additional details once they have been
finalized.
Mozilla.org thanks AOL/TW for its generous response.
Mitchell
Neither does Mozilla's web site.
Oh for crying out loud! GET OVER IT! Bush won the election for and square. He was not appointed - all the votes got counted. Too bad you whiny liberals can't seem to understand this. Also, recount after recount of the votes AFTER the election confirm that indeed, Bush won the election.
Subject says it all. Natwest have always been the most inferior of UK banks, with minimal primitive services. I also recommend changing banks.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
AOL's biggest software problem isn't their browser. It's their crappy dialer and TCP/IP software!
I'm glad to hear they've switched to Mozilla. It's a great hedge to IE dominance, and a boost to standards-compliance.
What frustrates AOL users the most is flaky network connections, and mangled network settings. Their regular dialup software is bad enough, but what they give you for DSL is really the pits. If they paid a little more attention to this they'd have a much happier user base, and save a lot of money on tech support calls.
In that case it's a good thing that Microsoft made this decision last year or else they'd be blocking those poor AOL users :)
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
Also take a look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89853, the Mozilla bug assigned to getting the bastards to support Mozilla.
Right now, I'm of the opinion Capital One are within their rights not to support a version 0.x browser. As soon as the 1.0 release candidate comes out (next month), I'll be letting them know that they better allow users of 1.0 in or I'm cutting up my credit cards.
It's not as if EVERY COMPETITOR OF THEIR'S IN THE COUNTRY isn't trying to get my business.
Anyone want to recommend any Mozilla-friendly credit card companies out of interest?
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Does he mean companies like IBM? They are a pretty major software company as well as a hardware-pusher.
I wouldn't call a half minute startup time "acceptable". While I have 128MB of RAM too, I resent having to surrender so much of it to a single program. With other big apps (KDE, XEmacs, Java) competing, I can ill afford another bulky app. I would rather use Konqueror or Opera. I see some indication of progress on the footprint front. Still, there is no indication that it will relinquish its title of "bulkiest and slowest". So regardless of the machine I use, it will continue to compare poorly to its competition on that score.
"certainly not what we used to call internet time"
no, but it is proper development time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Netscape plugins don't download, install, and run themselves - they must be installed.
The kind of functionality provided by ActiveX is better left to Java applets - which are signed, run in a security context, and only have access to a sandbox.
What's funny is that all the stupid license agreements people have to accept have trained people to instantly press "Yes" to any dialog:
ActiveX: An unsigned applet is contained on this page. Do you wish to load it?"
User: [Yes means it worky, No means it no worky] "Yes"
ActiveX Control: "Please wait while I null sectors 0-3244040300000000000 of drive 0..."
Mammy
Actually, I'd like to see a patch that hangs MS IE; then the ball would be in their court. Isn't the rule:
A) If the page looks like crap, its the website's fault
B) If the browser crashes, its the browser's fault
Inspecting my internal ruleset, that's what I'm finding.
Mozilla has alot of features that peoplee actually use, both are bloat but Mozilla is useful bloat.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac