Slashdot Mirror
A Look at the Newly Released Mozilla Firefox 0.9
SilentBob4 writes "Mad Penguin is one of the first to review the latest Mozilla Firefox release, numbered 0.9. According to the reviewer, there's a lot to be thankful for, as this release is far more stable than its earlier versions and sports some new features along with a new interface. My new all-time-favorite line: 'Look out Internet Explorer... your days have been numbered for some time now, but Firefox 1.0 will surely leave you shaking on your already shaky foundations and standing in a small warm puddle'. Nicely put."
Just curious, but could you shed some light as to the reasons your company opted to make the move to Mozilla? It would be interesting to know. Thanks...
After a miss-typed URL sent me to one of those wonderful cyber-squatting "search" sites, which then proceeded to automatically install all sorts of nasty spyware and SMTP zombie malware, I banned IE from my house and removed all shortcuts and Program Menu options from all PCs. I made the decision to go with Firefox, and I can honestly tell you I haven't missed IE one bit, and there's not been one reason that I've had to open up IE again. My wife's been happy with it as well. It's clean, fast, renders pages great, much more informative about page loading status, and best of all it doesn't attempt to install software without my permission. I've encouraged everyone I know to give it a try.
Anyways, long live the Phoenix, I mean the Firebird, I mean Firefox, damnit!
Yes we do, actually. But we've decided it's better that we have people login than to have spyware and viruses on every desktop.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
I used to use Netscape all of the time. Not because it was a good browser, it actually felt too big, but because it wasn't IE. When firefox came out, I rejoiced at a small browser that didn't have all the crap that Netscape had built in. Firefox is the answer that I think many of us had been waiting for. Once it becomes more stable, more and more people will be switching over to it.
So... no, Mozilla is not dead.
As with every other Mozilla/Firefox/Firebird/Whatever-They-Call-It-Thi s-Week browser story, my question is... "So?". The review in no way mentions a single thing that makes this browser "better" or makes me want to take time to download and install a new program. Why? Give me a good, solid reason why I should download a new program, complete with potential problems, headaches, etc. to replace a perfectly good, functional program? I can't seem to think that the Mozilla developers are kind of like people developing new and better pencils. Except this special pencil is hard to find, takes time to figure out how to use, and does what, exactly, that a regular pencil doesn't do? "Come one and all! See our amazing new pencil! It'll revolutionize the hot, exciting pencil industry!! It'll change the way you use pencils! The lead is softer and the wood is harder! Can you imagine how much more work you could get done with this new pencil? " It's just silly.
At Imperial Home Decor Group / Blue Mountain Wallcoverings, we decided to switch to Firefox too just to avoid having to lock down Internet Explorer.
The article that this story is linked to has Mircosoft ads. So I started thinking ...
I have a simple way for us to get rid of or at least reduce the impact of thoughs stupid get the facts adds. CLIC ON THEM. This will cost microsoft money and if we feal like the extra effort we might as well ask for the free stuff that they are willing to send.
I believe they are DOM related javascript, there is a "document.all" to refer an object in IE, and KHTML either, correct me if it is not, and many web developer simply use it rather than the W3C standard "document.getElementById()" function. And unless gecko get enough marcket share, I don't think those lazy web developers will change "document.all" to "document.getElementById" And I believe this will happen eventually.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
This sort of behaviour pattern is similar to what happened back in the early-mid 90's when MS Office started to errode the dominance of WordPerfect and Lotus (and also Netscape).
Already my aging father has gone forth and converted at least a dozen of his own friends from IE to FireFox... and thus the chain reaction starts
So I now use the Mozilla browser most of the time because it works well with the tab extensions.
I wish I were in a position to toss some money at firefox to support mainstreaming the tab extensions.
one thing should be point out, it should be a professional web developer, not the one just finshed online training of http://www.w3schools.com/, which only tell you something about IE.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
I agree completely; IE has big problems when it comes to some things. Most notably, it has trouble with even moderately complicated CSS and transparent PNG's. It is quite frustrating when you spend hours working on a page which looks perfect in mozilla, only to find IE is messing up some of the most basic parts.
Firefox Makes me have to do twice as much work. Let me explain.
Firefox is by far the best browser ever. It is fast, standards compliant, and runs on every platform i support.
The problem is when i develop in firefox. I do some web development, often on a dealine. If i make a stylesheet that looks awesome in firefox, 90% of the time it does not work in internet explorer, which, unfortunatly, is what 90% of my clients use.
So, after i think i'm done, and i test in ie, i know have to go back and fix it, which takes a while as IE is really borked. Therefore, i have to charge more, and my clients are not as happy.
I tell them to switch to firefox, but for some reason, they dont.It's to the point now that i've installed IE5.5 under wine, and i use that as my main development browser. sad but true. I use phoe^H^H^H^Hfirefox for my daily browsing, for sure, but IE to develop.
Strangely, if i make a site that works in IE, it'll usually work in ff and safari/khtml.
of course, this is all IE's fault.. my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek... but it is something that drives me nuts.
Remember, friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer.
Drew Crampsie - Software Developer
Open Source Business : The Tec
I have been in a web dev for many years, and I recognize a couple of things contrary to your post:
You must conform to IE; it's > 90% of the browser market, to "give up on IE" is to admit you create shoddy sites or intranets.
Creating websites with "making them work with Mozilla" in mind, and ignore the other 90%?
IE doesn't conform to standards? Perhaps in the strict W3C definition, but at that level of ubiquity it basically is a standard.
"Pick any web developer" OK, I just did.
Sigs cause cancer.
No, it IS light years ahead of IE.
Unfortunately, IE cannot render properly coded HTML/XHTML/CSS, and therefore webmasters make buggy pages to appear correct in IE.
This means the buggy pages appear buggy in FF, which is just how they should appear, causing many people to think FF cannot render and IE is therefore better.
Once (and if) IE is booted off the top spot, you will see a vast majority of webmasters changing their crappy code for something which actually works right.
IE is paticularly bad for CSS (especailly CSS3) - This confirms that, Although FF isnt on the list, check out the Mozilla column compared to IE.. see what I mean?
You don't have the newest firefox for sure... I switched to firefox a few months ago, and rarely use safari now.
There is no point in using Camino anymore. Firefox looks and works excellently.. and doesn't feel like a foreign app anymore.
OR, some page designers still design their pages to work in IE, which is basically broken/or not standards compliant, or however you'd like to put it. A poorly coded OR PURPOSELY poorly coded page made to work for IE may not work correctly on a better browser bacause it does not render certain functions wrong or have the same quirks as IE.
just a thought
IMO, NS6 did more harm than good for Netscape. Fortunately NS7.1 is pretty stable, but the damage may be too extreme. The combination of NS6, the NS4.X releases (when compared against IE 4 and newer), and the fact that IE comes standard with the OS probably doomed alternate browsers for the MS Win32 platform.
Alternate browsers have a difficult battle ahead. IMO the browser developers really need to push major websites to take advantage of features that IE may not impliment currently and are part of official specifications. These sites could then provide a link to get the alternate browser. Unfortunately though, most major sites will likely not do this as their customer base primarily uses IE.
The Internet "buzz" outside of slashdot and mozillazine hasn't been very positive.
Likely the non-technical (MS user masses) are not reading the other technical publications as well. Probably the only close to technical article you might see the average MS user reading is glancing an article off the front page of CNN, WashingtonPost, NY Times, etc.... Maybe a blurb about browser alternatives near the top of the latest MS IE flaw article would give users a clue about alternatives, but the masses will still stick with what was provided by the OS.
What we really need is some kind of Firefox IE replacer installer...something that will:
Install Firefox
Install User-Agent Switcher with some pretty buttons
(plus tutorial)
Remove IE Icon
Automatically set all email url links to go to firefox.
Import the bookmarks, in the main folder.
i.e. make it mother-in-law proof.
Steven Vallarian>
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
No, if non-IE browsers gain too much market share, more and more web sites will be standards compliant, but with lots of hacks to look fine on IE as well. IE will never (in the forseeable future) fall into such a marginal market share that it would be ignored by developers. Even if it were suddenly 50/50 overnight, or 75/25 in favor of FF, sites would still make IE-compliant pages, because nobody can affort to write off 25% of the market.
Frankly, that can only be a good thing (tm)
You must conform to IE; it's > 90% of the browser market, to "give up on IE" is to admit you create shoddy sites or intranets.
Is a 100% W3C-compliant site shoddy if it doesn't render properly in IE, or is IE shoddy? I agree with you that for commercial websites, they have to render properly in IE because of its overwhelming market share, but IE, and least in the days when I was last a web developer, was well-known to break W3C compliance all over the place. I would be pretty surprised if anything has changed. To call a site shoddy because it won't render in IE even if it's clearly the browser's fault because the site is just wrong thinking.
Sadly, Netscape/Mozilla in those days wasn't fully W3C-compliant either, but it did a much better job than IE. To make a site really perfect for both required (and probably still requires) some Javascript magic to serve up a page that is broken in the right ways for the target browser. This can be necessary on a commercial site, for obvious reasons.
However, on a site that is your own personal page, it is perfectly justified (and I have done this) to just put up a notice that says "This site is 100% W3C-compliant; if it doesn't look right in your browser, get a better browser." That's telling it like it is, and you have no obligation to do anything else on your personal site.
IE doesn't conform to standards?
Well, since Microsoft has been a W3C member for years, then it's about time they get off their asses and fix their browser. That doesn't mean it can't also render MSHTML (that horrid, crufty mess), but as a starting point, it must render W3C-compliant sites correctly. To do less is to just admit they created (and continue to release) a shoddy browser.
At my work with 250+ users, we are coming very close to making that decision. Part of the reason is that we have a number of users out in the field for long periods of time using laptops in the middle of nowhere. For the most part, any internet connections are dial-up.
So, part of our reason for seriously considering moving is that we've had a number of trojans on those machines exploiting IE holes. This combined with the pain of downloading MS patches on dial-ups is leading the IT department to lean toward a FireFox standard. One of the things that had been holding us back was problems with the iNotes client in FireFox 0.8. It works in 0.6, not 0.8. Well, it is working again in 0.9.
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/21/01 53202
Or just surf to some shady "ROMs" and "anime" pages.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=4638 28
People are now doing XPI versions of the dreaded ActiveX "Do you want to install Weatherbug" type things. Thankfully, there's a whitelist now, but we'll see how far it stays put.
Tired of legitimate data sources? Try UNCYCLOPEDIA
Out of curiosity, how are you installing many versions of IE? Do you use VMWare or something to have several OS instances installed at once?
It would be very convenient to have several IE versions to view web content in at once.
Is a 100% W3C-compliant site shoddy if it doesn't render properly in IE, or is IE shoddy
The site is.
We always make sacrifices "to the tools" in web/software dev; I apply hotfixes all the time to my platform/IDE--yet it's the toolset I've chosen and I must live with many idiosyncrasies to get my products to market.
While you also make good points, I think it's wise to lean in favor of pragmatic technology choices rather than dogmatism in favor of "one side of the other".
Emotionally, I'd make each decision in favor of F/OSS.
Rationally, I know that isn't always in the best interest of my clients.
Sigs cause cancer.
More than 90%? And what about spoofing?
Shouldn't that give some unreliable results?
http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/userage
It's just too bad I have to use that extension.
- Save a tree, eat more woodpeckers
Am I the only one who is having rendering problems with /. in mozilla and firefox lately? Every other site seems to work fine.
Yes, but things don't always go that way before 1.0. In general odd numbered releases are for new features and are not as stable as even numbered releases. I'm not sure if the Mozilla people follow all of those rules or not, but it's good to let current firebird users know that they won't be punished for moving up.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I helped push the use of Firefox on the vast majority of machines where I work. The amount of malware finding its way onto the systems of users who don't know any better has been substantially reduced.
I found it harder to push the use of Mozilla on users (just for testing) than it was to push FireFox when we decided to go with that browser. Users seemed to be put off that Mozilla looked different enough to "scare" them where Firefox looks more modern and has more similarities to IE which helped ease the transition. In fact not a single person complained once FireFox fired up.
This isn't to say Mozilla is a poor browser but to users who don't have an understanding of why using an alternate browser to IE is a good thing, superficial changes seem to matter much more than any functional feature.
This is yet one more broken authentication scheme from M$. If you use NTLM authentication, your network is swiss cheese. There are many articles on the Internet that explain this. You are continuing Microsoft's bad security practices. If you want to authenticate without relogin in, use standard X.509 certificates. Both Windows 2000 and 2003 server support this for login. This will both improve your network security, and allow you to move to FireFox which is much more secure than IE. Firefox is even more secure than IE with WinXP SP2.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I went over to see my friend's new house, and his little brother came in, and in passing, mentioned something about popups ruining his games of UT2K4. I went in, ran spybot and adaware, installed firebird, and put on adblock. He asked me why everyone still uses IE, and I couldn't tell him. But he would still be using it if I didn't help him out.
There are 2 web developers at my work. Myself and another 'dude'. The other 'dude' only tests on IE. I test on Mozilla & IE. Recently, when I was asked to give my input on a major upgrade to the website the 'dude' manages (our company's e-commerce arm), I voiced several problems his page had when viewed via Mozilla. To be fair, I explained to my boss how IE has 93% of the browser market. My boss was more interested in the 7% who couldn't view the site properly, and the 'dude' was asked to make the appropriate changes to get it working in Mozilla too. My only point is that that no matter how much of the market IE exploits, other browsers matter.
IE will send your local OS credentials (username, password hash) via NTLM depending on your Security zones. The default is that sites in the Intranet zone will be sent them automatically and sites in the Internet zone will prompt for name and password. That sounds good and all, but a quick read of the Bugtraq archives will show that people are finding holes in this all the time. If you can get some piece of web content to load in the Intranet zone or even worse the My Computer zone, it's game over. The reason for the My Computer zone is that Internet Explorer == Windows Explorer and the web browser == the file manager.
Still, the whole complaint of entering your password again is tiny compared to the risks of IE. It's the *same* password that people use to log in. It's not like they have to remember a *new* password which is understandably a much bigger complaint.
I was wondering why Apple decided to mix its aqua style with brushed metal. It just doesn't seem like a natural mix. Sort of like if Kiss walked into the scene in the matrix where that control room is all white/black/transparent computer environment.
Thankfully Apple did do a good job and making sure the look was very clean without any bad pixel/widgets that you wouldn't expect to be that way. For example, whenever I theme anything else (whether it be windows, gnome, kde, whatever) I always end up with some application with a weird looking widget.
--------
Free your mind.
The sites average around 100,000 uniques a month all together, 4 of which are business sites and 3 of which are "fun" sites. I can tell you that IE has averaged between 90% and 96% per month for the last 12 months. Let me know if you want more detailed stats.
I just recently decided to give FireFox a try on my XP box after all the type about it here on SlashDot. I had high hopes after switching to Mozilla Thunderbird recently.
However, I was severely disappointed. It didn't do what I can do with IE. Look, you may remember that MS got in some hot water for "integrating" the browser into the OS. We all said how evil that was. But, you know what? I've taken advantage of it!
Here's a breif list of the things I like about IE over FireFox (and if I'm wrong about being able to do these in FireFox, please correct me):
1. I can re-arrange the toolbars to my satisfaction.
2. I can cleverly size my toolbars such that extra items are hidden behind a pop-out button so I can effectively make quick 1-click menues.
3. The unbeatable *real* Google Toolbar
4. The Favorites are arranged as files & folders so I can manipulate them easily (i.e. but them as pop-outs on my taskbar, make hard-links to subfolders in them in other logical locations)
5. I can embed HTML in my TaskBar to accomplish all sorts of useful things (wallet-size photoalbum, dictuinary, phone number lookup, etc.)
My browser is not just a browser. It bleeds into my operating system and vice-versa. I'm not blindly pro-Microsoft, I just happen to take advantage of the integration Microsoft chose to thrust upon us.
Honestly, I wish the "browser-integration" API were documented so Mozilla couled wholly replace the IE integration in XP. But to not have it at all is a big hole -- at least to someone who has become accustomed to the convenience it offers.
Let's see... once i've been developing small script in JS for adding dynamically an item do dropdown box. Tested with mozzila... works, tested with IE -> crash (i mean literraly crashed). I mean this is truly pain in the butt. If any warning would appear, it would be great, but crashing browser with some JS simple script is kinda annoying :|
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
PLEASE!
I installed FireFox just a few days ago, wne to SlashDot and comapred it to IE. A little different. Odd, I thought. The greeen header displaying my username was contacting the greenpart of the top-most article. Then I increased my font-size one notch with the scrool-wheel and it was now separated by the gap I'm accustomed to. Then I reduced my font-size back down one notch to try and reproduce it. But the gap was still there. Did I scroll too far? I closed FireFox and started again from scratch. Again, no-gap then the gap and then the gap stays.
Is *that* part of the standard???
Is it just me or are the milestones named after suburb names in Auckland, New Zealand? I see Three Kings, Royal Oak, One Tree Hill...?! Milestone Names
I beg to differ. It is a royal pain in the ass, especially if you're trying to support different versions of IE.
Hardly! IE barely renders straight HTML fine, and heaven forbid if you want to do anything as advanced as -- GASP! -- DHTML.
The biggest consumer for IE -- the biggest, most inflexible consumer for IE -- is corporate ... and who the hell is developing web pages without CSS or Javascript anymore? Not corporations, that's for sure. They can barely get by without rendering each page entirely in Flash -- mostly, because IE is so broken and it is such a pain in the ass to write pages for that it is easier to use Flash.
Much of what CSS IE doesn't outright ignore, it renders incorrectly, and it can't handle much of the Javascript DOM API consistently. It'd be one thing if it was at least broken consistently, but it isn't. Javascript is enough of a pain in the ass to develop in without IE's quirks causing more confusion.
You're serious? Read what you just wrote. You're trying to tell me that me being forced to code around bugs in IE isn't a pain in the ass? How do you define "pain in the ass", in your world?
There is simply no excuse for how poorly IE complies to W3C standards, and it isn't even funny to try.
Writing this in 0.9. Just downloaded.
Installer looks nice. But an attempt to install over an older FF version brings an "overwrite or quit" dialog. NO UPGRADE OPTION????? Ok, overwrite.
Up and runnig. First thing: apply theme. Choice made, installing via web...
crash.
restart FF. Theme shows up but no preview. "Use theme" button available for the new theme. Several clicks on it but FF remains silent.
Quit FF. Restart. Original theme still in place.
Ok, let's reinstall. Selecting new theme, pressing "Uninstall" button...
Silence. No messages.
Quit FF. Restart. Theme stil there.
Deep breath.
Back to texturizer.net. Installing again. 98%, 99%, 100%!
Progress bar goes away. Silence. No messages.
No new theme in the list.
Restart FF
Still no new theme in the list.
Is this really a 0.9 RC? Seems to me that a little more quality assurance (read: careful test scripts) should help a lot.
That's the new policy at our work. If you ever have a problem with outlook and you can't fix it by rebooting or whatever, Thunderbird for you. Ever have a problem with spyware or anything in IE, Firefox for you. The library at my school finally installed Firefox at my request, but nobody uses it. I will do something about this.
I really think that firefox is the doorway for people into OSS. It's such an awesome product and so obviously objectively superior to every other product out there that it is very easy to get people to switch to it. At least that's my experience. Compared to getting people to go linux getting them on firefox is a walk in the park. Now with the installer, even better. All it needs it a nice fancy tutorial.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
But then, the NS4 interface actually looked bad in comparision to the IE one. I remember getting IE4 and thinking that it looked much cleaner compared to Netscape. ... But then, being bundled helped a lot back then, considering I was on dial-up and (IIRC) without a CD burner.
The sites average around 100,000 uniques a month all together, 4 of which are business sites and 3 of which are "fun" sites. I can tell you that IE has averaged between 90% and 96% per month for the last 12 months. Let me know if you want more detailed stats.
Yes, but what are the sites? Windows Software sites?
We're a daily newspaper, we get way more than 100k unique visitors a month. We are seeing around 80% IE. Mozilla based browsers make up the second largest (15%), with safari at 2% or so. I think it's a pretty good estimate considering we don't even do tech news, so our visitors really are john q. public.
But you can't even say that all 80% of those users use IE6, it's really only around 30%, with the other 50% using IE5.5 5.0 and 4.0(!). So even just developing for IE is a pain in the ass because you're really developing for 4 different browsers.
(1) is the limit of the partial sums! That is, (1) equals
:)
Hence, in conclusion, 1 = 0.99999....
lim_{m --> infinity} SUM {from n = 1 to m} 9/10^n.
The limit of this indeed equals 1 (since you're in a "serious" maths degree, I'll leave the proof to you).
Again, this is not the limit of the sequence a_n = 9/10^n, it is the limit of the partial sums. Now, how is it that 0.9999... is NOT equal to 1? It HAS to be, because 0.9999... is EXACTLY the infinite sum of the above. That is what 0.999999... means.
It's kind of funny that blizzard posted this as an april fools joke thinking it wasn't true, but it is in fact true.
There was (is) a rather large discussion of this on sci.math. Here's a sample link: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html
Notice it cites:
R.V. Churchill and J.W. Brown. Complex Variables and Applications. 0.9999... = 1 ed., McGraw-Hill, 1990.
and
W. Rudin. Principles of Mathematical Analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1976.
Rudin is a serious mathematician and he knows what he's talking about-- not that an argument from authority means anything
I've been following and upgrading Firefox as new versions come out, and am bemused by the fact that the Mac version STILL doesn't render Slashdot properly. Anytime there's italic text, Firefox manages to overlap text with non-italic text.
Mabey by version 1.0.. mabey.. *sighs*
Here's a counter example.
.zip won't extract and the installer won't run. It's just not possible. There are tens of thousands of us (900 at my call center, at least 20 call centers in total), and we ALL use Internet Explorer over a Citrix terminal server.
I work for a very large multinational corporation that may or may not go by the name "AT&T Wireless". We (those of us in the Customer Care call center anyway) use XP/2K boxes with Citrix to connect to a main server, and we can only use Internet Explorer.
I've tried to install firefox, but it just won't run. I've tried everything, no matter what the
It always seems inefficient to me because every computer in the building is a pentium 4 and all they ever run is citrix. They're the fattest "thin clients" I've ever seen. I can't imagine how beefy the Citrix server would have to be. LTSP would save them so much money, but I don't really care as long as I get paid.
It's a lot easier to make one file read only and lock down the browser than screw around for hours with registry hacks that don't even work
Spyware is almost none existent
Users have repeatedly asked me how I got web browsing to run so smoothly at work and how do they get this "Mozilla thingy" at home :-)
I think the vast majority of net denizens are tired of Internet advertising. We have good reason to be. It has been forced on us (pop ups, adware, "you must experience/read this before you continue" pages), we are constantly made to suffer through the contextually innapropriate (ads for trips when we're thinking about software, ads for porn sites when we're looking for fluffy bunnies, etc.) Random, and largely absurd, advertising pollutes our inboxes and has gone a long way towards ruining the great utility email offers.
But... I rather welcome advertising on Google's text model - non intrusive, contextually appropriate (or as nearly so as they can manage - at least they try to make is appropriate.) I have found many interesting and useful things as a direct result of Google's text ads.
But please, don't tar and feather a media format because some advertisers have misused it. Animation is no more responsible for bad advertising than email is. Morons are responsible for bad advertising - and email spam. So hate the morons. In other words, write your congresscritter about the evils of popups and spam, not MNG developers about the evils of multiple image frames. :)
Advertising itself isn't inherently evil either. There are responsible advertisers. My company tries to toe that line. We don't use email except in the ways you'd want it to be used - if you write us, we write you back (specifically, a person writes you back.) I had an opportunity here to "drop" our company name. I didn't do it. I've had other opportunities here, and on other community websites. Didn't do it then, either. I figure if someone here is interested, they'll find us. But we do use contextually targeted advertising. For instance, if you search for certain very strongly related keywords on some search engine sites, we'll show up as a sponsored link. Likewise, some searches on graphics sites will get you a Google text ad. No images, consequently no animations, either. :) We face the same issues any significant business does: We need the people who could use our products to be aware that our products exist; further, we'd like them to be aware of what differentiates our product from the next one over on the virtual shelf. I honestly believe that advertising can be a reasonable mechanism. But pissing off people never is. The trick is to find out how to do the former, without doing the latter.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.