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."

22 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 khold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, you have an excellent point there. If AOL shifts over to Gecko use, websites will be urged to move away from proprietary bullshit Internet Explorer HTML, and back over to the "real" HTML 4.0 standard. But wait, I just realized that in order for websites to make themselves more compliant, they have to actually hire a web designer with talent instead of using MS FrontPage and the lovely HTML it produces.

      --
      rm -rf sig
    2. 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.

    3. Re:Only good news by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Yes, Lord knows the poor people at AOL are just good honest folk trying to get their foot in the door...

      ;o)

    4. Re:Only good news by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Glad to see you not succumbing entirely to the Borg. However, check out Bluefish sometime. It does a lot of what you mentioned with the other obvious side-effects (gpl, gtk1 and gtk2 ports, etc.) Dunno if there is work to port it to win32.

  2. Not car insurance. by rammadon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gecko will save you 30% or more on Internet browsers... wait... Did i get that wrong?

    Good deal, AOL is doomed for one reason- people learned how to use the internet. It was the intermediary, but no longer with the advent of popular broadband.

  3. 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.

    1. Re:They've threatened it before by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What we're seeing with Web sites that are viewable only with IE is the privatization of the Web, and that's a dangerous setting.

      Are there really that many web sites out there that are viewable only with IE? I rarely come across any, anymore.

      --sex

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    2. Re:They've threatened it before by Reziac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Earthlink's new Webmail requires IE6's incarnation of javascript. As a result, it does not work in Netscape 4.7x (the most prominent *installed* NS userbase). It only sorta works in NS4.80 and Mozilla. -- This caused much screaming in the earthlink.complaints newsgroup, to no avail.

      I'm told by a Bank of America customer that BofA's site requires IE to manage your bank account. I've heard that this is the case also for some other banks (someone hereabouts mentioned CitiBank). Irony: banks requiring use of IE for "security reasons"!!

      Verizon and SoCalEdison sites were evidently only tested with IE; account management doesn't work in any version of NS or Mozilla that I tried. (For a longer rant on the subject, see 7.15.02 entry on http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/asylum/wartime.h tm -- beware the slashdot space.)

      One problem I've seen is that frequently complaints about a website are seen ONLY by the webmaster -- who may well ignore any complaints that he doesn't feel like addressing. Hence when it's a seriously big deal, I now copy any complaints to sales, investor relations, and any other prominently "this involves money" mailtos I can locate.

      [rant] It's considered good marketing wisdom that a meatspace store must ensure that no more than 5% of potential customers cannot readily use the store. Yet these same companies don't see any problem with their online presence being inaccessable to anywhere from 20% to 80% of potential customers, depending on which browsers their site excludes. What's wrong with this picture?? [/rant]

      (I wrote this yesterday, but a glitch ate it before it could get posted. Hope I remembered everything on the rebound. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  4. AOL deserve what they get. by wackybrit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I, for one, am grateful that the Mozilla project has remained somewhat separate from AOL. Sure, it's got some high profile Netscape people working on it, but in a traditional business sense it's not connected to AOL at all.

    AOL are up to numerous shenanigans right now. They're banning legitimate e-mail from TONS of servers. Their support for side projects is waning. Subscribers are leaving. It's a mass exodus, and all because they won't get with the times.

    I have clients who haven't been getting enquiries from their Web site, simply because a whole batch of Web host IPs got banned from sending mail to AOL.

    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.

    AOL is getting everything it deserves. Let's hope this sealed off network dies a death. Even Bill Gates had the insight to ditch his plans to have MSN as a sealed off network. It's time for AOL to do the same.

    Mozilla will live on regardless.

    1. 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!
    2. 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.

  5. Oh god no... by damiam · · Score: 5, Funny
    Why not deal a 1-2 punch to Microsoft in the form of a Netscape branded ISP

    So now, if someone says their ISP is "Netscape", you're not sure if they're clueless or really telling the truth.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    1. Re:Oh god no... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll still know they are clueless if they complain that they need to upgrade their keyboard to include an any key.

      "Damn it, I knew I shouldn't have purchased the cheap keyboard."

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
  6. The lesser of two evils? by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who'da thunk that AOL would become a heavyweight in the battle for standardization on the internet against Microsoft? Strange days indeed!

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  7. 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...?
  8. 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.
  9. Another view from inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a victim of the mentioned "Black Wednesday" and from the view I got from the inside, forward thinking like this is quickly brought down, and back in line with the corporate philosophy that "we can do no wrong". I don't know how many times I worked hard to make a positive change within the company just to end up suffering for it, ultimately losing my job. (Posted AC for obvious reasons)

  10. Here is my idea for AOL... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...Kill Netscape, make Mozilla the only browser you offer.
    Take Mozilla, and separate the Mail, Composer, and Instant messaging aspects of the program and build them into separate downloads...get rid of all the other bloat..
    Kill ICQ and AIM, and come up with one Instant messenger, that uses both ICQ numbers and AIM nicknames.
    ...try to make products with a purpose, not just because you have programmers and have to keep them busy.
    ...and lastly try to be profitable. :)

  11. 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.

  12. Shameless Troll by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Gecko actually a good thing? When Apple were looking for a browser core to use for Safari, they chose khtml over gecko, because it's cleaner. In reply to this one of the Mozilla guys (I think it was jwz, but don't quote me on that) basically said 'Fair point, our API is really bad in a lot of places and our code is bloated and ugly' (I paraphrase). I use Mozilla, and its memory usage when I last looked (yesterday) was 81MB. In contrast Opera was sitting at 10MB, rendering pages faster and supporting CSS better (Moz still doesn't support CSS counters, so I can't number headings automatically, for example.) If AOL, or anyone, are thinking of using Gecko then they need to atack the source code with a chainsaw first. 81MB may not be a lot to the average /. reader, but there are a lot of AOL customers out there with only 128MB of ram (or even less, you can run Windows 95 quite happily in 32MB, and I'm sure a lot of their customers still do).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News