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."
Mozilla actually fixes bugs, Microsoft don't.
Microsoft IE6 has a horrible bug where when you open a favorite from your toolbar, and it opens in the First browser window instead of the window you opened the favorite from!
Mozilla doesn't have that bug. It's an easy choice, I use IE5 or Mozilla, and avoid IE6 like the plauge.
This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL.
Fucking idiot. A technology is not an excuse for a shitty GUI.
Whenever I hear this argument about standards compliance I cringe because like it or not (I don't), IE is THE STANDARD and will be for a long time. I don't know a single serious web developer who uses Mozilla as their primary development tool - its used after the fact to check for Mozilla problems. IE is faster, looks better, has a better mail client, uses less resources, and is more widely supported - sounds a lot like what the dream open source product would be, without the open source code of course.
$45 per U Colocation Special
A. I can write standard code that displays the same in both browsers. Have done so for some time now and it's not hard.
B. Killing pop-up ads can also kill some page functionality. Additionally 75% of the people out there don't browse long enough to give a crap about pop-up ads, "close" seems to work just fine for them. Another 22% use adaware or some similar product. Leaving 3% who give a crap about this feature.
C. Only 2% of users of any browser 1) have the time to modify their browser 2) have the ability to code 3) care.
All together A+B+C = THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HAVE NO MAJOR REASON TO SWITCH.
Technophiles, early-adoptors, anti-ms zealots, etc. might find plenty of reasons to switch but the other 95-98% of people are going to stick with what they have because it works (in their eyes). This is the same mentality that keeps people on AOL.
The point with most (all) MSIE-exploits is that you have to visit a page that has an exploit.
No, the page can visit YOU via the HTML email feature of Outlook Express, Outlook, and even Eudora in some cases. Until very recently, scripting and ActiveX were enabled by default for incoming emails on most mail clients.
IE has had more than it's share of security problems, but who says Mozilla won't?
You'll get flamed because you deserve it.
You ASSUME that Mozilla will have a lot of security problems and say that it doesn't deserve a chance.
That's what I hate most about you MSFT-lovers:
You will go through lots of pain (risking changing EULAs by updating, downloading Crazybrowser (sic) extensions, working around bugs, installing virus scanners, accepting WPA, accepting Palladium, etc.) to run a Microsoft product but if some product doesn't have the golden "Microsoft" sticker on it, even the smallest inconvenience or even some FUD (like "who says Mozilla won't", you know... exactly this kind of FUD) will be enough to not even give it a try.
Sorry, but I just get the feeling that you have either a substancial investment in MSFT stock or are completely brainwashed by marketing.
If you don't deserve to be flamed, nobody does.