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.
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
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?
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..."
I think he means that the people working on the program have soul, which could yield a great product.
stuff |
... 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.
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.
You must be new here or have never even tried Mozilla. All you are basing your opinion off of is reviews, comments, and maybe a couple pretty pictures.
You also do not have to reinstall a browser. In fact, good luck uninstalling IE. The point is that you can use both. Hell, with the ZIP file Mozilla release, you don't even have to install the browser. You can run it right from the directory!
My overwhelming point is to try something before you make opinions on it. I can read reviews until my eyes bleed, but I usually like to try it out myself before making the final decision. The would encourage the same to you... ITS FREE!
Hmmm.
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.
Be nice!
Remember the days when IE was innovative and new. When they added all that javascript and activeX stuff, before all the malware came out. Remember back then? Do yah?
Me neither, but I feel IE could be a lot better if microsoft would ever update it sometime this century. When was the last release again? IE 6 was 2000 right. I think the last service pack was 2001. It's 2004 now people!!! Whatever love MS had for IE before now they've just neglected it. Leaving the poor browser alone at nights to raise the brat malware children, while MicroSoft parties the night away with floosies like Longhorn and XAML! IE should divorce, dump the kids with bill and start a new life!!
ehem.
In shot, if ever you wanted an example of an inefficient monopoly stifling innovation, look no further than IE6.
May the Maths Be with you!
... 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.
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.
In sho[r]t, if ever you wanted an example of an inefficient monopoly stifling innovation, look no further than IE6.
Inefficient? No, it's fairly established that Microsoft's lack of progress in IE is working very effectively to achieve its precise goal.
The reason MS wanted to dominate the browser market, in case you didn't know, is widely believed to be the threat of web applications. Netscape was touting Navigator as a Windows-killer. You were going to move all your apps onto the web, and run them in Netscape, and it wouldn't matter what platform you were on - they'd work everywhere.
So MS made IE. They used their monopoly to promote it, but it caught on mainly because it _was_ better than Netscape. ActiveX was a better platform for web applications than Netscape could provide, for example. And so Netscape died and IE became ubiquitous, and the few web applications that exist (mostly virus scanners and the like) - oh! They require WINDOWS, don't they!
But we can't have standards compliance in IE, because once IE conforms to standards, suddenly the platform becomes irrelevant again - you can use whatever standards-compliant browser you like. So they aren't working on it.
Stifling innovation, yes. Inefficient, no.
The average consumer has no concept of what security is or why they should care.
:-)
My parents are since they got an express mail by post from their ISP to immediately run an antivirus tool on their computer, written in a fairly agressive manner.
No, neither Mozilla nor Firefox have any major features that's a reason to switch from IE if you use Windows, but the features add up for me so the choice was simple. That's all *I* care for, not if my mom and dad should or shouldn't switch to Firefox. It's up to them... Often people do though, when I just tell them for their information aboute e.g. tabbed browsing and how much simpler it gets to browse when the pages aren't put among the other applications in the task bar.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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
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.
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
Otherwise, it makes sense to standardize on a browswer layout format -- something not possible if NS gains market share, since it's incompatible with IE's HTML/XHTML requirements. Uhhh...I guess I was under the mistaken impression that browsers were supposed to conform to WWW standards, instead of the code having to conform to a specific company's requirements. Silly me...!!!
i don't know about you man. my motor cycle had a soul, and I felt like selling my soul when i sold it.
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.
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/
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.
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."
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.
> In all honesty, does anyone think Mozilla will be able to overtake IE anytime soon?
I see it as kinda like Linux in this respect. That is, I don't care if it overtakes microsoft's
offering, so long as it remains vital and healthy and keeps on improving so -I- can keep using and
enjoying it. I don't care what anybody else does until it starts affecting me. The catch, though, is
that an open source project needs to have some minimal critical mass to stay vital.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
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.
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.
Well, you might be right, I mean maybe IE would have won the browser wars even if NS 5 was released, but Scott Collins isn't saying that they would have beaten IE had NS 5 come out. He is saying that not releasing NS 5, just weeks before it was supposed to be released was a big mistake.
And what kind of a manager really decides to change the underlying engine of a software just weeks before it was supposed to be released, and when the product is nearly ready? The point is, Netscape would have lost nothing, if they had released NS 5 (even closed source) and after that, Open Source their browser and use Gecko as the engine for the next release. That was what they were supposed to do (and this strategy might have helped them in the browser wars) but someone just convinced the executives that they should change the engine in 3 months, and when all the engineers disagreed with the idea, they said" OK, we will Open Source it, and when every single programmer on this planet helps us, we will release it in 3 months". Stupid executives thought OSS is some kind of a magic potion, that can double the development speed.
There are many lessons to be learned from the story of Netscape and Mozilla. Every Civil Engeineer knows that you have to hire a certain amount of workers to build a house. After that certain number, each worker that you add will give you in diminitive (sp??) returns. Ask any Architect or Civil Engineer and they will swear that you can't build a house in one week, no matter how many workers you put on it.Same goes for software development, unfortunately software development is still a rather young industry, and many managers and executives still don't get these fundamental points. Developing software takes time, no matter how many developers you put on the project. You can't half your release time, by doubling the number of developers (it might actually increase your release time). It took Mozilla 4 years to get it right, and that was enough time to lose the borwer war. Maybe it could have been done in less than 4 years, but it certainly couldn't have been done in 3 or 6 months.
Only if some managers could put this into their head...
--
Do you remember some years ago, that the Mozilla project was held up as an example of an OSS failure?
Since the Mozilla project started, Netscape-based browsers have gone from 40% marketshare to 2%.
Mozilla has been out in a workable form for 3 years now, and there's very little adoption outside of the Linux community. Windows and Mac users have tried it and they almost universially don't like it.
Mozilla was rejected as a base for AOL's next gen software, which was their main reason for existing in the first place.
Now it may be true that Mozilla has mostly met their technical goals, but in terms of "saving the web", they certainly haven't been successful.