Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Interviews Scott Collins
SnoopTodd writes "Ars Technica has an interview with Scott Collins of Mozilla. 'That's the thing I learned to lust after as a programmer. It's not my ability to solve one problem, to plow this field, but the ability to build a plow that every farmer uses. The ability to make something that touches not ten people, not a hundred people, not a thousand people but a hundred million people. I want Mozilla to be there again. IE is a browser with no soul. I want it to be Mozilla because I think that people who care deserve a browser with a soul.'"
It's really nice to see this sort of passion, and such an ambitious goal for an F/OSS project.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
In the article, he talks about how Netscape wouldn't have died if management had let them release netscape 5. I don't agree - netscape 4 sucked scissors, and IE was already coming in and showing netscape how a web browser was supposed to be done. Netscape 5 would have continued this trend because it was based off of the same crappy code. Today, however, the situation is reversed - IE sux scissors, and Mozilla is showing IE how it should be done.
...of PURE EVIL! If you look real close you can see a 666 under help/about.
That's the thing I learned to lust after as a programmer. It's not my ability to solve one problem, to plow this field, but the ability to build a plow that every farmer uses. The ability to make something that touches not ten people, not a hundred people, not a thousand people but a hundred million people. ...and here I am lusting over boobs.
Then again maybe IE sold it's soul to Milhouse for five bucks..
Beings aspergers AND pulling chicks... I enjoy the challenge!
if it has "soul" or not. I want something that's better than IE, not because I don't want to use an MS product, but because I know it's mediocre. Why is it mediocre? Because it can be---the general public uses it anyway because it's right there on the desktop. I want IE to be innovative the way Mozilla and Opera have been. Why? because good, innovative products make for better competition.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
I imagine a lot of developers at Microsoft would also like to feel that way, but corporate cutthroat agendas being what they are, they cannot really "do the right thing".
Whereas in open-source, free (as in speech) software, it's encouraged.
It's hard to see where it will end, this development-with-social-consciousness, but considering we've had the soulless variety for so long, I say we give it a shot.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
When it comes to "soul" no browser can compare to the "Sacred editor".
Stallman 3:16!
Of that one Simpsons episode where Bart sells his soul. Without it his life sucked, but with it, it was all better. I mean all this talk of a browser having a soul, I would have to agree in some aspect of it. to me, Mozilla just seems like there was a lot more thought put forth into each release. Giving the user a choice of a theme, faster loading pages, and most importantly, a choice in browser software.
Hmmm.
I don't need a "soul" in my browser; I need a good, standards-compliant and stable rendering engine in my browser.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Mozilla can have its soul, I like it for the tabbed browsing.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
There was a fundamental mistake made by Netscape management, twice, which cost us a release at the most inopportune time. I think we can attribute a great deal of our market share loss to this mistake that was pretty much based completely on lies from one executive, who has since left the company (and left very rich) and who was an impediment to everything that we did. He was an awful person, and it is completely on him that we missed a release. We had a "Netscape 5" that was within weeks of being ready to go, and this person said that we needed to ship something based on Gecko within 6 months instead. Every single engineer in the company told management "No, it will be two years at least before we ship something based on Gecko." Management agreed with the engineers in order to get 5.0 out.a
Three months later they came back and said "We've changed our mind, this other executive has convinced us, except now instead of six months, you need to do it in three months." Well, you can't put 50 pounds of [crap] in a ten pound bag, it took two years. And we didn't get out a 5.0, and that cost of us everything, it was the biggest mistake ever, and I put it all on the feet of this one individual, whom I will not name.
Aww, c'mon, who is it? You don't want us to accidentally hire him, do you?
I think it's fine for casual use. I see no reason to get Opera/Mozilla because of small tweaks. Besides, I'm used to it.
Never mind a "browser with a soul," I'd settle for a browser that doesn't crash when I try to view 20% of the web sites out there. I love Firefox and Mozilla in general, and I guess this is the price we pay for basically being unpaid beta testers, but get over yourself and spend more time fixing bugs, and less time making me feel warm and fuzzy about ditching Internet Exploder.
--- "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all..."
Collins is correct that whereas some people prefer the Konqueror-based Safari, others will prefer the Mozilla-based Firefox or Camino.
Of course, there are further options, such as Netscape 7.1 (Mozilla), Opera, etc.
Personally, I love Safari, other than the problem with a handful of sites, such as Citibank's online banking, that only work with Camino.
The next pasture is always greener
YMMV, but besides tabbed browsing, built-in address-line search, and pop-up blockers, the reason I've used Mozilla since 1.1 is because it does have soul and *isn't* wielded as a weapon by a repeated federal felon.
For all you cynics, yes, MS was completely justified in doing anything they wanted to compete, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
I think he means that the people working on the program have soul, which could yield a great product.
stuff |
When using Windows, I use Mozilla because it blocks popups and has a bookmark file that's easy to parse. In all other ways that are meaningful to me, it is identical to IE.
Does a car have a soul? Does my refrigerator have soul? They're important to me, but they're just tools.
... into casual sex. I mean, casual sex is fine and all, but you want it to be GOOD. If you are used to lackluster casual sex... well.. so be it.
Hmmm.
i think he is confused. by soul he means tabs.
-ninjaneer
There is a guy here on slashdot, and his sig is
:P and Mozilla is coming back in a big way. Fast, clean, lots of new features (I'm not going to call it fresh), and lots of choice.
"The only thing a liberal has to do to become a conservative is to not change views for twenty years"
Or something similar. The point is, Netscape was crap by 4.7, and Internet Explorer was fresh, new, fast and hade the exact same pricetag.
But now, Internet Explorer is, well, you know how it is
I think this time, with Mozilla being in the hands of the OSS community, and not a corporation, it will stay on top of Internet Explorer for a long time to come (well at least I hope so).
--
The last digit of pi is four.
I have used Netscape, Mozilla, FireFox, Opera, and various other browsers that really don't even count.
IE, because of general adoption of its own capabilities (standardized or not), the best browser I have used.
It's fast, it's stable, and I don't have any problems viewing any pages out there. Not once did I have to stare at lines that had different sized links than the rest of the text (no/bad css or not). Not once did I have to goto about:config to change some strange options to make it render differently/faster.
I know that this goes against the general consensus of the rest of Slashdot but IE is, for what 98% of the world, the best browser out there.
Joel Spolsky on joelonsoftware.com (he provides some excellent insights for programmers - highly recommended) wrote a great article titled 'Things You Should Never Do, Part 1' - using Netscape 5 as the case study.
0 00 69.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000
I use Firefox, but I have to admit that it's essentially a "catch up to IE" browser with a couple of nifty extra features. It has no spark of its own. It doesn't bring anything new to the table. It's just the result of a lot of people gunning for an existing and well-done product.
If you criticize IE, then you're also criticizing Mozilla. Really, the big difference is that IE is a large and known target, so virus and spyware writers can have a field day. IE is a highly usable browser otherwise. Okay, popup blocking would be nice, but you can already get that as an ad on (and it will be official in the next version anyway).
Really, we're looking at two almost identical pieces of software. It's not like comparing Visual Basic and Perl, for example.
You hit the nail on the head, I agree. But, in contrast to most Slashdotters, most people simply don't care. What they want is to never have to download and install anything. That sounds scary to them.
I think I'll stop here.
OK, so I might not care about a "browser's soul"...
May I still have a decent browser, if not Mozilla, something like Safari just does it
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Now I know why al my programs failed to reach sentience.
#include
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
that should have read
:-P
#include <soul.h>
PS, and I should have used preview
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
... not render correctly, but I haven't had an actual crash using mozilla. Is this limited to a specific OS? Do you have any reference URLS where mozilla crashes? 20% seems like a high number to me. I go to quite a few different sites a day, and have yet to see that happen one time. BTW, using moz 1.6 here on FC2.
" Why? because good, innovative products make for better competition."
^ H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Linux is competitive, but half the freaking world still uses windows, why?!
SWITCH GODDAMNIT, STOP USING AN UNCOMPETITIVE PRODUCT!!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
IE is buggy to the point of being dangerous; inaccessible; and almost devoid of useful features.
It is also damaging the web for everyone by preventing designers from having to use open standards and by allowing them them to write buggy code.
Soul Browser #1
...After that, Microsoft seeked for IE's lost soul at Android Dungeon, and there the comig guy would not give it back.
When Mozilla came out, I switched back to it. I *like* Mozilla more than IE. With Mozilla I can right click and do a view image. I can open tabs on my browser. I can easily manage cookies and forms. I can block images from certain sites.
This guy puts it nice. 'IE has no soul.' Which of course is true. Others say maybe Netscape wouldn't have died if... Ladies and gentlemen, Redmond put the full weight of the Vole up against Netscape. IE was never more in their eyes than a 'reasonable alternative'. The campaign was fought with the ISPs and the OEMs and looking back, could anyone have withstood that? Maybe Netscape did screw up, but would it have made any difference back then?
But if IE has no soul, then the net doesn't have any soul either, and yes, it would be great to see this browser get some real market share again. Not only because IE sucks and has no soul, but also to prove there can be justice in the world.
Believe me I'm on your side, but what does all of that add up to? Why should mom and pop use all of those things, none of which they understand? The average consumer has no concept of what security is or why they should care. For all of these worthwile and useful incremental improvements, There really isn't a killer feature built into it that makes it immediately obviously better than ie. It needs to think bigger than that, if its really going to stand out from IE.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I think it is time to remind everyone how things once were...
Do you remember some years ago, that the Mozilla project was held up as an example of an OSS failure? By the majority of people, even here on Slashdot?
It was taking too long to develop, was too bloated, Microsoft would always be one step ahead...
These days Mozilla is now one of the trophy projects of the OSS community. But it was that same community that derided it not so long ago. We should be thankful for the persistence and long term vision of the Mozilla team.
Based on some rather public statements I've seen, I have a feeling it was JWZ.
I don't have time to look up the reference, but I'll bet someone with a bit more time on their hands will.
He did leave rich, and he's doing something quite different now, so I don't think this disclosure will hurt him any.
Of course I have no way to know who's right in this debate, since I'm sure the old codebase was genuinely a problem, but he's definitely the guy on the other side.
D
I recently had to switch *back* to IE after an enjoyable hiatus on Firefox, and that's when i noticed just how over the hill IE is: ... etc etc.
- no tabbed browsing
- no native pop up control
- no caret browsing
- no form management
- no "block images from..." feature
I know that some (many) of these things are available as extras (for example with the google toolbar) but i was migrating back because i could no longer install software on my work internet machine(including the toolbar). It was like moving back to your childhood neighborhood and suddenly realizing how rose tinted your memories really are: all of a sudden i've got umpteen windows open (some pop ups, some i had to open to not lose the thread of what i was reading), everything's covered in ads, and i have to use the mouse to do everything. Basically: surfing sucks.
Mozilla/Firefox isn't a better browser because it's open source or non-Microsoft, it's a better browser because it enhances the quality of your surfing experience.
#!/usr/bin/english
IE is buggy to the point of being dangerous; inaccessible; and almost devoid of useful features.
Wow, I didn't realize a browser required anything other than to follow hypertext links. Seems like it's pretty fucking useful to me.
Troll.
IE is a browser with no soul. I want it to be Mozilla because I think that people who care deserve a browser with a soul. I was unaware that a soul was a new feature in Mozilla. Does it mean that it will automatically be downloading old Mowtown tunes? Or maybe its a new name for content filtering so we only see site which are good for us. So whats this soul do. Users need to know?
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
What would be the features adding 'soul' to Mozilla and Firefox?
- The ugly, non-standard user interface that looks wrong on every platform?
- The collection of themes? Do they add soul? Or the bickering and complaining in the community over stuff like what new theme to use as default? And the apparent rejection of their comments?
- The generally lower speed and reliability compared to IE on Windows?
Well, this is what I've noticed recently anyway. Don't get me wrong, I use Mozilla myself everyday and haven't touched IE in a year or more. But when I look at Mozilla, it's about as soulful as a dirty sock. A dirty sock with tabs and popup-blocking, though.
Sure, soul is a great marketing tool and Mozilla's position as the "browser with soul" is assuredly going to fuel a few more downloads. This one's right out of the Apple Computer playbook. As far as the web browsing scene goes, the German iCab browser (ahhh, memories) was the pinnacle of soul. hand-drafted icons, a smily face that varied with the level of healthy code on a site, and the ability to fit on a floppy disc. Sure, it wasn't the most stable app in the world, but its imperfections gave it human qualities, and in turn, soul. There will now be a silent collection.
I really hate it when people go on about how IE is the only browser that renders all sites properly. More like it is the only browser that webdesigners work their butts off tying to design webpages that render properly on it.
I get sick of trying to hack around the IE bugs and non-standards.
Sometimes on websites I like to put in a white PNG with stuff written in the alpha channel, so that only the BROKEN SUPPORT OF PNG IN INTERNET EXPLORER actually shows the message to all the IE users. It is about how their browser does not support the latest PNG technology. Because IE sux d00d! upgrade to firefox now!
what's that? oh wow IE doesn't support translucency in CSS backgrounds, oh too bad for you then. IE SUX d00d
<matrix>MS Longhorn: "What's the use of a browser with soul...if you can't even surf?" </matrix>
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Since what is meaningful to you is such a tiny subset of the important differences that exist between Mozilla and IE, perhaps your declaration that it lacks a soul also overlooks something.
And I have seen Scott Collins' car, and it clearly has a beautiful soul.
IE is buggy to the point of being dangerous; inaccessible; and almost devoid of useful features.
Really? And yet it works reliably for me (and hundreds of thousands of others) during marathon surfing sessions. With the exception of tabbing, I never find myself thinking "If only IE had this feature..."
You need to pull your head out of the dark place, and look around at this strange thing called reality.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
Really interesting read about technical decisions made, etc. etc.
"IE is a browser with no soul." Yeah, I don't care. I never used to use Mozilla because it, well, sucked. For a few years. I use Firefox because it doesn't suck and is, in fact, much better than IE.
It's nice to see passion, but do we need religion? Computer programs have no soul; developers do, and it influences what their goals are. Microsoft wants to dominate the market, and this guy wants to make a better browser, but using religious terminology is reminiscent of Apple, who aren't doing so well these days.
Finest word processor ever.
Good ol' Slashdot. Where mentions of a "soul" bring countless references to the Simpsons and the episode where Bart sells his soul, but none (that I saw) referring to Faust (sold his soul), South Korea (Captial: Seoul), Dr. Scholl's (in-soles), New Orleans (soul food) or Marvin Gaye (soul music).
IE is, for what 98% of the world, the best browser out there.
Good Lord, a browser with a support of a 1998 standard (CSS2) that could be described with the phrase "sucks bigtime" is not, and could never be, defined as "the best browser out there". Not even for the 2% of the world.
Have you ever tried doing a page that rendered correctly on each browser without having to use techniques of the pre-2000 age? The fact that most sites renders acceptably on IE is due to the fact that there are many monkeys behind them; monkeys who do not know better than using tables for layout control.
And this should be the main reason why that pathetic excuse for a browser which is IE should be wiped out with acid from user's disk drives; the other reasons being its pathological lack of security and its shortcomings in user interface.
You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
The ability to make something that touches not ten people, not a hundred people, not a thousand people but a hundred million people. I want Mozilla to be there again. IE is a browser with no soul. I want it to be Mozilla because I think that people who care deserve a browser with a soul.'"
Sorry to rain on his parade, but I can just about guarantee that there aren't a hundred million people who care whether or not their browser has a "soul". When are geeks gonna realize that just because THEY give a shit, that other people do. This is a very immature mode of thought, namely "Well, I like this, so everybody else does." If he wants to waste his time, that's his business, but he's kidding himself if "hundreds of millions of people" give a shit what browser they're using, never mind whether or not it has a "soul".
Can anyone explain me what's the point of Netscape browser? Its equal to mozilla.. (core at least) and brings soft like winamp and AOL dialers and lots of useless shit.
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
It's a sick twisted thing.
Malicious and cruel, it seeks to devour the web, and just cause mayhem.
In my minds eye, it looks something like a gremlin.
To Firebird's mogwai
*grin*
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
How's he going to give mozilla a soul when computers have no soul?? Now, here's soemthing with soul: Here
I still have to cope with not being able to middle-click on a link when i'm using IE : It still gets me, after getting used of this in Firefox.
There's no reason for it. You're not even going to get modded +1 because you're 'cool'
How about this thought:
If only IE didn't let my machine (and 'mom & pop's') get infected with spyware/adware/malware/hostageware by JUST CLICKING ON A LINK.
Remember, ~60% of spam comes from infected windows machines, and IE helps this problem along.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I wonder if software can acquire souls in the same way that vamps like Angel and Spike did? Maybe Bill Gates will have to undergo a terrific physical trial like Spike and all of a sudden IE will have a soul......
...they hate it.
Why not change the logo from a grumpy dino to a picture of James Brown ?
Hey, if the photo is recent enough, no one will notice the difference anyway !
"I want everyone to use it" does that not sound like the person he is chastating?
With XPSP2 adding a popup blocker and tabbed browsing to IE, I have basically no use for an alternative. I dont use a browser to support the cause, I user a browser to browse the web. As long as it is fast and works, I couldn't care less who makes it.. -d
Gone!
Yes, Mozilla has a lot of nice features. But you know what's keeping people from switching (at least in our organization)?
.ics file. Not friendly for users.
Calendar.
Netscape 4.x had a nice calendar that worked great with Netscape Calendar Server.
Mozilla Calendar (sunbird/whatever) just doesn't cut it. It fails to send calendar invites properly. When a user receives one, it opens it in a browser window, displaying the raw
We don't even use Exchange at all - and people still want to cling to Outlook because of its Calendaring features.
I cannot stress how important this actually is! We're not the only company that has users sticking to Outlook because of the calendar... I've dealt with quite a few others.
Users like to have their email & organizer functions in one.
None of them use Palm Desktop because it's still a seperate app.
The users that I *have* moved to Mozilla really like it. But the rest? They won't budge unless there's a fully functional calendar - one that lets you accept calendar invites, add them to the calendar, and send them with a few clicks.
Mozilla Calendar just isn't doing this right now and I don't understand why the team doesn't direct effort towards 'enterprise features' rather than Chatzilla.
- no tabbed browsing ... etc etc.
- no native pop up control
- no caret browsing
- no form management
- no "block images from..." feature
I have used tabbed browsing. I don't find it an attractive feature. I don't know why everyone seems to believe it to be the best thing out there but I just don't need it. Another instance of IE is fine for what I do.
Pop-up control is a bit of a hassle but Google's toolbar stopped that stuff for me and added Google to my toolbar. I understand that a browser would be better with it but it certainly not necessary.
I don't know what caret browsing or form management is. I can't imagine that Joe Blow would need it if I (as a regular Slashdot whore) don't know what it is.
I don't need "block images from..." I guess ads are a pain in the ass. Most users just deal with them. It's certainly not something I would require in a browser to make it functional.
I guess we differ on our opinions of what is necessary. I think easy configuration, BEST configuration out of the box, and 100% perfect rendering on ALL pages being most important. Firefox/Mozilla don't offer those things to me.
To be nitpicky, I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible for a bunch of 0's and 1's to have emotions. But one can argue that a Firebird (the car, not the browser) or a Mustang is just steel and glass... but it is the designers the put the life into it. And you can tell -- those cars stand out from the crowd, just as Firefox does now.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Yeah, IE "works" for hundreds of thousands of people, that's why spyware sites occupy so many of the top 100 most hit sites on the web. The people using those computers generally have no desire to visit those sites, their hijacked computer does it automatically for them, that's really working now isn't it!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I wish people would just get away from using Microsoft as the enemy to overcome. It is possible to just produce and release great software and be successful without paying any attention to Microsoft.
A browser without a soul? Software does not have a soul! This is just silly talk. Look at how Sun and other companies keep spinning their wheels trying to out do Microsoft while great small companies like Panic Software can produce great software. And how do they do it? They find a need they can fill and they make a great product. They do not look at what Microsoft is offering and try to replicate and destroy their marketshare. There is so much software that could be written for so many other purposes which goes well beyond what Microsoft offers. Be creative and start building it.
Brennan Stehling - http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
I hear this a lot. And yet the vast vast majority of the spyware I remove from peoples systems comes from programs and applications they conciously installed, like Kazaa, meteor cursor, and so forth.
Even the spyware installed as part of a virus has been installed because the user explicitly ran the virus. I doubt highly that changing browsers is going to prevent people from running crap. The browser is not even involved in these cases - its the mail client.
I don't doubt that examples of exploits of bugs are available. I just wonder why I don't tend to see them in the wild.
Can anyone provide proof beyond the anecdotal that the spyware comes from exploiting bugs in IE, rather than social engineering? Has anyone studied this phenomenon?
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
Soul? A browser with soul?
Define soul. Now, give me an example of how that "soul" solves a business problem for me.
You can't? Why not? What good is "soul" in a browser if it doesn't do anything for me or my business? How does "soul" in a browser make me more efficient in what I do with a browser?
What a crock.
"Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
Well I can only prove it insofar as my clients setups do not allow users to install software and yet they still get this crap, even the ones who use alternative email clients like Novell Groupwise. The only vector on those machines is IE and they still get hijacked six ways from sunday.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
> non-Microsoft, it's a better browser because it enhances the quality
> of your surfing experience.
The second results from the first. Useless trying to separate them.
Firefox is better is that IE may well have a soul, but it often has ghosts (popups) and sometimes gets possesed (hijacked, "LET BILL GATES F*CK YOU!!!, YOUR OS SUCKS COCKS IN HELL!!!") where as firefox has a TABBED SOULS open and has a protection from evil 10'radius cast by a 7th level cleric of the church of stallman. That will give you at least +1 more on your save vs. a gnna shocksite.
Sure at first it was some bloated multi-class character under second edition rules and owned by AOL. But now they only level in one class at a time. Like einstein says, god doesn't play dice.... therefore we must make every effort to min-max firefox so that it can level up faster.
The bottom line is you'd never hear a D&D analogy praising IE, you'd only hear it for an OSS browser: THAT my freinds, is a soul. The soul isn't IN the browser you hobgoblins, it's in the community. And whether you are shaking you fist at corporate capitalism, or having a good time no other browser has a soul like firefox.
Three cheers for one of the best examples of OSS. Be damned all you karma-whoring-by-anti-slashdot-groupthinking bastards the groupthink is right on this one. There is a soul in OSS and IE is a frigid disgrace and the most shining example of (three years without update) monopoly stagnation.
Firefox and Jesus save, the rest of you take full damage from the fireball!
You know, it's a great euphemism in print, but I tried saying it out loud a few times and it falls kinda flat.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
You don't require anything other than your two feet to get you from Mahattan to Long Island, but it sure is a useless waste of time compared to driving it. One doesn't need a car, but it's far more productive to have one. Likewise, one doesn't need Moz, but it's far more productive to use it.
Once when I was visiting San Jose I invited myself to go out to dinner with the mozilla developers. I ended up riding to dinner with Scott. It was a memorable experience. I had never taken a corner at 60 MPH in a parking lot before :-) It made me want to go and buy a Saab.
I had a great time that night. There were some realy nice people working at Netscape.
Try using Firefox and then try writing the same post.
"I have used tabbed browsing. I don't find it an attractive feature. I don't know why everyone seems to believe it to be the best thing out there but I just don't need it. Another instance of IE is fine for what I do." :)
Do you have a middle mouse button, do you have a middle finger? Yes? Tab browsing is for you, try it again, I dare. (Btw in mozilla you have to turn it on, goto preferences and check, load links in background, and middle click on links)
Press the middle mouse button (push down on your wheel) on each link in a list of links. Yummy!
You already admit that you like and use the Google toolbar. Well then I guess you don't really like IE so much as you were claiming - you already admit to one glaring flaw. If you're going to download google toolbar, why not also download Mozilla?
Normal people LOVE form management - to put it simply it automatically fills in your name and address and phone in forms, so that you don't have to keep typing that stuff in. How do I know normal people and not just myself love it? Simple, the adoption of Gator which did just that. People were willing to live with annoying spyware on a computer just to get form management!
So why not just use a browser that comes complete instead of tacking features on the Frankenstien that is IE?
As for 100% perfect rendering, I really think Mozilla is there. I have encountered nothing for a long time now that looks at all funny in Mozilla (banks and everything else even), and it renders some things WAY (and I do mean WAY) faster to boot. You are only hurting yourself at this point by actually knowing about Mozilla and choosing not to use it.
To top it off, how can you use a browser that has known bugs like letting a random web page overright the text in the URL bar so you think you are on a whole different site? I read a phish warning about just that issue last night, that's a bug that is not patched in ANY version of IE. To use IE at this point is just really irresponsible.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Unfortunately, I haven't gotten hooked on the Mozilla...or Opera for that matter. I still love IE. I have all three installed on my compy, but only use IE. I guess for me, Moz and O seem like they are just way bloated...my ideal browser is slim, fast, but still works on 99% of the pages out there. Whenever I open O or Moz, I sit there for a while while they display their banner, and finally load. IE, I double-click, and it is open (helps when it is integrated w/ the OS :) ) Almost all the web pages that I browse look great on IE, and there isn't any clutter, in the IE frame. That being said, I *do* like the idea of tabbed browsing, but I rarely really use it, especially with XP since they group multiple instances of apps on the task bar. I do like the ideas that O has (the mouse gestures) and Moz has (type in text to select a link), but I just never really USE them... I guess this has to do with OTHER features that are embedded in Windows, that probably aren't considered features of IE. For example, on my laptop, if I run my finger on the top edge from center to left, it goes backwards a page in my history (but only on IE). From center to right, goes forward. When I use my mouse, I use the 6th and 7th buttons (on Windows explorer mouse) to go forward and back... I guess that is IEs equivalent of gestures.
/.ers) bash IE for not being innovative, but for me, I guess there are some applications that I just want to be simple. Like winamp...the newer versions of winamp play videos, have a minibrowser, have very customizable interfaces, make ramen noodles, and walk the dog. Unfortunately, it is no longer a tiny little bar at the top of my screen, and it takes a long time to load. Not like before when I double-click an mp3 and it instantly plays, even if Winamp wasn't preloaded. I go out of my way to find old copies of Winamp so I don't have to bother with the bloat...
Anyway, I feel like I *should* like Opera or Moz more, because I hear a lot of people (especially
Ok, I think I have ranted about this enough...
There's no other way to explain why it keeps opening windows I did not ask for...
IE is alive - and it's very angry.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I guess we differ on our opinions of what is necessary.
;)
Let me put this in context: ten years ago cell phones weren't "necessary". They aren't really "necessary" today either, but i'm not going back to my land-line only existence.
I think easy configuration, BEST configuration out of the box, and 100% perfect rendering on ALL pages being most important.
1) You had to install the Google toolbar to get pop up blocking and toolbar access to Google, two features that Firefox has "out of the box" (the google toolbar also includes form management, btw). You're comparing IE + Google toolbar with Firefox, which isn't a fair comparison (Firefox has a great number of extensions, shall we start comparing those?)
2) IE doesn't have "100% perfect rendering on ALL pages" - there even used to be pages that would cause IE to crash. Having said that, more web designers will make the effort to code around IE's problems (that's what 95%-plus market share does for you), so i guess the point is moot...
3) In terms of "BEST configuration out of the box", i trust that you have at least changed your browser's default security settings? Or are you surfing from behind a firewall? I trust that you have at least applied the security patches for IE (do you Windows Update?)
All of this is quickly heading for some stupid religious "my browser can beat up your browser" flamewar, so let's just leave it at this: whether or not you use Firefox, just the fact that it's out there testing new ideas in browsing ergonomy is good for all of us (yes yes, you included) because at least the discussion is moving forwards.
Oh, and btw: my browser CAN beat up your browser
#!/usr/bin/english
but the ability to build a plow that every farmer uses.
This attitude is really a hallmark of doing development for free and open source software.
Just as in openly-published science, there's a motivating fame that drives programmers to produce what they think is really the best and what they appreciate most is the acknowledgement of their capable peers.
Note to self and to world:
Public commendation for FOSS developers encourages talented developers to persevere. that is important if they aren't getting any money for what they do and because they will inevitably put up with that omnipresent segment of consumers that expects their every whim and expectation to be met with much bowing and scraping and solutions to be delivered on a silver platter.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Who said anything about tabbed browsing coming to IE? I have SP2 release candidate installed on a test machine and IE definitely does not have tabbed browsing. IE has only added a popup blocker and extensions manager.
Well, I'm pretty late to the discussion but in case anyone is still browsing new posts...
Does anyone know if 0.9 has a setting to open a new TAB instead of a new window when you click an "off-site link" (target="_new" and so on)?
I love Firefox to death but that's the one feature I really wish for every day.
Once you get used to tabbed browsing the worst thing in the world is getting a new window launched when you didn't explicitly desire it. I've gotten in the habit of right-clicking links but sometimes I forget, and some innocent little php bulletin board site throws me into a rage.
It's an even bigger deal when I use my slow laptop, since the new window launch is a matter of time as well as spatial inconvenience.
This Like That - fun with words!
I have used tabbed browsing. I don't find it an attractive feature. I don't know why everyone seems to believe it to be the best thing out there but I just don't need it. Another instance of IE is fine for what I do.
Tabbed browsing doesn't hurt you, you know. It's just a new feature, and it's one that doesn't even change the way the web browser works. It just helps those of us that have learned to use it well.
There are two main benefits of tabbed browsing though - some people say it allows for a "spatial metaphor" of web pages, so when you're browsing a site you can keep a "bookmark" of a previous page ready for easy access. IMHO, these people are needlessly looking way too deep into this spatial metaphor crap.
The second benefit, and the reason I use it, is that for me, the web browser is different than any other application - it's usual that I'll need several browser windows open, and I don't want those cluttering the taskbar. XP is better than previous versions - it at least collapses them all to a single tab - but you can't "Alt-Tab" through windows in the same program, and in order to see all of the browser windows you have open, you'd have to use the mouse to go down to the taskbar. Especially for someone who types very fast (like me), any time you're required to go to the mouse, it's a pain. Tabs create a "browser taskbar" for me, which is a big help.
Pop-up control is a bit of a hassle but Google's toolbar stopped that stuff for me and added Google to my toolbar. I understand that a browser would be better with it but it certainly not necessary.
This is an advantage of Google, not of IE. You still need to download the Google toolbar, and figure out how to use it. Yes, that's pretty simple - but so is configuring Firefox, especially under Windows. You can't tout IE's out-of-the-box features, and then compare a modified version of IE to Firefox.
I don't know what caret browsing or form management is. I can't imagine that Joe Blow would need it if I (as a regular Slashdot whore) don't know what it is.
Caret browsing allows using the keyboard to navigate, a la Lynx. Again, for those of us who type fast, this is a massive improvement.
I don't need "block images from..." I guess ads are a pain in the ass. Most users just deal with them. It's certainly not something I would require in a browser to make it functional.
You would if it was over a slow link. Then the difference between loading ads and not loading ads becomes immensely significant.
I guess we differ on our opinions of what is necessary. I think easy configuration, BEST configuration out of the box, and 100% perfect rendering on ALL pages being most important. Firefox/Mozilla don't offer those things to me.
Wait, for a second at the end, I thought you were going to say "IE", not Firefox/Mozilla. Firefox renders pages far better and far more standards-compliant than IE does. Not only that, but it does it far faster, too. Startup takes a little longer (I guess it helps when your render DLL is already loaded...) but page loads are far faster under Firefox.
Claiming that IE has 100% perfect rendering on all pages is a joke. Just google for "IE rendering problems", and enjoy the flood. The simplest, common problem: IE doesn't alpha-blend with PNGs. Considering people have been moving away from GIF slowly but surely, and PNGs have become far more common, this is really unacceptable.
If you want a browser that has the best rendering on most pages, you want Firefox, or Opera, or even Safari, but not IE.
i'm actually kind of shocked to see so many "i don't want a browser with soul" replies here. i remember the first Linuxworld i attened (i think it was 1999 maybe or 2000). it was in raleigh-durham at the triangle. walking through there proved to me that a software can and does have "soul". why? because the people coding these applications poured their souls and hearts into their work. and this heart and soul is part of the reason Linux is where it is today. i use Linux for many reasons. one of those reasons is passion. i'm passionate about Linux and about converting people from MS to Linux. it's not about uptime and about maximizing or any other business term-du-jour. it's about the heart and soul of change and freedom. if you use IE or Windows because it is "the most feature rich" or it has "market share" then your heart and soul are in the wrong place. i'm glad that the man heading mozilla has such passion. his passion, and the passion the mozilla teams puts into their products, will keep me using FireFox. oh and i do happen to love the fact that i can make FireFox pretty. that IS a big selling point for some of us. i refuse to sit and stare at a bland screen all day.
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
Looks like I posted the comment in the wrong story. Sorry about that.
This Like That - fun with words!
You've caught me at a bad moment when I'm trying to redesign a site using pure css without dumbing down my design or using any bastard HTML table positioning, spacer gifs or the rest of the bag of layout tricks from 1997. But I am continually being thwarted by I.E.'s crappy support for the standard while every other browser renders it beautifully.
First off (though this isn't a CSS issue per se) I.E. supports PNG but not with alpha transparency.
Second, no support for position: fixed.
Third, no ability declare both top and bottom or both left and right positions (or all four) to get a div to fill the available space. To be fair I'm not sure if the standard is supposed to work this way but it *would be* really useful and it works with the other browsers.
Fourth, no support for "min-height/min-width"
There are plenty of others, these are just the ones that I'm irritated about right at this moment.
Instead I have to hack around these limitations, change what should be an easy and straightforward design, or fall back on the bad-old table layout, using twice as much code that is ten times more complex.
As for it being the "better" browser in that the user doesn't have to deal with sites that "don't work" that may be true. You are of course stuck with pop-ups and in some cases the site you are looking at MIGHT "not work" but you don't notice it. In some (too rare) instances web designers DO use these unsupported by I.E. elements but in such a way that they degrade gracefully so you won't notice what you are missing. For instance a site might have a floating menu (position: fixed;) in Netscape (Safari, KHTML etc.) that is always at the top (left, right or bottom) of the browser window where it is always available even when you scroll down - but with I.E. it is at the top of the *page* where you have to scroll back up to it.
This guy just sounds incredibly retarded...Some choice quotes...Copy + Paste
"People and empires, they fall under their own weight, because they're the only ones heavy enough to take them down."
"It's not going to be that somebody else actually knows better, because Microsoft actually does have a pretty good idea of what one generalized virtual person wants."
"Microsoft will be the fall of Microsoft, and that's when the little pieces that cooperate with each other will thrive. Will Mozilla beat Microsoft? No. Can Mozilla thrive? Yes. What will make Mozilla thrive? Microsoft's fall under their own weight."
- These are just from the first blurb, continueing to read the rest of the article leads me to belive that he is not talking about Mozilla development at all, or at least he has Mozilla confused with Star Wars and Microsoft with Darth Vadar and maybe Netscape is Wicket the Ewok or some shit, and coding is some new spiritual religion I just learned that creates souls in software....
ummmK
Ave Molech Setting
I think you're missing the point here. The reason that most web pages render properly is not because the web developers are monkeys, but that those web sites *have* to be IE renderable.
I wouldn't like to be the poor web developer that has to explain to a client that the reason that 98% of the client's customers can't use his website is due to "IE being unable to render tag X".
Calendaring is the biggest organizational problem that I have to deal with at work.
Calendaring is also the feature that time-crunched execs with multiple assistants cannot live without, and about which they will not compromise. They aren't welded to Outlook as an email client. Email is a highly standardized medium. They're equally comfortable using Yahoo! mail as Outlook for their mail.
But the calendaring server landscape is populated by standards-oblivious applications that don't talk to each other. Some times the same vendor's own servers and clients don't get along well. MS Entourage is the equivalent of "POP calendaring," whereas Outlook is "IMAP calendaring." Entourage works fine if you always, only do your calendaring from one machine. Doesn't work AT ALL as soon as you walk to another machine. God help you if your laptop crashes, or is stolen, and you didn't have a recent back up of your monolithic, 2GB binary database that Entourage uses to store your mail.
At my company more than one exec is sick and tired of the daily regimen necessary to protect their Windows machines against viruses, worms, and security vulnerabilities. Calendaring via Outlook+Exchange is the single largest obstacle to those execs abandoning Windows entirely.
it will have a soul when it gets rid of the friggen communist imagery. its not funny.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
More like it is the only browser that webdesigners work their butts off tying to design webpages that render properly on it.
Amen!! Preach it brother!
All my sites work with I.E. but only because they have to. It is a piece of crap and I have to put in a lot of extra work to get something to display properly in I.E. that was trivial to get working with MOZ or Safari/KHTML.
If you are not writing for IE it is MUCH quicker and cleaner to do pure, simple CSS. Learning CSS using Safari as my browser and checking it against MOZ from time to time I was amazed at how easy and straightforward it was - just like the standards said it should be. Then I fired up the PC and looked at it in I.E. - What a mess! back to the drawing board, don't do things the easy way according to the standards documents, do it the difficult way that will work in I.E. - POS!
Caret browsing allows using the keyboard to navigate, a la Lynx. Again, for those of us who type fast, this is a massive improvement.
I'm not entirely sure which versions of IE you've been using, but you've been able to use the keyboard to do anything and everything in IE since at least version 4.0 - if not earlier.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
It's alive!!!!!!
and it is WATCHING you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't want my browser to become THAT intelligent.
I'm not entirely sure which versions of IE you've been using, but you've been able to use the keyboard to do anything and everything in IE since at least version 4.0 - if not earlier.
Not cleanly, and not completely. Caret browsing allows you to actually select text with the keyboard, which you can't do in IE (easily). Essentially it turns a web page into a normal document, and when you hit a link you can just hit enter and it will follow it. It's also easily turned on-off (just hit F7) - this way once you get efficient at using it, it makes things extremely easy.
Gee, I just want to look at pr0n, I don't want to be judged by my browser when I look at naked eskimo midget nazis with gas-powered dog-whips.
Ahhh... now I understand the difference. Thanks!
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I tried
"about:soul" but it turned out empty.
I also tried
"about:plugins". It has the java plugin and the pdf plugin - but no soul plugin.
Help Please!!!
I have it installed on a vmachine myself. I swore I read it somewhere but after doing some googling I see remarks that it will be added, just that it should. Anyway, I stand corrected..
-d
Gone!
I love Mozilla and I actively evangelize it to all my friends and my co-workers. All my co-workers are programmers and extremely technically savvy.
It has so many features that people should be using, like the password manager, the higher security, the better e-mail, etc.
No one cares. The only person I know who uses Mozilla is my wife, and that's only because I hid the IE icon and installed Mozilla.
Every chance I get, I bring up Mozilla. I made sure that our company went out of the way to add Mozilla support. But no one cares. It seems like the simple act of going to mozilla.org and installing is too much of a hurdle for most people, even programmers and developers.
It's sad, but I think the vast majority of users look at computers as utilities, and don't have the passion that the best and brightest have such as the Mozilla developers.
I guess it must be like those ultra movie-buffs that love to point out different camera angles, and how it emphasizes this or makes that significant, but is lost on the rest of us that don't take movies and directing so seriously... we just want to be entertained for 1.5 hours.
I think one of the things underestimated though is the power of some bells and whistles. Pop-up blocking and tabs are HUGE benefits once someone uses them. When people care about improving the browser experience, not just if it renders correctly, thats a big deal. My favorite featurse of Firefox aren't any of these noticeable bells and whistles, its the ones you rarely see: Page Info and DOM Inspector.
DOM Inspector is great when trying to create a standards compliant site. You can even use it to change some attributes on the fly and see EXACTLY how they interact on a page. Its great for Javascript programming also.
Page Info is even more handy. Ever been to a site that restricts right clicks for saving an image or midi? Howabout want to download some media file without having to parse through the extraneous HTML? Page info lets you do it all directly from the media tab.
These things will probably never be used by 90% of the people out there. For those that do know and care though, they are invaluable utilities.
- gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
Try designing a simple web page, using CSS, with a sidebar menu on the left. To stop the sidebar menu scrolling when you page down the content, use the CSS attribute "position: fixed;".
Then, cry buckets when it doesn't work in IE.
IE's standards compliance (or rather, lack of it) is horrendous.
Apart from the security holes, that's my major gripe with IE.
Phil
I figure software should operate in the same way the Taoist ideal of government worked. I shouldnt know it's even there. I dont want to be passionate about a web browser, I just want it to display my pages, so I can focus on content, not how cool the browser is. IE does that, and I have no problem with it.
YMMV.
If you surf to one page only, or do very light browsing, there isn't any advantage to having tabs. It is a useless feature.
Two types of users find it invaluable;
* Total novices: Set the home page to a group of bookmarks such as email, Ebay, Google, and Yahoo.
* Moderate to heavy web users: Use the middle mouse button to open all links in tabs.
Both of these could be done without tabs, though it becomes messy very quickly. The novice is unecessarily confused where they left "the Internet", and the moderate to heavy web user ends up opening up fewer pages or searching through the open window list trying to find which browser window has what.
As a heavy browser user, saving a group of tabs as bookmarks automatically takes care of managing more obscure data. If the individual pages were saved, I'd have to go into the bookmark editor and move them around -- an annoyance.
For reference, right now I have 5 browser windows open with a total of 27 tabs. This is light for me, and I don't close tabs much. I'd hate to have 27 browser windows open.
In general, I'm not anti-MS or anti-IE. However, I switched to Mozilla for one simple reason: the promise to kill annoying pop-ups. And it works beautifully -- it kills the pop-up plague. I will never go back to IE for this very reason alone.
Moreover, I was thrilled to learn that Mozilla is a full-featured, mature browser -- no functionality lost in the switch.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." -- John Lennon
That way when I put the little bread soldiers in it, and they're frying under the dark, evil eyes of the toaster's innards, I can pretend that they're going to hell.
As is the toaster. But at least the Toaster knows what to expect in advance.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Does Novell Groupwise prevent people from opening executibles? The old line about Outlook being a virus vector is largely BS nowdays. The stuff coming in is plain Win32.
Also, if they are disallowing software installation, have they locked down IE to prevent users from installing ActiveX controls?
I *don't* want to get you in trouble but firefox will run on a thumbdrive from a .zip file so no install needed
there should be something on the net about it
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
Welcome to the reason OSS desktops and applications typically suck. Lack of creative vision and grasping of abstract concepts like the "soul" of an application.
Soul refers to interface, usability, standards, and all that. Get into a little right-brain thinking here, people.
with no soul, does that makes mozilla a browser with no purpose ? Firefox is a slim great browser, with much potential. Mozilla always seemed to aim for the bloatware market to begin with, and performs like that was the overriding goal :(
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
There are two main benefits of tabbed browsing though - some people say it allows for a "spatial metaphor" of web pages
The way Mozilla handles the "spatial metaphor" is the main reason I don't use tabs very much -- It doesn't maintain the "z-order" of the pages correctly. It seems more natural to "spatially navigate" with windows rather than tabs.
Ironically, Microsoft's Tabbed Browser (called "NET SDK Documentation") gets this right.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Too bad the interviewer, Jorge Castro didn't press for details in clarifying a couple of Collins' statements. In speculating on what's wrong with Microsoft, Collins says it's hubris, "that they have all the answers, that they know what's right for you, but yet we keep getting more and more security patches from them, because they don't actually know what's right for us," and adds, "it is their hubris in knowing what people want, and saying "we know what is good for you," that is eventually going to pull them down. It's not going to be that somebody else actually knows better, because Microsoft actually does have a pretty good idea of what one generalized virtual person wants.". Yet when discussing FireFox default theme change for 0.9 Collins asserts, "Ben Goodger is the ultimate decider of what happens to Firefox, it's not a democracy, it's Ben Goodger, and that's fine."
It would have been great for Castro to dig a little deepr and ask Collins what makes Goodger knowing what's best for users different from the hubris Collins ascribes to Microsoft.
I always love when some HTML Nazi posts an anti-table skreed on Slashdot. View Source and STFU.
Am I the only person who feels like my eyes have permanent holes burned in them with that white text on black bg of the Ars Technica layout?
Let me put this in context: ten years ago cell phones weren't "necessary". They aren't really "necessary" today either, but i'm not going back to my land-line only existence.
;)
I don't know what this has to do w/the discussion.
1) You had to install the Google toolbar to get pop up blocking and toolbar access to Google, two features that Firefox has "out of the box" (the google toolbar also includes form management, btw). You're comparing IE + Google toolbar with Firefox, which isn't a fair comparison (Firefox has a great number of extensions, shall we start comparing those?)
No, I didn't compare those two. I just said that popup blocking isn't necessary for browsing.
2) IE doesn't have "100% perfect rendering on ALL pages" - there even used to be pages that would cause IE to crash. Having said that, more web designers will make the effort to code around IE's problems (that's what 95%-plus market share does for you), so i guess the point is moot...
I am not quite sure what this has to do w/anything either. IE renders all sites I have visited correctly. Two of the most common sites I have visited with Firefox did not. The point is not moot.
3) In terms of "BEST configuration out of the box", i trust that you have at least changed your browser's default security settings? Or are you surfing from behind a firewall? I trust that you have at least applied the security patches for IE (do you Windows Update?)
Again, not what I was talking about. You're drawing at straws. At least directly refute what I am saying. Do not bring up other things into the discussion.
IE is easy to configure from dialog boxes and menus. I do not have to find websites that tell me what I need to do to increase the horsepower and use about:config and change strange configuration lines (several of them IIRC for rendering).
Oh, and btw: my browser CAN beat up your browser
And yet you were modded insightful. Fucking amazing.
And that's for the end user, as a web designer it's godawful.
The things the masses don't realize are many, here's a short list.
What I'm trying to say is, the reality is you're right... but that's because those of us on the other side spend many hours and many dollars making sure the choice most people have made works well. If the majority of the market used standards compliant browsers things could/would be very different.... more viables choices in browsers, more webapps, more full featured websites, more little cool things which work everywhere, easier adaptation to alternate OS's and the list goes on.
IE has become a ball and chain for webcontent in my opinion.
We made a version of COM, called XPCOM, a fundamental piece of every component of every part of the software. We took COM all the way down to the lowest levels of the system, and I think that XPCOM is a fantastic useful tool. We had great and important places to use it, but we used it too deeply, we allowed it to influence our memory model across the board, and there continue to be costs associated with that which I don't think we need to be paying.
I've been saying this for years, and people tend to think that I'm damning COM unconditionally, and I'm not. COM is very important to us, and it's a foundation of our scriptability layer, and scriptability is fundamental to how our application works. But I don't think every object should be a COM object. We are finally moving away from using COM for everything,
Object lesson: beware of integrating Microsoft technology too deeply.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
> I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible for a bunch of 0's and 1's to have emotions.
Your DNA can fit on a floppy disk. Next.
Can you "click" a link (you know, the bread and butter of WWW) with the keyboard in IE? I'm not trolling, just curious.
Yeah - just tab to it, and then hit Enter.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I don't know what this has to do w/the discussion
Your comment was that Firefox has a number of features which aren't "necessary". My point was that they might not be necessary but rather useful/pleasant. Strictly speaking, the ability to display images isn't really necessary in a browser either.
No, I didn't compare those two. I just said that popup blocking isn't necessary for browsing.
You said that "Pop-up control is a bit of a hassle but Google's toolbar stopped that stuff for me...", so obviousely you felt that it improved your browsing experience to install it. As for "I understand that a browser would be better with it but it certainly not necessary", see my point above.
IE renders all sites I have visited correctly. Two of the most common sites I have visited with Firefox did not.
I was responding to your original claim of "...100% perfect rendering on ALL pages...". That's not the same as "perfect rendering on all the pages I visit".
The point is not moot.
Actually, i was conceding the point of the discussion to you, since IE's market share means you won't find any (common) sites that don't render well in it. This isn't because of IE's superior rendering capabilities, but because page authors code around any deficiencies it may have. So the point is moot, ie irrelevant (from the pov of a user)
Again, not what I was talking about. You're drawing at straws. At least directly refute what I am saying. Do not bring up other things into the discussion.
Well... i thought you were claiming that IE had the "BEST configuration out of the box". I was merely pointing out that IE requires some configuration in order to close common security holes such as activeX scripting exploits, etc.
And yet you were modded insightful. Fucking amazing.
The little emoticon at the end of my sentence ";)" (commonly referred to as "wink" or "winking") is often used to indicate that a given statement is "just kidding".
#!/usr/bin/english
I tried. I had it installed from a zip file before (0.7), and then one day it just stopped working: couldn't connect any more. Wget also stopped working the same day, so i'm guessing they did something on the firewall (yes, i tried changing the user agent... no joy).
This isn't "my" work machine, it's a seperate low power cast off on an internet access LAN in the corner of the room. Just grit my teeth and bear it.
#!/usr/bin/english
I don't want to troll but I HATED 0.7 and I LOVED 0.8 and happilly went to 0.9 try the latest and if no luck use Bugzilla
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
It's not a bug in firebird/firefox - it's something the evil corporate security apparatus did on the network side. I tried 0.8... no joy. Haven't tried since.
#!/usr/bin/english
(commonly referred to as "wink" or "winking") is often used to indicate that a given statement is "just kidding".
Which would make it -1 Funny or -1 Troll or even -1 Overrated.
Your comment was certainly not "Insightful" or "Interesting". If anything it was +1 Slashbotting.
The popup blocker in IE has been working fine for me.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
n/t
Which would make it -1 Funny or -1 Troll or even -1 Overrated.
;)
Your comment was certainly not "Insightful" or "Interesting". If anything it was +1 Slashbotting.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. I was going to argue that maybe - just maybe, mind you - the moderation was for some other aspect of my comment than the last line, but then i realized the futility of arguing with such a master of wit and discourse as yourself.
Sir, you have vanquished me - i freely admit myself beaten and withdraw from the field.
#!/usr/bin/english
yeah I use mozilla and IE when I'm forced to. But trying to tell me to use mozilla because it has soul, that's pure BS right there. I'm not religious either so it be a pointless for me. All that is trying to do is to get people who are religious to try it out.
My Gawd WTF...
OK, visit this site: The complex Spiral.
This site looks ugly in IE6.
And, please name the sites that don't render "correctly" in Firefox 0.9/Mozilla 1.7 but render "correctly" in IE.
It's a real exploit. We already know about a number of things that can happen to you if you visit some pages unpatched, why is it so hard to believe there's another?
Sorry I didn't bother to track down the prrof before, but Here It Is!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is where I would sometimes be sarcastic, except I'm afraid I'm missing the joke here, so I'll just be honest: You didn't post a link. You have no proof as to what you're talking about. If you are referring to the %1 bug that was patched almost instantly.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Hmm, missed the link part...
You're right, it is the %01 bug. I was reading some security advisory site (not the link above) and they ddin't seem to think it was fixed. As I was using my Mac, I couldn't verify...
Bu the fact remains that WAS a valid bug. It's exactly things like that that lead me to use Mozilla at work (even if I didn't like it more). It's hardly FUD when similar suff happens all the time and you can neve be sure what patch level a computer is on. They may have released a patch shortlay after the exploit btu I have no idea when dsktop support at work actually aplied it (and I would guess never is the answer judging by a recent manual Windows Update run I just did for fun).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sorry I called your claim FUD. It was an honest mistake then that you thought it wasn't patched. Still, when a security hole that was fixed six months ago is pointed out explicitly as "here's something that they never fixed for any version of IE", it rubs me the wrong way, especially since the point of your example seemed to be that this was something microsoft had knowingly not fixed, and in fact they had fixed it ages ago. The concerns about not knowing when support at work will apply a patch are valid, but exactly the same would be true of patches on mozilla or any other browser.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
C'mon Mr. Hamerly, if you're the one then step forward, receive the gold-plated bathroom tissue statuette, and defend yourself in your acceptance speech!
=S
It's fast, it's stable, and I don't have any problems viewing any pages out there.
The only time I use IE is when MSN Messenger insists on opening IE to check Hotmail.
IE crashes 50% of the time I do this. While browsing Hotmail.
Also, what has several years of ActiveX and other MS "component" technology brought for the general web surfing public ? Nothing but useless toolbars, browser hijackers and similar malware.
Does MS run a site like the follwing ?
Extensions.
Or this Themes
Or this.Mycroft.
Dont even want to talk about the other IE "wrappers" like Avant, CrazyBrowser and MyIE... can they even hold a candle against Mozilla/Firefox.
XUL is where Mozilla/Firefox should shine. Instead of spending too much time on a web browser, the foundation should spend more to evangalize the GRE to use XUL/Java or XUL/C# to write cross-platform general-purpose or custom applications.
That's where the future is.
I might be wrong here, but I think he means "Plough" rather than "Plow" ... nitpicking I know, but I hate it when people publish spelling mistakes (use a spell checker !!)
Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
If enterprise customers want top-flight calendar handling in Mozilla, all they'd have to do is assign some people to work on it or contribute some money to a group doing the job. The calendar might be the last thing keeping them hooked to Microsoft. When you consider what it could save them in Windows licences alone, failing to look there is close to breach of fiduciary duty.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I was sure I had read something that was really not fixed. Here is the better link, dated June 11th - note that the attack is similar to the one that was fixed, but is not the same and is still unpatched!! What I had read in the first place was the security message board they are referencing, though I still cannot find the original post I had read.
My original message sounded pretty alarming because that is the kind of thing that scares the crap out of me. Just a month ago I was actually fooled into clicking on a fake eBay email, despite being incredibly wary of theses sorts of things - and if I can be fooled knowing what to look for how many other people are being taken by these exploits? I didn't get a fake address as I was using Safari. That's why I say in all seriousness that it really is too dangerous to use IE in general, becuase there are just too many holes like this being found all the time, as well as (like I said) not really knowing that any given copy of IE is being patched all that studiously.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I did want to note that I don't blame you at all for calling my post FUD, as I definatley should have included a link in the first place with the full information. Just stating that IE can be spoofed liked that is at least inflammitory even if true, without a link... so thanks for keeping me honest and making me find the info again.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Okay, I just read that better link. It doesn't sound to me like it was "really not fixed", it sounds like this is a completely different bug, recently discovered, that also allows spoofing the address bar. The disctinction is important because the original claim was that a spoofing bug from december is still unpatched, and that's not true; microsoft patched that quickly, and this one will probably be patched quickly too. So the idea that they don't care about these bugs and don't bother fixing them isn't true, although the fact that these bugs exist in the first place is true. And of course that's still bad. Although, I would point out that they say that one of the spoofing bugs "works on IE, as well as the Mozilla and Safari browsers", and that since I've been running xp sp2 (which has an updated version of IE), whenever these security holes are revealed that work on unpatched xp sp1 machines, they almost never work on my machine. So once that's officially released and people upgrade to that, things will at least be somewhat better.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
My original claim was not that the december bug was not fixed, it was that there was a very scary flaw that let a page overwrite the URL - still true! It was just my flawed followup research that was bad.
I would have liked to see HOW this bug effects Mozilla and Safari, as I have never heard of a bug like that for either browser. But I definatley read the message about the bug in IE, with an actual exploit running around trying to get PayPal accounts.
Even though SP2 is improved I still doubt they have covered all bases, as they really need to work a lot of code over to patch the whole thing. I'm pretty sure we'll see another exploit like this after SP2, which is why I maintain my "saftey first" stance of not using IE.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley