Slashdot Mirror
AOL Releases Client for Mac OS X with Gecko Browser
DietFluffy writes "America Online released an update to their Mac OS X client. The built-in browser is powered by Gecko! However, America Online plans to stick with Internet Explorer for their Windows client.
Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to
Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will
still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?" And if this goes well, will the Windows version eventually use a Gecko-based browser, too?
Considering that Apple market share is fairly small and then add in those using AOL on it it's even smaller this won't make much of an impact. Most sites already work completely in Mozilla, the only ones being the ones who don't care about working on every browser, and never have.
I can't remember - Is AOL the evil corporate empire today or are they the champions fighting against M$? Let me check my calendar..
But it's about protecting your userbase. No point in alienating your users too soon. It'll come but not in a rush.
DWR is Ajax for Java
The Win32 / 8.0 version of the AOL client does use Gecko as the rendering engine.
I wonder if they will disable 'disable popups'.
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
Trying something new for a niche platform
makes sense when looking at the market.
AOL does not need browser wars...
but it needs to regain control of its user base.
If AOL is smart it will test the waters
before jumping in.
Consider Gecko on Mac to be a prototype for
a new AOL version for Windows.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Been aol free for 3 years, and I'd never go back
Fault loves the past, worry loves the future, but content enjoys the present.
...Web Standards Project link.
I'm very glad to see this kind of progress actually taking place. Since I started not worrying about NS4 support (that is, giving NS4 dumbed-down or no styling at all), IE/win has become my arch-nemesis of web design. The broken box model alone is enough to keep a man (or woman) up nights.
I hope the introduction of AOL gecko clients, especially for windows, will put a damper on the attitude of many web authors that "IE is all that matters," and "mozilla sucks because it doesn't support industry standards."
Karma: T-rexcellent.
It's good to see AOL use something other than IE. I think they are doing this for one main reason... Beta Test! It would be good to see AOL switch to Gecko on the Windows platform for no other reason than to give Microsoft what they deserve most... Competition.
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
AOL is still scared to death of Gates and will not try to piss him off by taking IE out of AOL. At least I don't think so.
Have you noticde that MS sites display correctly in Mozilla..I can even get winodws udpates..
Its a consipracy to support Mozilla!
Oh no! Mozilla is coming after AOL next!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
That's not totally far out. AOL and its child companies are starting to embrace Linux as an alternative. There was a bit of speculation for some time about them being interested in Red Hat, but I am not sure how far that went. Nullsoft, the company that makes Winamp, really likes the whole open source thing. They have developed a cros-platform coding library called Wasabi, in which Winamp 3 is built upon. They aim to have Winamp available for Windows, Linux, and Mac- thanks to Wasabi. I am not sure if this is just because they are geeks, or if there was some corporate influence behind it, to muscle AOL's software (Winamp) onto multiple platforms. Of course, Gecko (and Mozilla) is available on almost all major platforms, and is constantly improving.
Is this a sign of AOL's interest in this sort of community, or a way of cirumventing MS's power? Who knows?
It is a great deal faster than Mozilla on OSX. I tried it on a G3 iMac yesterday. AOL doesnt use the chrome interface, so that helps. Lets hope this can be done for Windows as well.
The browser wars would still be going on if this happened 3 or so years ago. Now better than never
And if this goes well, will the Windows version eventually use a Gecko-based browser, too?
I almost said "No, not unless it's 100% compatible with sites that want to see IE"
But then I thought about how screwy the AOL browsers have been in the past.
I'd just fire up AOL and run IE, but 99% of AOL users don't know you can do that. The only twisted view of the world wide web they have is from inside of the AOL Browser.
Remember all the porn sites that used to say, "AOL-friendly?"
Selecting Gecko for MacOSX is just a good market trick. It's market share is minimal, and I have understood the users (exactly one that I know) of MacOSX are already used to not being able to view everything similarly as the majority. Therefore, no-one looses, and AOL gets credit.
Gecko or IE, it doesn't matter since any AOL users can still use whatever darn browser they please.
InKonu
As long as _I_ don't have to support their user base, what's so bad about AOLOS?
Why fight M$ when you can let AOL fight M$?
I suspect that a lot of the supporters of Linux started out like I did by being disillusioned by the alternatives. Now, more than ever, with the positive press for Linux out there, the more people see that there ARE alternatives to M$, the better for all of us.
Right?
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
The DOJ isn't going to do anything to MS, MS will be allowed to continue doing business how they please. Pretty soon, MS is going to start pushing MSN even harder. People will buy their PC and it will come with an MSN subscription and will come preconfigured to connect to the Internet via MSN. It will most likely use completely proprietary windows only connection and communication protocols. All software that people need will come on their PC, and they'll pay per use or rent monthly, and pay via their MSN bill.
Whether that really happens that way or not is yet to be seen, but the danger to AOL from MS/MSN is very obvious, and if AOL wants to stay in business they had better start pushing to bring MS down off it's pedestal.
AOL could start by spending less money giving me coasters, and use standard connection protocols, etc.
Most people who use AOL continue to use AOL because that's what they've been using for a long time... AOL needs to start worrying about it's future.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The reason being that its easy. Most clients of web companies use PCs with the latest version of XP and IE installed - why?
.NET you can actually SMELL the IE bias as soon as you start building a page. This keep development costs down and delivery schedules easy to estimate.
Because its easy. IE has its flaws, but its pretty much universal and good enough. With
By building for IE and offering to 'do a mac version if you get complaints / lose customers' most web houses cover their arse while keeping it simple. And the carrot? 'Its cheap as chips to do in IE, but a bitch to do cross browser - so it'll costs lots more - it'll be cheaper in the long run to do two versions, and you probably wont need the second version anyway!'
IE is here to stay.
Gnutella
WinAmp
IM
Mozilla
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Well...there are also blind web surfers. Both CSS and HTML explicitly support markup and styling for non-graphical browsers.
Cheers,
Ian
Is that why SP3 for W2k adds the option to set another browser as default, and to hide the fact that IE is even there?
admittedly, it's intended to be used the other way round, but the functionality is still there...
Advanced users are users too!
On the other hand, MacIE has incomplete support for certificates - try going to a site with a certificate from an unknown (to IE) provider in MacIE and it would not let you in (in version 5.1 and under at least).
Besides, they already have a browser product that uses Gecko - the one used by their subsidiary, Compuserve. It makes sense to migrate AOL on Windows last, since there is no pressing need.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
IMHO, IE is by far the best browser out there. I'll admit, this may be so because sites taylor to the IE crowd, but I've found for speed, user friendliness, and ease of use, IE takes the cake. I use galeon on my Linux workstations, but I feel its more unstable and less reliable than IE. I know competition is healthy, but when I is the best then they need to come up with something to compete.
People who have witty things here blow.
I don't understand everyone talking about how it will make web designers make their sites compatible for all browsers. I use Mozilla and have never come accross a site that renders with serious errors. Most pages look the same in all browsers.
BTW, it should be easy for AOL to write a quick batch test that can examine all the big web sites. Then send out e-mails to webmaster notifying them that they are losing millions in business.
I'm not so sure about that. Most incompatible pages have difficulties at even being _displayed_ at all on Mozilla, and the rest just looks like Things From The Dungeon Dimensions scrambled your network connection and done something horrible with it. How is a simple script going to discover those problems, when it has no eye to look at the mess on the screen?
IMO, Mozilla blows away IE 5 on the Mac (as opposed to being about even with IE5/6 on the PC). It's faster and neither are preloaded. Very smart move.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Actually, no. But then, I don't give my patronage to that kind of sleaze...you know, the kind of sleaze who have anything to do with AOL?
No need for all of that
http://www.aol.com/anywhere/iaol/
hey look its aol for the completely clueless.
I mean at the end of the day, we're still talking about AOL.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
Does it really matter who you 'target' for anymore? Gecko and IE seem to render almost everything identically these days.
... and all I wanted for xmas was a magic 8 ball, but i got this lousy
Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?
;)
I run a good-sized website in my spare time, and I do my best to account for all browser types and such - at least within reason. Some moron complaining about some browser I've never heard of on his Commodore 64 not working well doesn't affect me much...
Anyway, what percentage of users are using AOL on Mac OS X? I would wager it's a rather insignificant percentage compared to all the AOL users on Windows. This will have no impact on designers who prefer to go IE-only on their sites.
This is just one more AOL groupthink idiocy from the same people who bought NS because it was not IE. Now this "We're better than good, wer're different !!!"
C'mon - the company is in deep shit financially and however they can provide a C+ average function for free is what they will do. This has nothing to do with you.
Just to be the devils advocate, I have been reading up on lots of browser stuff for the redesign of my site and from what I have learnt it appears that Internet Explorer is better on the Mac than it is on the PC. This is mainly because IE on the Mac is far more standards compliant with better CSS2 support and full support for PNG transparency.
As far as IE on the PC goes version 6 aint so bad because it is step closer to better CSS2 support, though it is still a far cry from Mozilla's CSS and PNG support.
aus.music.scrapbook
We develop for whatever the two main browsers are at the time and attempt to 'gracefully degrade' content for older browsers.
At present, rendering must be accurate for ie4+ and netscape6+ (mozilla) - earlier browsers, so long as they more or less work - tough - we don't have the time or money to make um look pretty.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Oh, and there's an IE skin for Mozilla, which along with custom splash screens and icon sets, allows you to ease your co-workers into Mozilla.
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
As far as I recall, web designers/builders/maintainers/whatevers have traditionally ignored AOL, passing them off as irrelevant (for a variety of reasons from the custom browser they used to use, to the fact that AOL users are stupid by stereotype). To answer the question posted in the story, yes, I think the trends towards developing for Internet Explorer will (sadly) continue, for two reasons. First, the irrelevance AOL is considered to embody (read up), and second, because web design doesn't pay what it used to. As a result, those who want web sites built want them built as quickly as possible. Making cross-platform web sites is more expensive than IE-only.
It's still good to see yet another large company "support" open source software... Even if they do nothing other than lend credibility to a particular project.
Why bother.
the target market of AOL is people who care deeply what rendering engine their browser use.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yet, there is one very painful area in which free software has not stepped up and provided GNU replacements. This key area is preventing the adoption of free software for the standard desktop, and it must be remedied soon, or all will be lost.
Thus, I propose that the FSF take up the following projects as soon as developers can be found:
Until this hole is plugged in the free software front, we are fighting a losing battle.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I really doubt that, have you any statistics that shows that the latest versions of XP and IE are already more popular than older versions?
That means read all the ... links (I just made it up.) Anyway, one of the links posted on the article is this...
There are so many pages out there that have been developed with IE specific features, that making this switch too soon would stop people using the AOL browser all together. If they roll this out slowly, it will give developers time to switch. That's why it's more important than ever to notify sites that do not work well in Mozilla and NS6 so that the developers get the message and get their sites fixed. That being said, if AOL would make a rock solid commitment to moving to gecko, it would really light a fire under the developers and thier bosses to be proactive in finding the problems in their sites. I'm no fan of AOL, but if they can help get standard based web pages more common, then I'm all for them!
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
AOL is the SINGLE most important demographic for anyone in the B2C space. They are followed closely by people that use MSN's search engine. People that use Yahoo's search engine are a distant third.
People that run NS6/Mozilla are meaningless. Google searchers with any browser are kinda worthless.
NS4 users are important, you get people at work at low-tech companies.
I mean, it depends what you are doing. If you are building crazy flash sites with loud annoying noises, ignore AOL. My sites try to make money, like hell I'll ignore the largest contingent of shoppers, just because people think that they are stupid.
I'll take an semi-illiterate user running AOL 5.0 on an 800x600 monitor visiting my site over a "1337 Linux Hacker" running a Mozilla beta shopping me and 12 competitors to save 50 cents...
Alex
I am with you on the NS 4x era browsers issue. If you design with CSS there is a simple trick that will allow NS 4x users the ability to view the page cleanly though without any real formatting. Just use the "@import" method of loading your style sheets. NS 4x will totally ignore them, and thus render old school html pages, circa 1996. At least the page is completely viewable, just boring as can be.
Yet another joke that stopped being funny. Yea Yea I know maybe I am old and crumegony, but I remember when slashdot was for discussions, and not rehashing jokes that were not funny nor clever the first time.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where does it say this? The linked article just says "no major changes", but that could be taken any number of ways, like "no major user-visible changes". I'm guessing he average AOL user won't be able to tell the difference between an IE based AOL and a Gecko one.
I really don't think we'll know which way AOL is going until 8.0 is actually released.
The Free desktop that Just Works
OS X.2, will include an Apple derived IM client using AOL's network, and now AOL ditches IE on the Mac. Maybe the two are working up some larger plans in order to push on M$. They are already pushing AOL chat on OS X and now they are pushing IE off as well. If the Mac starts to make a resurgence on th e consumer's desktop, maybe this will make a people wake up and realize that there are other things other than M$ out there that deserve their attention.
...it'll probably be in my letterbox any day now!
--- Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit? | Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
The "browser" within AOL has little visual resemblance to IE, Mozilla, Gecko, Netscape, or whatever. The AOLer sees a window. In that window, a website may or may not open. Nowhere is there an IE or Gecko logo. I'd bet that 90% do not know nor care that the underlying tech is from the evil empire to the west, or from Gecko.
All the AOL user sees is "AOL".
The news.com article mentions nothing about AOL using Gecko in its windows client so I don't even know why the submitter references it.....
Also, as an AOL beta tester, I will tell you that there currently is an AOL 7.0 w/ Gecko in testing. The plan is to get Gecko fully compatible w/ AOL, and since in that time they havge started testing of verion 8.0, it will then be moved into 8.0 for the final release, to the public.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts do!
I'm curious to see the interface on OSX - anyone have any screenshots?
As a developer, I always strive to make sure my creations are best viewed on the widest range of browsers and operating systems possible. For quite a while now, I have moved to Mozilla for almost all of my web browsing and developing needs. Of course I still need to use IE in order to download Windows updates, but Mozilla is my browser of choice and I make sure that my designs are viewed the same on Mozilla as they are on IE and other browsers. Still, differences in browsers sometimes eliminate certain desirable design features because they do not have a compliment on the other browsers.
JasonBlogs
Ive been doing web dev for nearly 6 years now, and very heavy client side web dev (browser code). The deciding factor in building a web site that conforms to more open standars vs. browser specific rules is usually who is winning the browser war.
Granted, MSIE and MACIE are very different, but the difference between MACIE and MACNS is huge, massive I must say. If the percentages grow higher and higher for NS (I hope they do) then you will see more websites abondoning browser specific code in favor of cross browser code.
Google Zeitgeist
Or you will see more sites implementing CSS the way it was suppose to be used. Just take a look at the newly redesigned Yahoo Mail in IE and then in NS, well done Yahoo. (except what is with this more than often asking me of my pwd lately?)
Simmer down, now... -SNL skit reference, no attempt to simulate the accents used...
Really, though, I thought the comment you are reacting to was an attempt to point out exactly what you are saying. At least that's the way I saw it.
Although there is a thread of bias against large corporations here, I think the real negativity towards AOL tends to be from those who don't like the infusion of the clueless into internet society. It used to be the realm of the geek. Now everyone participates, and the noise to signal ratio has gone way up.
I don't harbor negativity towards AOL for this. Rather, I feel that developers have done their job well when an interface disguises underlying complexities. AOL's interface allows my parents to get online without extensive training
Microsoft, on the other hand, is a different matter for most of us. For me, I dislike Microsoft, not for their monopoly, but for their methods of acheiving it and maintaining it. If you haven't already, read The Halloween Documents. They expose the kind of things that Microsoft does to hurt the Internet, hurt healthy competition and ultimately hurt the consumer.
For me, my enjoyment of Linux has nothing to do with Microsoft. I am a computer hobbyist, and the learning I can to with Linux makes it fun for me. I would have no problem with Microsoft having a monopoly over the commercial market as long as they were doing it ethically. The market should be won by having a better product, not by destroying competition through underhanded and arguably illegal means.
Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?
If the designers aren't already doing something to make sure their sites are at least palatable on browsers other than IE, its unlikely that this will make any bit of difference to them. Of course the smart ones out there are already designing for standards compliance and won't have to worry about it.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I could see the reasoning behind this, but where does the linked article mention that AOL 8.0/Win will still use IE?
reech bee-yond ur clip-0n
I'm just curious: does anyone know if this embedded Gecko is taking stuff out of the Chimera tree? Or maybe a better question: where off of Mozilla did they branch?
Well...there are also blind web surfers. Both CSS and HTML explicitly support markup and styling for non-graphical browsers.
They're not ficticious... I really have had webpages I've built beta tested by a blind user to check for compliance.
The so what is this: While AOL users often don't care what is getting them to a particular web site, web logs reflect what kind of browser is being used to visit a site. Let's say you're CNN, or even slashdot...if your logs indicate a large % of a particular browser, then you will build for that browser. That's what the business folks look at, and tell the web people to build for those audiences. So it is very important that usage statistics show significant numbers for browsers other than IE so that common standards are followed and systems other than Intel/MS/IE are supported by web builders.
Would any self respecting Mac user actually use AOL?
Speak for yourself. You may think that doing a half-assed job is just fine until someone complains, but that's not how a professional operates. My latest web app is used nationwide by over 2000 auto dealerships and processes ~30000 apps a month, and I can assure you that going IE only was never even an option. In fact I would likely have been fired. Beyond all that, I would truly enjoy hearing you explain to a business manager that you had purposely designed a system that some (even if only a few) of your customers cannot access easily.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
That's what Flash is for...
(ducks, runs...)
Cheers,
Ian
The key words is "default". This has never been about customer choice, except for the very *few* of us who have some ability to see which one is better or worse. The customer really doesn't care what browser he/she uses. Really. They use the browser that they use because it's already there when they turn the machine on. BGate$ figured that out many moons ago.
Example: My customers (HR for one of the largest U.S. Government Departments) use whatever is in front of them and write contracts to conform to whatever they are using. I have a middle manangement user that, until last week, had never clicked on the "Up" button to get to the next higher directory. Don't laugh. She's an expert in her field. She hasn't needed to know that to do her job which is making sure that people get paid on time and right the first time. (Ok, I was a *little* *stunned*, but my point stands.) My point is that I think *most* of the users (at work, anyway) have no real preference on what browser they use. They just want to do something or get information so they can do something. This is not a browser war; it's a marketing war.
Then again, perhaps it's like the guy who conquered the whole planet in Harrison's "Deathworld 3". Nowhere to go but down now, Billy. Hope you enjoyed the ride. Remember Digital and Computer Data Corp? Bah-ha-ha!
...mozilla didn't support layers, because they are not part of the w3c standard ?
I do try and make sites navigable by text alone. Go to my homepage in Lynx and you'll find it's as navigable as possible (obviously the image archives and video clips won't work...).
Also notice that the site layout is different - since I used only CSS for layout rather than tables or frames, the text-only navigation is quite clean. Again, excepting the image archives.
Cheers,
Ian
An AC wrote:
;)
...) => Microsoft.
> Get real... corporations need to make money. They
> PAY all of us honest hard-working folk. I don't
> know why all of you *NIX folks are so anti-MS,
Yes, corporations need to make money. But they don't need to engage in terror marketing, bullying, and above all, breaking the law (of which Microsoft has been found guilty in a court of law).
> so anti-AOL,
My main beef with AOL/TW is the Time Warner part of the equation. The portion of that that participates in the movie and music industries follows the time honored tradition of greedy sharks that enslave the artists, and milk and now criminalize its customers.
> anti-corp...
I can't speak for the rest of Slashdot, but I'm not personally against corporations per se. I love Apple. As I see it, a corporation has these duties:
1) To the shareholders: to make money to make a good return on their investment. Shareholders own the company.
2) To the employees: to treat them fairly and try to keep ye old paycheck from bouncing. Without employees, the corporation can't do much.
3) To the customers: to offer good products, good prices, and good service. Customers are golden, without them, the corporation doesn't make money. They are expensive to replace, so every reasonable, fair, and law-abiding effort should be made to keep them, and keep them happy, so they come back for more.
4) To their community: the corporation must obey all laws and pay all taxes. It is good PR to do some charitable work.
> Without the MSes of the world, where would
> modern home computing be today?
There was home computing before Microsoft. Do Apple and Commodore ring a bell? There would be a much freer market with far more choices. After all, most of our choices were killed off by Microsoft.
Then a funny thing happened. Many people got fed up with Microsoft's evil ways, and so many of those choices are suddenly back. And they brought new friends...
> Corps are greedy and out to make money, period.
There is nothing wrong with being "out to make money", if the customer feels they got their money's worth. My idea of a greedy corporation is one that takes without giving back value. Microsoft's "unearned income" is a good example. That is money they exhorted out of their customers for stuff they had already paid for (their lovely new licensing scheme).
Prosperous corporation with happy stockholders, happy employees, satisfied customers and proud community => good.
Greedy corporation with unhappy stockholders (somebody's not paying dividends and the stock is down), unhappy employees (now what are those stock options worth?), mad customers (you want me to pay another $$$ to keep this buggy piece of BSOD working?!?), and irate community (doesn't pay income tax, doesn't bother with laws,
> If you want a centralized, free-everything
> society, ask the folks in Russia how communism
> worked out for them.
The free-everything folk bug me too, especially the Mac ones. I've gotten very tired of trying to explain that charging fair prices for good products does not make Apple evil.
> so don't come crying when the feds bust MS down
> so bad that they fold it up and move abroad and
> you lose your job.
The feds probably won't bust Microsoft. Nope, Microsoft's greatest foe is their own much-abused customers. The tide has turned against them; the market demands competition. Conveniently, the compitition is rising from the dead and coming out of the woodwork.
Microsoft can be easily broken up, without the governments help. Just let Microsoft make their customers mad enough to leave, and call the pieces "Apple", "Linux", "Mozilla", "Corel", etc.
Godzilla 2000, the Dreaded God! The battle for Earth's future has begun!
The future Millenium threatens.
Godzilla cannot be assimilated. By Millenium who would embrace, extend!
(From my lyrics to Godzilla's theme from "Godzilla 2000 Millennium")
If AOL wants to remain in existence, AOL needs to help topple the MS monopoly, first in browsers and then the desktop OS would help.
AOL doesn't give a rip about toppling MS, nor should they. here's why:
1) Right now, AOL only has to deal with two OS vendors, MS and Apple. And if Apple went away, they wouldn't be too bad off. But the point is, AOL is able to cut a deal with MS to keep AOL in Windows because of the DOJ, browser marketshare, et al (I'll touch on that in a sec.). Fragment the PC market into several OS's, and AOL is going to have a harder time cutting deals with various OS vendors. Worse yet, if Linux goes mainstream, how does that help AOL? It doesn't; in fact, most people savvy enough to use Linux despise AOL. I think it's safe to say that even if AOL did offer software for Linux, most distro's would shun it, or AOL would have to pay big bucks for inclusion.
2) AOL is the largest ISP on the planet. MS is still rabid about ownership of the browser market. AOL owns the number two browser. Mix it all together, and you see that AOL has some leverage against MS. As long as they keep signing deals to keep IE as the browser of choice for AOL, then MS doesn't have to worry about losing marketshare. But, just have AOL switch over to Netscape, and MS loses control that they've spent years fighting for. I have no doubt that switching over to Gecko on the Mac is a thinly veiled threat; "Don't push us." So, AOL get a pre-install deal with Windows, and MS remains the browser of choice for the world's largest ISP.
Don't forget about AOLserver, AOL's GPL multithreaded, Tcl-enabled web server.
cpeterso
Anyone willing to bet they will screw it up?
Don't take life too seriously. It is only a temporary situation. Usual disclaimers apply.
Does anyone remember when you could go to the store and see two sets of AOL disks: The MSIE one and the Netscape one? I propose that now, out of contractual agreement, they re-adopt choice of the masses. This will make the transition hit from both sides (the user and the ISP), as well as let us see how everyone reacts in the real world.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Juiz de Fora IRC
As if, in your wildest dreams the little company that could would make a computer that held the power of Unix and embraced the utility of open source would ever appear. You dreamed it and now it is here. I expected hails, but only hear dissention. Your wildest dreams have arrived and you only find trivial faults. Fools. Steve Jobs is a flawed vissionary but will only go farther than your wildest dreams. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Sell your car for this one or wait until the next one, but don't hate what is before your very eyes. Ahhh, bohtisavta!