Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla, Gecko, Netscape, And Their Future At AOL

bluephone writes "I've been lucky enough to receive some interesting information from within the Netscape/AOLTW firewall, although in light of AOL's recent massive losses, poor outlook, and high profile execs resigning their positions, I'm not sure if these battle plans are still intact. As it stands, Netscape 7.x has one major release left for the forseeable future, but Gecko will soon overshadow everything, becoming the core platform for all of AOL's Internet content distribution. For all the details and much more, read it here."

21 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Only good news by Zelet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will finally force web authors to support standards not monopolies.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
    1. Re:Only good news by MattCohn.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't kill frontpage just yet. I disabled all it's automatic code cleaning, insearting id=autonumber shit into tables, and use it soley for three purposes.

      One, to make tables quickly, I then re-enter the html and tweek it the way I want... but it's easier seeing everything in front of you then having to mentally map td to possision. I know, not much but it is.

      Second, color coding. Forgot a "? Color coding makes writing my HTML so much simpler.

      And the final use is writing my external style sheets. I like not having to memorize an entirly diffrent set of data-value pairs for CSS, and it produces compleatly complient and simple CSS pages.

      I also enjoy having all my pages tabbed, and being able to quickly switch between HTML and preview modes on the fly.

      My HTML is clean, well-formatted, tabbed (each and every thing), uses scripts to pull a header, dynamic body, and footer on the fly for requests, and uses NO formatting, absolutly EVERYTHING is done through external style sheets which can be selected by the user with ?style=cssname. Also, 100% HTML 4.01 Transitional and CSS complient.

      I use FrontPage. I write good HTML. Get over yourselves.

    2. Re:Only good news by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only on /. is this "flamebait".

      Good code knows no platform.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Only good news by WowTIP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what about Macromedia Dreamweaver? I always preferred Dreamweaver to frontpage back when I was writing HTML.

      Haven't used either for a while though, the scales might be tipping in favour of Frontpage.

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
  2. They've threatened it before by sould · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every now & again we get another "leaked" memo/whatever from AOL hinting that they're going to drop IE.

    And every time, AOL are just about to go into negotiation with Microsoft & want a bargaining chip to reduce licensing costs.

  3. Growing up? by mbredden · · Score: 4, Insightful
    First up is some Netscape 7.x news. Netscape 7.0 and 7.01 have had a total of over 14 million downloads. To quote an AOL exec, this fact is "impressive compared to AOL 8's 10 million downloads which were backed by AOL's marketing muscle."
    Proof the AOL community is coming of age and realizing that AOL != the internet...?
  4. AOL should sell utility, not ease of use by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I see an AOL commercial on TV, I think "man, their advertising department needs to be shot."

    If I wasn't so entrenched in my current e-mail, I'd consdier getting AOL on top of my RoadRunner account. For the same price as RR, I'd get a whole slew of content et al that isn't out on the web at large.

    I remember how AOL used to be, back in the days before my parents bailed and got a local ISP. It was fast, volomious, and the "custom AOL" bits were far slicker than anything i've seen before or since.

    Forget about the ISP bit--let the market have that crowd. AOL should go after folks who have an internet connection, by promoting what they can do that the rest of the 'net can't.

    If their only pitch is that they're easy to use, then they're going to get taken off just like any other set of training wheels.

    1. Re:AOL should sell utility, not ease of use by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful
      AOL used to be great, back before the internet was big. But when AOL's popularity boomed, so did the number of busy signals. AOL got too big too fast. They also tried to be the internet, and all things to all people. They bought up Sierra's Imagination Network (which was awesome) and ruined it. Many of the keywords that used to lead to nice parts of AOL or a companies content on AOL started opening a web browser to a web site. And the entire time, the internet access through AOL was ssssllllllooooowwwwwwwwww.

      For all the complaining about AOL I do (along with many other /.ers) it was quite nice. AOL could become very great again, and it wouldn't take too much. Here is a list of things:

      • Lower the price - This is a no brainer. They charge up to $5 more than most other dialup ISPs. What does that pay for, exclusive content? What exclusive content?
      • Speed it up - AOL's connection to the internet is pitifilly show compared to other ISPs. You just can't play games (quake, warcraft, etc) on AOL because of the ping times. This is definatly a deal breaker
      • Exclusive content - They need to get it back. AOL used to have alot of great stuff. Also, they supervised it all so it was consistant. It wasn't confusing and impossible to navigate like many internet sites are now. You couldn't access porn without trying. Compare that to the internet at large, where one wrong keystroke gets you endless windows of "3 year old does donkey that was set on fire all on the wing of a 747 crashing into an iceburg while BSDM lesbians...." junk. AOL was actually quite safe.
      • E-Mail - They got famous for this, and their little soundbite. My parrents are both addicted to AOL for their e-mail, but hate all the spam they get. They can't understand it. What would happen if AOL ran all their e-mail through SpamAssassin first? If spammers couldn't hit the 12 billion AOL users, I bet spam would drop a large amount for the 'net at large.
      • Teach - They would really help themselves by not being so idiot-o-centric. If they tought people things about the 'net, or at least didn't make non-AOL things so hard to do, they wouldn't lose as many subscribers. When you want to get on the internet, you get AOL. When you realize that AOL isn't the internet, you get a real ISP. I can't stand people asking me their screen name (meaning e-mail address), or "how do I install yahoo?" because they don't know it's a website and what they want to do is set it as their homepage.

      If AOL was just an ISP that had nice content like they used to ontop of everything else, I would go back to them. The monthly fee wouldn't be so outrageous if I couldn't get the same thing everywhere else for $15. If they could actually block most all of the spam I get, I'd go back. The biggest thing that they need to do, IMHO is this:

      Dump the client software!

      I use one program for web surfing (IE/Mozilla, etc), one for E-Mail (outlook, eudora, etc), one for newsgroups, why not one for AOL only content? You'd dial up AOl just like Earthlink or anyone else, and use that software to access their content. Don't force people to load up that memory and CPU hog just to look at Yahoo! Make it launch whenever someone access a URL like aol://whatever from a web browser, just like what happens when you click a mailto: or a nntp://alt.blah link in your web browser. A little reform would go a long way. Oh yeah, one other thing...

      Stop sending me CDs. Not in the mail, not in magazines, not in other software (winamp, etc).

      You don't have to blanket the world in CDs and cover TV with ads and try to install your software 20 times a week on my PC to get your message across.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  5. Phoenix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    On an unrelated note, Wonder why Phoenix developement seems to have slowed down. Their 0.5 release was two mohts ago.

  6. That's not the real question by Bendebecker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real question is: does AOL have a future?

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
    1. Re:That's not the real question by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real question is: does AOL have a future?

      Several years ago, AOL was the last to offer real internet access, before they had flat rate pricing (remember the $150 a month horror stories?). They had the slowest access, busy signals, and seemed very "old fashioned". Granted, they had amassed a couple million customers, and it had no where to go but down.

      I would have bet the farm that AOL was dead. After all, I could get internet access from my local ISP (who isnt in business anymore) for a decent flat price. And now the world was going to open up, and be dominated by independent ISPs. Then they changed their network, their pricing, their marketing, and all the rules in general.

      I don't care for AOL, but they have proved that they can adapt like a freaking borg. I wouldn't count them out quite yet.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  7. Re:AOL deserve what they get. by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AOL is getting everything it deserves. Let's hope this sealed off network dies a death.

    I used to be semi-pro AOL. I knew most Internet geeks didn't like their service, but I recommended them to newbies, since they do have a good 'get running quickly' service that's easy to understand. No more. My clients complain they receive TONS of spam now, despite AOL's OTT screening and banning.


    I'm lost here. Granted, I think AOL sucks. I wouldn't use it. But no one (including anyone in Soviet Russia) is forced to use it. Yet, millions do (not as many as last month, but still millions). My mother uses it, and frankly, I set her up with it so she wouldn't bug me to death asking questions.

    It's called "free market". AOL adds value to many people. To me and you, no, its not worth the price, but it obviously is to alot of people.

    A "sealed off network", as you call it, is just the same internet (albeit at crappys speeds) and lots of unique content. I am not convinced that is a bad thing.

    You talk about them banning email servers for spam, then bitch that they get tons of spam. You can't have it both ways. I can no longer send email from my own servers on a SDSL line, because a "free open list" that is commonly used, lists all SDSL ip ranges. My servers never sent more than 10 emails a day. Oh, and AOL accepts mail from my servers.

    You seem to have a lot of anger toward them, but your logic doesn't make sense. It seems to just be a rant against "closed systems".

    As to being "semi-pro AOL", I have no freaking idea what the hell that is. Is that like "an experienced newbie"?

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  8. YOU do... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I use FrontPage. I write good HTML. Get over yourselves.

    YOU do... and that's great. Actually a very valid point you have. The problem is will little tiny companies such as, oh, CITIBANK that have a "few" customers! What is a shame is the fact that they have to use IE to bank. I've tried Citibank for Business online, and Safari fails. KDE fails. Mozilla works, but only with the prefs bar plugin to change the id string to IE on WinXP. Otherwise Citibank fails. The problem is not the sites you design, but the corporate sites that millions of people would like to use to shop, bank, etc to make their lives a little easier. And needing IE to use these sites makes life easier, but a lot less secure.

    I've had e-mail exchanged with Citibank on this topic, and they only test for IE and, to quote, "most of the time Netscape too". MOST OF THE TIME? Great.

    If 32,000,000+ people are using Gecho engine (assuming AOL makes the switch), this will be great because it could very well force companies to do what you do! USe their frontpage but with the propper settings so HTML is clean and pure and written as per the standards. This can only be DoublePlusGood(TM) for IE, Netscape, Gecho, Moz, KDE, Safari et. al.

  9. Re:The lesser of two evils? by Vilim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am gaining more respect for AOL, first they are mum about the RIAA's plan to make your base (and identity) belong to them. And now this. I would never subscribe to them, but they rate above the RIAA and MS in my eyes

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  10. AOL.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have used AOL quite a bit (3 of my 4 computers bought at different times came with free 6 months of AOL each).
    With most AOL versions, I noticed that AOL browser was really using IE behind the scenes(albeit few extra bugs and inferior performance).
    They didn't even put Netscape on their own product!! I hope that browser wars continue and Mozilla/Gecko/Konquerer/Opera etc become better...
    AOL is fading out because it was based on premise that most users are dumb/untrained enough to figure out the web themselves. But as users are catching on, they are noticing that they can get better value for money with broadband... AOL just didn't adapt well assuming that there will always be plethora of people who want the simplicity and will pay $23.90 per month for that.

    Also, check out this hilarious MP3 - http://www.trashtalkerdoll.com/sounds/indian_5.mp3

  11. Re:AOL deserve what they get. by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 4, Insightful
    when does the populace not need hand holding any more and instead needs something more significant, more sophisticated?
    The alternative to AOL isn't more sophisticated, it's less. Increasingly the only thing people need from an ISP is an internet connection, which is far less sophisticated than what AOL provides. It's not that AOL didn't grow with the times, AOL is just becoming insignificant. Maybe they could have found an alternative model, but you can't blame them for not doing so, no one else has either.

    AOL's competitors are essentially utility companies. There's no way to create a value added service for my electrical supply, and connectivity is getting to be the same way. AOL is coming from a time when you didn't just buy the electricity, but the service included all your electrical appliances as well.

  12. Plop in a CD - Working OS...hmmmmm by hswerdfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    no thats never been done before....

    Knoppix
    List of Mirrors

    or has it?

    --
    --meh--
  13. So what? by Dr.+Mu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was a time in the not too-distant past when this might have mattered. "AOL's adoption of Netscape and Gecko will force websites to comply ... blah, blah, blah." But it's hard for me to believe now, that in their weakened state, AOL carries more than a faint wisp of the influence they might have wielded. How many balls can you drop before the audience yawns and goes home?

  14. Why not just use MS Word + http by t482 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't web design be so much easier if everyone just used Word? Forms, macros, print preview.

    This is what I tell people who design only for IE.

    Who cares about standards? Obviously idiots don't.

  15. What's the basis for this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No offence to the author of the article, but is there any basis to it besides I've been lucky enough to receive some interesting information from within the Netscape/AOLTW firewall?

    It may be true -- don't know -- but I need a reason to believe it's not merely rumor. How do we know your source is reliable or well-informed?

  16. Use national city by SilentReproach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's worked with Mozilla as long as I can remember.

    --
    Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.