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.'"
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.
It's also nice to see a push for another browser that might stand up to IE. After dancing with a very serious CWS infection on someone else's PC I was about ready to rip out IE from XP which is of course not easy to do. Hopefully as new browsers come they will have more protection against these hijacks and will be as compatible as IE is with everything out there on the Internet.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
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.
The question is not whether they will be safe from these hijacks (those most assuredly are) but whether they will be safe from other hijacks. Most problems I come across are not because of some devious flaw in IE but because they are often hidden in innocuous seeming packages. One of my favorites is spy blaster - we will block all evil spyware at the cost of only continually popping up own ads.
Education is the only solution to viruses, spyware, and spam. Everything else is just a bandage.
You sound like my son. He refused to move to anything else; he was used to IE, it did everything he wanted and no site ever NOT worked with IE.
Well, he converted to Firefox last weekend. He just got tired of cleaning adware and spyware off of his system every day. Direct quote: "I just want something that doesn't suck!"
IE is not fine for casual use. It is a sieve when it comes to security issues and Microsoft seems to have a made a conscious decision NOT to fix anything in it.
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.
IE isn't bad at all. If you're not concerned with popup-blocking, tabbed browsing, or soulless browsers, than IE is probably great for you. For everyone else who'd like to be more 'in control' of their surfing behaviour there's Mozilla (among others ofcourse - please don't respond all you opera-lovers :p)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
So, I guess all us corporate developers are not allowed to have pride in the work we do? I am very enthusiastic about the internal web program that I help maintain and develop. That is even though no one gets to see it except for people within my company. I am positive that many microsoft developers are very excited and enthusiastic about their programs even though they work for "the man" (who has most likely made them very rich if they have been around for any length of time in the company!).
Life is everything but nothing.
I agree with most of your post, but...
So MS made IE. They used their monopoly to promote it, but it caught on mainly because it _was_ better than Netscape
This is utter nonsense. Yes, one could probably argue that IE 4.X was better than Netscape 4.X, but that's not why IE caught on. IE caught on because Microsoft integrated it into the operating system. Before they did so, Netscape still had around 65% of the market. People just weren't going to the trouble of downloading IE. Even when Microsoft started forcing users to install IE as a prerequisite to installing other MS products, people continued using Netscape. It wasn't until it came pre-installed that it started getting momentum.
ActiveX was a better platform for web applications than Netscape could provide, for example.
You gotta be kidding! Please list the specific reasons you believe this to be true.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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