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.

Comments

Now if....

[crumbz]

..Apple would switch from IE, there would be some progress away from MS.

Re:Now if....

[turbine216]

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?

Re:Now if....

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:Now if....

[civilizedINTENSITY]

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.

Re:Now if....

[TheTomcat]

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

Re:Now if....

[turbine216]

You've got the right idea, but you're slightly backwards in terms of the execution.

I fully agree that Mozilla is probably the BEST open-source project to date, but it is by no means the MOST IMPORTANT. A browser is an add-on, a "helper" application at best. True, web services are becoming more and more vital to computing, and everyone who uses a computer really needs a browser. But a "browser war" is not the way to come out ahead in this arena.

People generally don't switch browsers. That is a fact - cold, hard, and undeniably true. Microsoft has been onto this trend for at least 5 or 6 years now...that's why they bundle their own. So a "browser war" doesn't help anything, because it doesn't get MS off the desktop. That's what I was pointing out in my original post - I'm one of the rare few who use a non-MS browser in Windows...but Microsoft isn't even 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. So how does the open source community hope to gain anything by fighting a pointless "browser war"? Why not just focus on making a better browser AND a better desktop environment, so they have something to BUNDLE it with? That's what will make MS more competitive. But the open source community is distracted by the pointless bickering over whose browser handles java plugins better.

My point, to paraphrase once more, is that the "browser war" has been blown WAY out of proportion and is becoming a distraction to what open source SHOULD be doing. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of a solid open-source browser.

Re:Now if....

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Now if....

[Publicus]

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.

Goodbye, ActiveX! Don't let the door hit you in...

[1010011010]

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

I'm not sure...

[EvilAlien]

... that compuserve is relevant anymore.

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.

Re:Goodbye, ActiveX! Don't let the door hit you in

[1010011010]

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.

Forced Download?

[Bonker]

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?

browser marketshare parity is a good thing

[Infonaut]

While Netscape/Mozilla hasn't been thrilling me of late, I think the only really important thing about the resurgence of the Browser Wars is that with a multitude of truly viable browser options available to users, perhaps we'll start to finally see some adaptation of standards that *work*.

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?

Re:browser marketshare parity is a good thing

[brogdon]

A pleasant thought, but the two browsers began on their divergent compatability paths back when the browsers *were* competing with each other. Netscape lobbied like Hell to get layers included in the W3C standard and then, after they weren't approved by the consortium, left them in the browser anyway, making all of us DHTML coders write two sets of scripts to handle them and IE's DIV tags.

MS had been playing catch up to all of Netscape's quirks up until that point, but when IE 4 came out they knew they were going to take the lead, so they didn't bother worrying about layers. They were too busy planning all the IE-only extensions *they* would make once they held the lead in the race (stuff like those crappy XML behaviors). Now that the browser war has been won (by the bad guys, of course), Microsoft actually does a pretty decent job of sticking with the W3C and maintaining the standards, since they don't have to worry about the competition getting an even playing field so much any more.

One could make the case that neither company had the time to wait for the W3C to release new, "official" standards when they busy innovating like Hell in order to get a leg up on the competition. In either case the disparity, I feel, is a direct result of having two browsers in direct, heated competition. I'm afraid this would come back if the browser wars were to start back up again. I really don't want to start writing two sets of code again.

Re:From the office of the president

[elphkotm]

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.

Re:Goodbye, ActiveX! Don't let the door hit you in

[ADRA]

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.

Re:Goodbye, ActiveX! Don't let the door hit you in

[tomgilder]

All of Microsoft's programming documentation contains proprietary enhancements to the spec that are VERY IE specific. They make no distinction as to which objects, events, methods are standard, and which are cooked.

Utter rubbish.

The IE DHTML references on MSDN very clearly mark which objects, events, methods and properties are standard and which ones are not.

Their CSS Property Index clearly lists non-standard entries.

Re:Why now?

[ADRA]

Hello, we are talking about 3 Million people! Can't anyone else see that this is just a shoot load of beta testers? Compuserve will probably get zounds of customer feedback saying this or that is broken, and by knowing what real users need, the dev teams can fix the bugs really need to be.

Comical.

[Zico]

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.

Just a tad too early.

[digitect]

<sigh>

Don't get me wrong, Mozilla is great and I love/use it, but there are still some very serious issues:

• Bug 89350 -- Home button should appear on main Toolbar
• Bug 35268 -- Edit Source using External Editor
• Bug 96877 -- Address book: Lists lose addresses

Hope those CompuServe users can hang in there until 1.2 or so.

(I'd link, but they don't take referrals from SlashDot... here's the Mozilla Bugzilla Home Page.)

Re:Just a tad too early.

[Jay L]

None of those would apply, because none of those are in Gecko. The CompuServe client is still a client unto its own right; it sounds like it will just open browser windows with Gecko instead of IE.

Re:Goodbye, ActiveX! Don't let the door hit you in

[DrXym]

Mozilla is actually more powerful than IE in this regard. Using XPCOM, JS, XUL, XPI packages and more besides, it's possible to extend or modify the behaviour of the browser in any number of ways.

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.

Mozilla, Konqueror, IE, et al.

[vex24]

I realized last night that I'm now completely dependent on the superior feature set of Mozilla's web browser.

I ran across a web site which had obviously been written to cater to MSIE browsers, and eschew web standards compliance. The pages didn't load (at all) in Mozilla 0.9.9, so I decided to give Konqueror a shot before giving up entirely. Konqueror rendered the pages (kudos to the K-people!) but made me realize why I like Mozilla so much. Pop-up windows, animated gif ads, and the clutter of multiple windows was enough to make me groan more than once while trying to navigate the site.

Oh, and before anyone posts "Konqueror does that, you moron!" realize that I'm not trying to rain on the K parade, just extoll the virtues of my fair web browser.

To avoid the dreaded Off-Topic, I'd just like to close by saying that I hope the experiment works, and Compuserve users get a chance to take control of their web browsing experience. Hopefully the privacy and anti-annoyance controls aren't removed when they turn it over to the consumer users.

Re:Compuserve goes way back

[NMerriam]

72202,142

I sadly gave it up a few years ago, when I realized that good, active, moderated, insightful forums were dead...

Slashdot Browser statistics

[HitchHik]

How about adding a page to slashdot to show current/past statistics of browsers that are used to access SlashDot? A link from the main page would also be nice!

Microsoft to start developing new IE things?

[Thunderbear]

Microsoft Internet Explorer has - seen from the users point of view - been virtually unchanged in terms of enhancements and new developments since version 4.0, where Netscape 4.x was fully cloned.

I am writing this in IE 5.1 for Mac OS X, where the only facility I have found to be different than 4.0 for Windows, is the ability to track online auctions, which is useless to me.

Mozilla is a refreshing new product, where the new stuff like the tabs, sidebars and navigation bar mean that I can get rid of some of the things that has nagged me the most in both IE and Netscape 4.x.

Since Mozilla is going to be basically everywhere, it seems that this is going to prompt the user interface stuff in the browsers again. With the new facilities now available in both the major browsers like XSLT we should see a surge in new XML-based services, and that the rest of the browsers keep up.

Re:Let us all try to realize...

[roca]

> Both companies will continue their practices as
> they always have in order to appear to have the
> 'better product'.

You seem to have forgotten that the Gecko engine is open source. There are plenty of non-Netscape people working on Gecko and we will not deviate from Mozilla.org's stated policy of standards support, nor would we stand by and allow Netscape employees to violate that policy (which, by the way, they have shown absolutely NO sign of wanting to do).

Re:I did, until just a few weeks ago

[mech9t8]

they still haven't deleted my old CS webpage.

I quite CompuServe EIGHT YEARS ago, and they still haven't deleted my old CS webpage. Hell of a tight ship they run there. ;)

Re:Mozilla: the coolest project - engine, maybe

[fanatic]

the only cool part of the mozilla project is the engine, and that's only if you're a developer and interested in building your own browser.

You're entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong.

XUL is very cool. Need a browser with no menus of buttons, as an interface to a web-based application for a control-freak client? I got Mozilla (in the M18 days) to do this with a few hours of messing around in the various xml files (and a very small bit of javascript hacks to stop that damn throbber from exiting). No C or C++ coding at all. And I am not a browser or Mozilla developer - perl coding is my speed.

Browser came up to a pre-determined URL and user had no visible way to go anywhere else. (Unfortunately, the project was cacelled before I figured how to inhibit the control-* keys, oh well....)

Mozilla has NOT hit RC1 yet

[Aqua OS X]

A minor correction for story on the home page. Mozilla RC1 is NOT out yet. The branch has been cut and there are builds inching toward the release within the next few days. However the latest "milestone" is still 0.9.9.