Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Reviews Mozilla
Aglassis writes "This Ars Technica review gives mozilla 1.0 an overall score of 7/10 (9 for Gecko and 6 for the browser). The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL. Overall they say that mozilla would make a good substitute for IE 6 but there is no major reason to switch over."
...but Mozilla is a "1.0" release, and from a security perspective, it's usually better to go with a more mature application.
Yes, but Mozilla was leading up to 1.0 for years. It really is a mature application, as applications go, so most of the "gross" holes probably have been addressed. The remaining holes fall under the law of diminishing returns, where there are certainly some, but they will found less frequently as time passes. In this regard, Mozilla and IE are on equal footing.
Also, Mozilla gives quite a bit of flexibility concerning cookies and JavaScript, so I would believe that whole classes of bugs wouldn't be exploitable, simply because I allow cookies only to sites that have earned my trust, for example. Now, if per-site JavaScript control is incorporated into a later release of Mozilla, that will be the icing on the cake.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Honestly, if you were running a company outside the U.S., would you trust Microsoft with your data? Especially with Microsoft's willingness to do anything to keep the U.S. government from breaking them up! Can you say, "corporate espionage"? You know corporate espionage is something that really does goes on. There are documentaries all about corporate espionage that the U.S., Soviet, Chinese, Japanese, UK, etc. governments all engage in.
It's a dangerous world out there for businesses, especially considering Microsoft's complete lack of respect and honesty when dealing with their business partners and customers.
Microsoft software is a liability and should be avoided whenever possible.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Your post sounds a lot like sour grapes. Nobody cares how or why something runs faster, just that it does. Fonts in Mozilla suck. It takes forever to start. Nobody uses it. I really wish that Mozilla was better, and I continue to use it and support it, but the fact is that IE wins, no matter how they do it. The end result is that IE is faster and ultimately more useful and cost effective to develop for.
$45 per U Colocation Special
Frankly I wish these standards were enforced, because it's a real pain in the ass to have to develop separate code so that my site works with both browser types. Call me lazy but it's alot of duplicated effort that is unnecessary and time-consuming.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The only other option is use something like wxWindows which tries to present a single API that is platform independent but will use native widgets, though this approach has it own problems
I believe this is the most logical option. If you are writing a GUI app then you should use as first option the OS native widgets. If you are writing a multi-os GUI app then use a wrapper for the GUI. Thats the magic about Object Oriented Programming.
Why leave the wxWindows option last? there are other projects like this one, even they could have done something like this instead of creating their own set of widgets and would be a lot easier and nicer.
I dream of the day when us Open Source developers start coding thinking on the user, and not thinking in "ooh, I can do this the easy way or I can do it the hard way, I'll do it the hard way so everyone knows I can".
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
heh. what you need is to stop being such a pussy.
the mozilla team is busting their asses to see that the web remains an open platform and not a microsoft fiefdom.
fine, the widget sets need some remaining work,
but jesus christ, you're complaining about VERY MINOR look and feel issues. get a grip.
the navigator application is meant to be a freely available reference implementation, not a finished product. as a bonus, it works quite well as a browser. if the buttons don't look just like your precious aqua interface (which is ugly as shite and looks like it was designed by someone who'd just been playing a marathon game of candyland on acid, IMHO), then wait until someone in the OS-X world develops a more native browser that will soothe your little aches and pains.
by the way: good job paying $1500 extra for some overpriced, soon-to-be-obsolete hardware. way to fall for marketing.
Stop, zealot, and look. Mozilla(Mail) is faster, cleaner and all around more elegant than anything Outlook Express can ever hope to be.
Shut your trap, and sit in your console where we can't see you. We don't need anymore twelve year old zealots here, who haven't used the product themselves and yell hallalujah at anything Windows.