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.
Welcome!! - You Got Scales!!!
Are there any sites actually using ActiveX? I've never ever encountered one. By maybe that's just because I mainly visit OSS-related sites ;-)
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
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?
Sorry; I meant roll on the activeX wrapper, then al the Delphi newbies will be knocking out their own browsers that host this activeX (the rendering engine).
I didn't mean it needed to be able to host activeX itself.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Are there any sites actually using ActiveX? I've never ever encountered one.
Actually, outside of coporate intranets, neither have I, with one exception: MS Windows Update. That is honestly the only site I have ever been to with ActiveX components on it. And that kind of track record is fine by me.
I simply don't trust running ActiveX components anyway. I equate it to getting into a submarine with screen doors on it; its just not a good idea.
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.
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
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'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.
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.
I encounter daily sites providing content thru the use of ActiveX controls:
Adobe Acrobat
Windows Media
Quicktime
Real Player
Macromedia Flash
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.
There already is an activeX wrapper. Unfortunately, it requires a full installation of mozilla in order to function properly. Its a bit of a drawback when it comes time to distribute an app based on the component.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
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
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 :-)
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.
We would probably have said "Great, Microsoft are finally following open standards."
But that is not likely to happen, ever, even though MS (or anyone) is perfectly free to use the Gecko codebase.
No, it doesn't. AOL didn't get to be a huge company by being suicidal. Distributing AOL CDs with a gecko-based web browser instead of IE isn't suicidal, but not allowing AOL users to browse with IE would be.
Some customers are going to switch to the new browser. Some are going to install it, then use IE anyways. Some will try to browse with a Win32 version of Lynx.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I think the point the writer was making is that not all AOL uses will jump on this new version. As the blurb mentioned, most of his AOL hits were from people using 5.0, even though 7.0 is available these days.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
He isn't dumb, he pointed out that most AOL users don't bother to upgrade, why do you think he referenced the fact that most AOL hits he sees are 5.0, which is not the newest version?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
No matter how evil AOL is, it's hard for them to abuse Mozilla. Mozilla is open source. Mozilla is committed to supporting W3C standards, and there are a number of high-profile non-Netscape contributors committed to keeping it that way.
Even if you hate AOL so much that you won't even download your own Mozilla source and build it, this is still good news for you. If AOL does start using Gecko, it would be the BEST NEWS EVER for Konqueror and Opera. A lot of broken Web sites would need to clean up their act, which helps everyone who want to see standards compliant sites.
The interesting thing about this is - it's binary interface compatible with the Trident APIs: ie it's the same as the internet explorer ActiveX control. This means if you already use the IE ActiveX you can simply replace it with the Gecko one without changing any code (in theory). Hopefully once Moz penetration goes up, you'll start seeing more of this, but to be honest I doubt it.
Unless it's possible to replace the IE Control with the Gecko one transparently why should apps switch from a rendering engine that is guaranteed to be there, to one that isn't? Makes no sense. So this is good, but for now not all that helpful.
There would have been dancing in the streets of Slashopolis. I would have run through the streets in a state of undress, shouting wild shouts of exultation and blinding unwary bystanders.
Yes, AOL is a huge behemoth, but in this case not a proprietary one. If I grok Mozilla rightly, the Gecko engine is what decides how to display html/xml. Since it follows the standards better than IE, it will lead to pressure for a more standard-compliant web. Had Microsoft also adopted Gecko, it would have led to the same pressures.
Of course, Microsoft would never actually do that, because they'd have a tough time spinning the implication that their technology was inferior to a competitor's. Also, the IE rendering engine is supposedly too inte-muh-grated to be ripped out of the OS like that.
Finally, the fact is that Gecko is open source, which means that anyone, anytime, can fork the code and create a competitive new browser. This leads to competition in the marketplace, which leads to goodness all around.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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
http://mozilla.org/xpapps/MachVPlan/MachV_NavPlan. html
Thank god they are fixing the lame-ass bookmark organizer.
Have a NICE day.
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.
I hate to burst your bubble, but AOL is the group that have been funding Mozilla all of this time.
If you're talking about Komodo from ActiveState, then they're using XUL (I don't think Gecko is used IMO)
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
Netscape/Mozilla/AOL has the equivalent of ActiveX called the Netscape Plugin API. All of the media types you cite are available as plugins. Chances are that AOL will ship with most of these too.
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
Actually windows media can be done as well, apparently there's a netscape plugin for it.
Jilles
AOL will likely use a subset of Mozilla similar to the existing embedding distributions that go out nightly in ftp.mozilla.org. That means it will have run with a subset of DLLs and a subset of the chrome.
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.)
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 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.
XUL is implemented by Gecko.
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.
The control is part of the Mozilla distributable but it's also available in the Win32 embedding distribution which is about a 4Mb download.
Actually you should type regsvr32 mozctlx.dll.
Huh? There is no hypocrisy. AOL is regularly bashed for trying to build a closed-off network, seperated from "the real internet." They're bashed for not using a standard dial-in procedure, forcing everyone to log on using there software and making use of AOL impossible on systems not officially supported by AOL. They're also criticized for not using an open email system, and lots of other things.
Using a standards-compliant, free browser is, however, not a bad thing.
In fact, criticizing AOL for using Mozilla would be hypocritical. You can't bash them for not using open standards and then, when they eventually do, criticize them for doing so.
Also note that it doesn't mean that everyone loves AOL now. The above points (non-standard dialin etc.) are still valid, but why shouldn't people applaud when they make a first step towards being more open? Personally, I still don't like AOL, but this doesn't mean I dislike every single decision they make.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
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!
I'd be interested in knowing how you managed this -- even by changing my browser information in prefs.js, it still doesn't let me in.
Would that start a nuclear war? Well, yes.
.5 lb TNT? Real TNT is a far superior material for that: it's more reliable, it's less delicate, it requires less maintenance, theft isn't an international issue, it isn't radioactive, and it leaves little pollution.
And what would be the point of a nuclear hand grenade, with a yield of
Even for the purposes of bunker busting, I can't see using nukes. Even if we have to keep soldiers stationed outside bunkers for a year, it beats using a nuke on it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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.
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?" `":" #");}
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
Good point. However, in their defense, it is of some comfort to know that the site validates as HTML 4.01 Transitional if you mandate it be verified as such (they are missing the DOCTYPE on the page). On the other hand, the original site still doesn't validate even after selecting HTML 4.01 Transitional (the closest it possibly comes to).
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.
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.
"certainly not what we used to call internet time"
no, but it is proper development time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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