Slashdot Mirror
Browser Wars II: CompuServe Strikes Back
securitas writes "Today CompuServe (an AOL subsidiary) launched CompuServe 7.0 with Netscape as the underlying browser. CompuServe started testing Komodo, a Gecko-based client, last year, and is now experimenting with Gecko-based AOL clients. CompuServe's 3 million-member user base is seen as a testbed before turning AOL's 34 million members into Netscape users later this year." Update: 04/16 20:54 GMT by T : Also an interesting story at CNN on the upcoming Mozilla 1.0. RC1 is very nice, as have been most recent builds.
I hope this spells the end of ActiveX website "enhancements." Having a large segments of people using a standards-based, non-Windows-specific browser will definitely improve the usability of the Web
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
AOL (I feel dirty typing that) choosing !IE is, aside from logical business-wise, a significant event in the so-called browser war.
I don't think time is well spent on discussing the "browser war", but our concerns should be focused on standard vs. proprietary tag/feature/etc support, HTML interpretation "correctness" and other metamatters.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
You said: "ActiveX can be used in Mozilla."
."
Actually, that's an " ActiveX Control for Hosting Netscape plug-ins in IE
In other words, you have it backwards. MSFT dropped support for Netscape-style plugins, and this is a way to regain use of Netscape-style plugins in Internet Explorer.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Why does anyone think that the key to escaping the so-called "microsoft deathgrip" lies in an alternate web browser? It makes A LOT more sense to say "maybe if Apple would port their OS to X86 architecture, there would be some progress away from MS," or even something like "maybe if the Open Source community could come up with a decent office suite that is actually WORTH the $0 price tag, there would be some progress away from MS." But how in the hell does a browser have anything to do with it? I (and many others that I know) use various Mozilla builds on various Windows versions, and we're still hooked on MS because we like the REAL products, Windows and Office.
I think this whole "browser war" gets way too much emphasis these days. It made sense 7 years ago when Netscape wasn't free and was trying to compete. Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top?? Shouldn't you be more concerned about competing with Microsoft's OTHER software?
Not likely. A staggering number of AOL'ers are still using versions 3.0 and 4.0 of the AOL client, so I can only assume that similar percentages of compuserve users are doing the same thing. I don't think we can count on all of Compuserve, let alone 34 million AOL accounts, to suddenly be running on Gecko code any time in the near future.
Forcing an update download on customers is possible, however. Certain online games are now in the practice of forcing a patch on users on a weekly basis. This same model could work for the big ISP's to keep their customers updated with the latest technology.
It could also play into the hands of pushers of spyware and adware. What better way for LEO's to spy on someone suspected of a crime than to 'push' an update to his AOL or Compuserve account?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
No, I'm not talking about W3 standards. While those are a good thing in theory, they're only good in practice when BOTH of the major players in the market embrace them in the same fashion.
For example, while CSS is great for type control (in the main), it sucks for element placement because by the time you go through all of the necessary browser workarounds and browser detects and different versions of the same content, you may as well have just built the damned thing using tables.
All this talk about how Mozilla rocks and IE blows, or vice-versa, is completely beside the point. We can't have a better Web until the two dominant forces in the Browser Universe start applying standards in the same fashion.
Of course, O'Reilly would be bummed, because they'd no longer have to publish books like the CSS Pocket Guide (which delineates in great detail the myriad ways in which different tags are supported by different browsers).
I'm still pessimistic, but overall if Netscape finds a way to regain enough marketshare to become viable again, it may encourage Netscape and IE to compete solely on the basis of features not tied to the rendering engine.
Hey, a guy can dream, right?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
> Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top?? Shouldn't you be more concerned about competing with Microsoft's OTHER software?
No.
Today browsing is absolutely vital for anyone with a computer. If we drop the ball, then the internet will be a proprietary windows-only thing in a matter of years (like dropping html in favor of word format, or that kind of thing).
No OS will ever be able to take off, as _everything_ that people will use will be totally proprietary.
Mozilla is the _most_ important application today.
As much as a troll as this is, you exemplify the wrong attitude that has become dominant in the open source world. Beyond the hype, the purpose of open source is to improve software, period. Open source isn't about defeating the evils in the world or getting things for free, it's about moving technology forward. You don't spend a Saturday in a soup kitchen because you get something tangible from it. If Microsoft decides to take the high-quality TCP/IP stack code written by FreeBSD and integrating it into Windows 2000, then let them. By hundreds of people contributing their effort into that TCP/IP stack, they have made Windows 2000 more stable. That, my friend, is the goal in the end, better software. Not because someone paid for it, but because someone decided it needed to be done the right way.
<Amanda`> I just went out to the parking lot in my bathrobe to exchange warez CDs.
The only problem with this is that if people want highly interactive content between pages and active code on the client, there is nothing there. Java is fine and dandy in a 100% isolated environment, so it can't be used as a scripting language.
ure JavaScript and all extension thereof have the syntax and functionality, but they are missing tons of browser hooks that Microsoft has added to their browser. They are more targeting easy access applications than interactive web sites. Iweb sites were old news with MS long after they ever got traction with web developers. That is why developers use flash for interaction now. It is a lot simpler than java, and a lot more flexable than IE-DHTML..
On the other hand, the last ActiveX component I DL'ed was Terminal Server Client, which allows anyone to Terminal Server login from a web page. It is very sexy for simple remote network logins.
Bye!
It does make sense if you think in terms of client-server relationships. If there can be only one client, that client will set arbitrary and selfserving defacto standards. With multiple clients, then open standards can proliferate.
Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top??
I do.
If one company controls 99% of web browsing, they could eventually move to controlling 99% of webservers by implementing "features" that only work with their server/browser implementation. I believe that's why MS came up with IE in the first place.
Sounds conspiracy theorist, right?
Read this, then.
They're known for this sort of thing. I used to be a huge MS hater, and I've grown to tolerate them over the past 2-or-so years (since Win2000, really), but it's crap like this that puts me back on the skeptic team.
S
Years ago, our company did all software development on large IBM mainframes. All code storage, design tools, code editors, compilers, test tools, etc. Everything. Every designer had to have an account, storage space, access to a terminal, and processing time on the mainframe. That was reasonable enough.
But to tie everything together, that meant that everyone else also had to have a mainframe account, many of whom did not otherwise need access to the design environment or need mainframe training. We're talking about sales folk (to check on the projected release date) business managers (availability), technical writers, secretaries (t oaccess email) etc. That was a lot of training, account space, and processing power which could have been better spent elsewhere.
It was a great boon when we started deploying personal computers (less contention for the 3270 mainframe terminals) and things really took off when we moved to web-based distribution of information. That meant that you could access most of the derivative portion of the environment (project planning, documentation, etc) from whatever computer (PC, Macintosh, UNIX workstationi, VT100) you happened to already have and be trained for.
You no longer had to have a specific computer running a specific operating system to access the information you needed. Sounds familiar?
Nowadays, the company has moved back to creating IE-specific web pages. That means everyone in the company has to have a PC running Windows to get any information out of our development environment.
The funny part is, just after we moved the content to the web, we moved the design tools to UNIX. So now all the designers need UNIX workstations...where IE support is just a bad joke. Care to guess what we do when management says "please review the important corporate information off the (IE-only) web page..."?
So getting back to the world where you don't have to have a specific application running under a specific operating system to access the corporate information is a good thing. Anything which promotes diversity in that realm is good.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Wow... I'd almost forgotten that. Seriously, thank you.
Mozilla 0.9.9 is better than IE6, in my opinion as well as others'. I doubt very much mozilla will fail the test.
AOL has been using IE for several years, and that's several years too many. Maybe their plan is to test with compuserve, and then use 1.0 for AOL, when it's done.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Yeah, I'm sure that all those paying subscribers can't wait to have their services disrupted so that they can be guinea pigs for AOL. I'm sure they have nothing better to do than send Compuserve "zounds of customer feedback" saying that the things they want to do are now broken.
Unlike ActiveX you're not even confined to Win32. It is quite possible to develop cross-platform components or even whole applications using just JS & XUL.
I have yet to encounter any msoffice zealot that could actually support their assertion that msoffice competition is somehow lacking. This goes equally well for PerfectOffice, SmartSuite or StarOffic.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
SLIGHTLY hurt by this fact, because their REAL PRODUCTS - windows and office - are still the best on the desktop for me and probably 85% of the rest of the world's PC's.
This is true today, but I think tomorrow, with the possible emergence of .NET and more pervasive web services, that people will be using their browser as a gateway to using office like applications. This is, in fact, the direction Microsoft would like to go. They'd rather get people into a subscription-like system that can be delivered from a central server, instead of having the application installed on the desktop.
Whether it will ever happen remains to be seen, but I think the reason browsers are so hotly contended is because they determine the protocols that will be bringing these services to consumers in the future.
If IE dominates, Microsoft gets to choose the standards. If IE does not dominate, perhaps the W3C will, or another more democratic organization. I think that would be better.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
* Bug 89350 -- Home button should appear on main Toolbar
* Bug 35268 -- Edit Source using External Editor
these are serious 1.0 stopping features??? man, you need a reality check
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
A mother is motivated by selfish greed to take good care of her children? Someone who jumps in front of a bus to save someone is motivated by selfish greed?
I find your level of capitalist indoctrination to be disturbing. It bears no connection to reality.
I personally have had many problems with designing sites for past netscape browsers. Netscape just has not been the same for the past 7 years. Why don't they just work with microsoft on setting standards for rendering the HTML and have the differences in the browsers be external.
Things don't change, people do.
"Do I double click or single click that little X in the corner?" "Single click mom."