Slashdot Mirror


The Browser Wars Are Back?

jpkunst writes "ZDNet UK reports and PCWorld.com report that, according to Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, whose comments came during a discussion with Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Dan Rosensweig at the Web 2.0 Conference in San Francisco on Wednesday, 'the browser wars are back', thanks to the emerging popularity of products such as Apple's Safari and the open-source Firefox. Andreessen warned that 'competition could compel the company [Microsoft] to use aggressive tactics to protect its Windows operating system monopoly'."

73 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. opera by genner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Firefox, Safari? What about Opera! I'm sick of
    being left out of the browser wars. I like my
    mouse gesture enabled browser thak you very much.

    1. Re:opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:opera by hype7 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Firefox, Safari? What about Opera! I'm sick of
      being left out of the browser wars. I like my
      mouse gesture enabled browser thak you very much.


      there's nothing opera-specific about mouse enabled gestures.

      here it is for OS X, supporting all major browsers and many other apps:
      http://www.bitart.com/CocoaGestures.html

      Cocoa Gestures adds mouse gestures to any Cocoa program such as Mail, Address Book, iCal, TextEdit, Safari, Chimera, OmniWeb, Path Finder, Stone Design's great suite of applications like Create, and many others.

      -- james
    3. Re:opera by Jens_UK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, they are not enabled by default, but gestures can be added to Firefox: http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.php? category=Mouse%20Gestures

    4. Re:opera by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera is one of the FEW pay for Web Browsers, AND it is the most horrible browser *I* have ever used. Especially its crippled javascript implementation is enough to drive a geek to burn villages and blow up trains

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:opera by genner · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll go warn the villagers.

    6. Re:opera by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Opera was around during the original browser wars but was never a serious contender (in terms of market share). What makes you think it is a serious contender now? Firefox has mouse gesture extensions (some people don't like them anyway), has managed to gain a reputation as more secure than IE and, as others have pointed out, is free.

    7. Re:opera by Foofoobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I wouldn't call it inferior because it still is a damn fine browser but there are a few things that don't make me use it.

      - larger footprint
      - less CSS support
      - not free (unless you want an annoying banner ad)
      - buggier (yes, in comparison to Firefox)
      - less support
      - they make the choices for you unlike in Firefox where all the add-ons and extensions are there for YOU to choose.

      Al in all, I would still use Opera LONG before I got back to IE but it took a different approach than Firefox and I really have to say I like that I get to choose my own extensions rather than having them bundled.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    8. Re:opera by ACNSlave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Opera was around during the original browser wars but was never a serious contender (in terms of market share). What makes you think it is a serious contender now?

      I'm no Opera Fan, but I have to point out the logical fallacy here (which, by the way the people who marked this guy insightful should read): Product A had no market share at some point in time. Support your argument that it should have more market share now.

      Can you see how easily that same argument can be turned against your favorite browser? I believe the term is non sequitur. Get a better argument. One based on facts would be good.

      --
      Today is a good day to code.
    9. Re:opera by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know what version of Opera you used, but the one I used had two JavaScript implementations. One of which conformed to the ECMA specification, and another that is bug-compatible with IE (it switched between them depending on what you told it to identify as). It also included more complete CSS2 support than any other browser I've used (although Safari generally provided nicer looking output from the same CSS, particularly on things like shadows and bevels).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:opera by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I don't think so champ. Indulge me, ever so quickly...

      Make 3 pages, called main.html, topframe.html, and bottomframe.html. And dont worry. I took a whole 3 minutes putting this together. No need to thank me.

      Begin main.html
      <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN">
      <html>
      <head>
      <title>Main</title>
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
      </head>
      <frameset rows="50%,50%">
      <frame name="mytop" src="topframe.html" scrolling="no" frameborder=0 noresize>
      <frame name="mybottom" src="bottomframe.html" scrolling="no" frameborder=0 noresize>
      </frameset>
      </html>
      End main.html

      Begin topframe.html
      <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
      <html>
      <head>
      <title>Top</title>
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
      </head>
      <body>
      <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
      function printframe()
      {
      window.parent.mybottom.window.focus();
      window.parent.mybottom.window.print();
      }
      </script>
      This page should never print<br>
      <form name="PrintTest" method="get" action="">
      <input type="button" name="printme" value="Print other frame" OnClick="printframe(); return false;">
      </form>
      </body>
      </html>
      End topframe.html

      Begin bottomframe.html
      <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
      <html>
      <head>
      <title>Bottom</title>
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
      </head>
      <body>
      <b>Only this page should print!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</b>
      </body>
      </html>
      End bottomframe.html

      Now I even made sure they pass the w3c validator so as to not get blame from having invalid pages. Anyway, that code works perfect in the top browsers... all except Opera. Opera, even the most current version (This has been a bug for as long as I have known in Opera), will print every frame, where as all other browsers will properly print their specific target. I used this perticular example because it is the most recent one I have had the priviledge of dealing with. Believe me, there are hundereds more. Ive got a notebook dedicated specifically to Opera bugs I should watch out for
      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  2. Protecting the Monopoly by PonyHome · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, Microsoft might take some REALLY extreme tactic to protect their monopoly -- like giving their browser away for free, bundled with the operating system! Oh, wait....

    1. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by Mattintosh · · Score: 5, Funny

      That'll be a good tactic against Safari... ...

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Sorry. :)

    2. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, so they've got the embrace done.

      I predict that their REALLY extreme tactic will be to start throwing every "extension" they can think of into IE, especially ones that break compatibility with other browsers and webservers.

      Well, every "extension" except for security, that is. =D

    3. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by hype7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      maybe the reason MS have stopped caring is that there is no longer any reason to care.

      they offered IE for free in the hope that they could "embrace and extend" the internet - stopping all other browsers, and thereby stopping all other platforms - but it didn't work. so why should they bother any more? there's nothing to be gained by owning the users browser.

      on the other hand, owning where they buy all their music from... now that might be a lucrative business to get into...

      -- james

    4. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by salvorHardin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Against safari? They'll probably just employ the same kind of dirty tricks they did against Opera, where they detect the user agent string, and send back broken CSS files.

    5. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by typhoonius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they could make it impossible to uninstall, make it the file manager, require it for security updates, and make the help system dependent upon it.

      OH, WAIT. The only way could integrate IE more into my Windows "experience" is if they soldered a big metal "e" onto my ass.

    6. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they offered IE for free in the hope that they could "embrace and extend" the internet - stopping all other browsers, and thereby stopping all other platforms - but it didn't work. so why should they bother any more? there's nothing to be gained by owning the users browser.

      There is still a lot ot be gained from owning the users browser, because at long last real rich GUI apps are starting to be available over the web. We were promised web applications a long time ago, but all we got were forms and web pages that, while providing an interface were quite slow, and had a very bare bones interface.

      Microsofts big new technology advancement for Longhorn is XAML and Avalon which, in theory, brings real fast rich web applications to the world. In the meantime firefox/mozilla is busy with XUL and related technologies (if you want to see what XUL can do, take a look at this site).

      Web applications are going to happen. They aren't going to replace locally installed apps entirely, but they will fill niches with, for instance, powerful webmail interfaces (that look and behave like a local GUI), tax calculation apps, calendaring services, and all those simple database frontends etc. The question then, is who is going to provide the architecture for Web Apps? MS desperately wants to be the one to do it - because web applications are potentially completely platform agnostic. If Web applications are all XAML, then you need Windows to use them, and MS strengthens their monopoly. If XUL gets a decent foothold, then any platform that has Mozilla, Firefox, or in fact any XUL implementation (XUL is open source and LGPL, so whoever wants to can implement it), is a viable platform for those web apps.

      What MS fears most is a world where a decent chunk of applications are completely platform agnostic, because then people simply won't care about Windows. Lose the monopoly stranglehold, and MS will be in severe trouble.

      To keep that monopoly stranglehold MS has to, if not win this latest browser war, at least keep the fight going long and hard enough that Longhorn has significant market share (that's well past the release date), and hence XAML is the most widely available architecture via which to deliver web apps, before Mozilla/Firefox gets any really significant market share.

      This war is surprisingly important.

      Jedidiah.

    7. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they offered IE for free in the hope that they could "embrace and extend" the internet - stopping all other browsers, and thereby stopping all other platforms - but it didn't work. so why should they bother any more?

      Imagine what they COULD have done by leveraging IE into developing weblications!

      The biggest problem with web-based anything is the lack of control you have over the browser. Not coincidentally, this is why development time for web-based applications is quick - the application output is very simple.

      For example, I've written a medium-sized application (~40,000 lines) in PHP-GTK and love the control I get over the client experience in the application. User chooses X, I pop up a dropdown list to get more information, pop up an editor that captures their input in real time, etc....

      It's hard to impossible to do all this with javascript, but it's sort of what I'm talking about.

      Take javascript, make it 10x more powerful, and provide some security measures.

      For example, a certificate that would have to be installed in the browser first before scripts from NNN site would operate. Control the distribution of the certificates, and you control access to the application! You could use a bi-directional certificate so that both sides authenticate each other!

      Run this over HTTPS and you'd have a damn secure application framework that would allow for:

      1) Rapid application development times - On the server it'd be a set of ASP/PHP style scripts.

      2) Rich client-ish interfaces that make XUL look tame.

      3) Secure by design. Your scripts would only be accessable to somebody with a valid certificate.

      4) If sufficiently developed, the javascript replacement could operate offline merely by saving the script to disk. (stretching things a bit, here)

      In short, all the advantages of web-based design with all the advantages of client-side design. What's not to like?

      They botched it with ActiveX, but it was an attempt at what I'm talking about. Can you imagine trying to fight that?

      Java comes close to the above - but it lacks the security features I'm mentioning, and it's operational characteristics are "heavy" - the JVM is large and slow, particularly in low-memory situations.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by DennisZeMenace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that'll work anymore because there are just too many people using open-source browsers nowadays, including all Mac users.

      Microsoft's enormous mistake was to drop IE for the Mac. Back in the days, when you complained to a webmaster about a webpage not rendering well on Linux, you'd get laughed at. I got even insulted once, about how i had to use a 'serious' browser. Now, when you complain about a page not rendering well on a Mac, webmasters take you seriously because Mac OS gets a lot more respect as a desktop OS.

      While there are still web sites out there that don't render well outside of IE, there are a LOT less of them compared to three years ago.

      If I were MS, I'd make a huge marketing campaign about a brand new browser, with a different name and all, with all sorts of new features, and make sure you provide a Mac version. If they were smart, they'd release a Linux version too, but god knows pigs will fly when that happens...

      -DZM

    9. Re:Protecting the Monopoly by Hoplite3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      {knocks on door}
      Sir, I'm from the microsoft corporation. I was sent to "upgrade" your browsing experience. Plase bend over and drop your shorts.

      No, sir, this isn't really necessary. Our geeks are working on a way to use XAML to automatically download and solder metal on to your ass over the internet. Yep, the future is coming.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  3. Oh goody. by psbrogna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well it's about time- we were damn close to having actual web standards. Glad we dodged that bullet.

    1. Re:Oh goody. by rootofevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      standardizing on IE? as a web designer, id rather shoot myself in the face than be saddled with IEs "enhancements" and "features" thankyouverymuch.

      whats so hard about loading a transparent PNG anyway?

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    2. Re:Oh goody. by mini+me · · Score: 3, Informative

      whats so hard about loading a transparent PNG anyway?

      What's even worse is that IE does support transparent PNGs, if you apply a filter to it. Why can that be the default action for PNGs?

  4. Three Words by cryptochrome · · Score: 5, Informative

    Opera's Not Free

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:Three Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which I'm not - and based on the popularity of adblocking extensions, I'm not alone.

      It also isn't open-source which is kind of important to a lot of people here.

    2. Re:Three Words by RangerRick98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And why would I want screen real estate taken up by an ad when I can use Firefox instead?

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  5. All MS needs to do to compete is imitate by winkydink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just watch Safari & Firefox development and imitate the functionality. Joe User then has no compelling reason to switch.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:All MS needs to do to compete is imitate by hype7 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Just watch Safari & Firefox development and imitate the functionality. Joe User then has no compelling reason to switch.


      I can think of a few compelling reasons...

      -- james
  6. Too late , too little by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When my company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla" on the intranet . I knew that the browser wars are over .

    Microsoft may be able to do something however late it is (see .NET and Java) ... but I suspect Mozilla's not as slow as Java in responding , especially when it's Microsoft

    1. Re:Too late , too little by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When my company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla" on the intranet . I knew that the browser wars are over .

      When you said your company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla" on your intranet, I knew that your developers missed the point of web standards and the browser wars entirely.

    2. Re:Too late , too little by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "When my company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla" on the intranet . I knew that the browser wars are over."

      1. That's very 1997 of you. Good job.
      2. The browser wars are not over; that's like claiming that Palestine has suddenly won the conflict over Israel. (Yes, I did just compare Microsoft to Israel and Mozilla to Palestine. Politics aside, I think their positions are similar.)
      3. Your company is, at most, a drop in the ocean compared to the [steadily declining] number of IE users out there. You might have fifty users on Firefox, or you might have ten thousand.

      It comes down to a business decision. If you force software upon your employees, will they be more or less productive? Will they actually use it, or will they use the alternatives? If your company's employees come to work after checking their email in AOL on Windows 98, they might not be comfortable using Firefox. It shouldn't be that way, but not everybody moves very easily. This is the same reason why OpenOffice.org isn't more popular. Luckily for Mozilla (esp. Firefox), their product has so many advantages that people are willing to undergo the relatively painless process of switching.

  7. Re:This Just In by mikefe · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Microsoft attempts to destroy all browsers in new version of Windows by causing them to make farting sounds every time you visit a web site."

    Oooh, even better do that with IE!

    What a better way to keep workers from using it -- emberass them!

    --
    There: Something at a specific location.
    Their: Owned by someone.
    Please make sure your english compiles.
  8. I think the whole virus thing is really helping by hsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    as bad as it sounds. You add browser hijacking, security holes in MS OS's volla!

    MS needs to unhook the browser from the OS, i think this turned out to be a major assbiter for them now. Becuase it is so intertwined they have allowed the holes to become easily exploitable.

    maybe they will finally rewrite IE and allow for it to be better? but lets not cross our fingers

  9. Not surprising by Schweg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This issue seems to have come to a head in the past year or so, particular in the corporate environment.

    I am IT director for a small division of a company near Philadelphia, and the problems caused by IE in our environment have increased greatly in the past year. We spend more time than ever fixing problems caused by spyware in particular.

    This also falls into a timeframe when the browser alternatives have been getting much better (Mozilla, Firefox). We are currently planning to move everyone to Firefox as their default browser once it has been released as 1.0 or better.

  10. I use Windows on my laptop... by dodongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And I certainly don't browse with IE; I use Firefox. I use Windows on my laptop because it's most convenient for what I do. Furthermore, it's also convenient just to have a Windows box lying around :)

    That said, I use SuSE 9.1 on my desktop and I love it dearly. I wouldn't go back for any reason. Yes, there's still the occasional glitch or issue I don't know how to resolve, but I'm fine with that.

    Microsoft needs to understand, though, that if any sort of aggressive monopoly protection significantly affects the way in which I use my laptop computer, WindowsXP SP 2 will be going the same way as the Windows XP on my desktop: right out the, er, window.

  11. Re:Huh? by devphaeton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When were they gone?

    I believe that was declared with the PMSNBC.com article that trumpeted "BROWSER WARS OVAR!!" and thus went on to claim IE the victor....

    By what standard, i don't know...

    Currently, i view MS as a hibernating giant- with Longhorn getting pushed back again and again, and IE just barely adding some bolted-on features of late (but yet not really fixing any of the severe issues with it)... and so forth...

    If we, Apple, or anyone is going to put a sizeable dent into the Windows Entrenchment, *NOW* is the time...

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  12. HypeWars by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe the browser wars are back, but that gasbag Andreessen is clamoring to be back at any rhetorical cost. He hasn't done anything useful since he butchered HTML with the badly coded tag, which he couldn't even code himself at NCSA. Since then, he's gone from expensive blowhard spokesmodel for the biggest IPO in history, to has-been blown '90s dude. Only _Wired_ even listens to him anymore.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:HypeWars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The true story of why the <IMG> tag is the abomination that destroyed not only the Internet, but HTML and page layout.

      Yeah, I sure do miss the Internet.

  13. Not Until IE is Unbundled by dekemoose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's foolish to think that alternative browsers will ever have more than a few percentage points as long as users have what appears to them be a perfectly good browser sitting on their computer when they unpack it from Dell/Gateway/Whatever. We're talking about people who for the most part don't have the competence to download security fixes, let alone downloading a new browser. Just as Windows is synonymous with computers for most people, IE is synonymous for the Internet. I'll believe the browser wars are back when Dell (oor similar) bundles Firefox with their machines.

    1. Re:Not Until IE is Unbundled by savagedome · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IE is synonymous for the Internet

      When you search Google for the word internet, the first hit is IE home.

    2. Re:Not Until IE is Unbundled by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're talking about people who for the most part don't have the competence to download security fixes, let alone downloading a new browser.

      Shouldn't the automated security patch downloader on Windows install Firefox for you?

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    3. Re:Not Until IE is Unbundled by msisden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't think that large corporations installing additional browsers will have any impact?

      I work in the IT department of a university, and we currently have Firefox installed on all the machines we manage. We actually install Firefox on any machine missing it before we do anything else with a computer, because we do not like using an insecure browser. While Firefox might not be entirely secure (then again, what is?) but it is much better than IE.

      Currently we are working on a way to remove as much of IE as possible (which IS possible, just a lot of trial and error so as not to break other programs that are needed) at which point Firefox will become the defacto browser.

    4. Re:Not Until IE is Unbundled by thenextpresident · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hehe, but searching for 'web browser' brings up Mozilla.

      Just found that amusing.

      --
      Jason Lotito
  14. Say it ain't so by ZoneGray · · Score: 4, Funny

    Holy cow! Microsoft is going to start using agressive tactics? How will we ever survive?

  15. *sigh* "Best Viewed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When my company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla"...

    Why do people continue to insist on stupid "Best viewed with X" labels. Your website should be developed to display properly on any standards-compliant browser, and not be restricted to a particular platform or application.

    Why not put up one of those "Try Firefox" icons instead of implying that other standards-compliant browsers (namely Opera) might have trouble with your poorly-designed site?

  16. Re:Huh? by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For a long time you wouldnt be caught dead with Netscape on your computer... nothing worked with it because the web standards all used microsoft standards, not the properly selected ones.

    But with Netscape turning into Mozilla and then being spunoff into Firefox, and Safari along with Opera and Omni giving even MORE choices, there now are more browsers that dont support microsoft standards than do.

    Now you couple the fact that a large number of in the know people have now said to NOT use IE because of numerous widely publisised security breaches, and the once barely existant browser war has regained steam.

    The best analogy would be the World Wars. It might be considered one long war, but there was a long break where hostilities stoped.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  17. Alternative browsers? Who knew? by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I still find myself having to explain what a web browser is to 90% of the people I know that use the internet. Many of these people think that their web browser is called "MSN" or "Yahoo." They pull up a portal site as their home page and actually enter URLs into the search window and wait for the portal site to give them the link. I try to tell them about the wonders of Firefox, and they stare at me blankly and say, "But I'm perfectly happy with Yahoo."

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Alternative browsers? Who knew? by Spoing · · Score: 3, Insightful
      1. "But I'm perfectly happy with Yahoo."

      I encounter similar statements. Most people think that they have to set the browser home page to the ISP they are using and click on things from there.

      Here's what I found: I haven't talked anyone into using Firefox or Mozilla, let alone Linux. Don't tell them how wonderful it is...they won't get it!

      Here's what works;

      Ask them if they have problems with pop-ups.

      Ask them if they have problems with 'the Internet'. Get details on these 'problems'.

      If either answer is 'yes', ask them what sites they like to go to.

      Install Firefox, and add those sites to the Home page; create tabs for each site, bookmark the tabs, use that bookmark folder as the user's home page.

      Import IE settings.

      Show them this new program. Show them how easy it is to click on the tabs for each web site.

      Point out that there are no popups.

      If necessary, tweak Firefox to 'fix the problems' encountered with IE.

      Having said all that, I can't get my older sister to look at anything but IE...while about a month ago two people outside of work have asked me for help in installing Firefox and one other person asked me to install Linux after I showed him Firefox and mentioned Linux in passing. (This last person is a total novice; hadn't turned his computer on during most of last year). All are happy and have not switched back to IE.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  18. The missing link: Distribution Channel by otisg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firefox & Co. are coming back, and that software is indeed technically superior to IE. However, Mozilla foundation still misses one crucial piece of the puzzle: a distribution channel. Until somebody with a big distribution channel jumps in and helps Mozilla, my web server access log will continue showing Mozilla user base growth of less than 1%/month/year.

    That is where GBrowser comes into play. Google has a massive distribution channel that knows no OS boundaries.

    --
    Simpy
  19. One Fight that Micro$oft Cannot Win by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One fight that Micro$oft cannot win is the fight between open source and Micro$oft -- if a stable company backs any piece of open source software. In the particular case, we need a company like IBM to back FireFox in order to persuade commercial customers to use it. Commercial customers absolutely need to know that, if a flaw in FireFox is not addressed promptly and correctly by volunteer programmers, then IBM wil step into the picture and fix the problem immediately.

    The reason that Micro$oft cannot win in this kind of fight is that there is no company paying the salaries of the programmers developing FireFox. It is a volunteer effort.

    In the case of the Netscape browser, Netscape was a commerical company and essentially cut its own jugular in funding Netscape development and support and giving it away for free, but where could Netscape get its money to grow? It tried branching into commercial Web servers, but there were too many competitors in that market. Netscape was headed for bankruptcy.

    In the case of FireFox, there is no company for Micro$oft to crush. Round 1 and the game goes to FireFox and the open-source movement. <applause>

  20. Three more (more accurate) words... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes it is.

    There's a Google ads-supported free version of Opera and a paid for ad-free version. Either way, you've got a damn good browser, arguably the best one around.

    A great deal of the features that FireFox users rave about came from Opera, and every version brings even more innovation. It's even smaller and faster than FireFox too (IIRC.)

    And, before someone starts saying that its UI takes up too much screen space, let me just say that the default interface in the latest version is tiny (and, of course, Opera can be skinned and customised to your taste). While I'm on the subject of dispelling myths and inaccuracies, Opera renders virtually every web page out there as well as MSIE or FireFox: there were problems with some JavaScript-heavy pages in the past, but that's been fixed for a long time too.

    About the only website that the current version Opera has a problem with is Gmail, because of all its weird code, and even then there are simple workarounds for that. The issue is fixed in the latest beta, which means that even that problem is only temporary.

    So, to recap, Opera is a smaller, faster, more feature-packed browser that's on the cutting edge. And there's a free version and a paid-for version. What more did you want from a commercially-developed application?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Three more (more accurate) words... by ydnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may be gratis, but it's not libre.

    2. Re:Three more (more accurate) words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's a Google ads-supported free version of Opera and a paid for ad-free version. Either way, you've got a damn good browser

      I wouldn't call something with an annoying, distracting animation in the corner of my eye all the time to be a damn good browser.

      (And I have a legitimate license for Opera).

      About the only website that the current version Opera has a problem with is Gmail, because of all its weird code, and even then there are simple workarounds for that.

      It was my understanding that it was because Opera lacked the XMLHTTPRequest object, which isn't "weird" and can't be worked around.

      So, to recap, Opera is a smaller, faster, more feature-packed browser that's on the cutting edge.

      Smaller and faster? Not in my experience. More feature-packed? You haven't actually listed any features it has that its competitors do not. You've focussed on trying to rebut criticisms against it instead of talking about what it can actually do that other browsers can't.

  21. Don't worry, MS by koi88 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Honestly, I think MS has little to fear of Mozilla & Co.
    Don't mod me Troll, I love Firefox, Safari and Opera and use them almost exclusively. Yet when I try to convince my Windows-using friends the reaction is usually "But the included browser (if they know this expression) works fine. I'm used to it."
    It's incredibly difficult to compete with a program that comes installed with the OS.
    I think the population of really internet-savy people, people who care about their browser, is no more than 5-10%. These people can be won. The vast majority will stay with IE.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
    1. Re:Don't worry, MS by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But the included browser (if they know this expression) works fine. I'm used to it."

      Aye, I get this argument too (and also from people I'd expect to know better ;) but I just don't get it:
      wordpad comes bundled with Windows; yet the first thing most people do is install Word. I think that that needs to be our argument: "IE is a capable-enough browser, a bit like wordpad or the Windows firewall, but a power-use like you would probably want to upgrade to a proper browser"... or something similar.

      Also, don't underestimate the power of themes and extensions! Most of the interest I get in my "strange" browser is from it (a) looking different fairly frequently (usually when a new Firefox is released and my usual theme breaks :( ) or from (b) me using an extension to do something faster than my colleagues.

      It's a slow process, but I feel I'm winning people over bit by bit...

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
  22. I care nothing for your browser wars. by venomkid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For I design my sites to standards.

    (Sure, I kludge it a little to make it look 100% in all the major browsers, but it still validates w3c.)

    --
    vk.
  23. Browsers for specific purposes: by miscellaneous_havoc · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a purpose for just about every browser out there:

    Firefox - Everyday browsing (Duh!)
    IE - College webmail reading (ActiveX)
    Netscape - When I feel like being punished
    Opera - Searching for pr0n! (Those one-handed guestures. ;)

    Just seems to me you can appreciate them all!
    Make Love not [Browser] War.

    --

    -----
    Make Love not [Browser] War!
  24. Re:FireFox by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firefox will most likely gain a lot of ground but I don't think it will come out on top. I would love to see it come out on top but Microsoft has a lot of ground it they're not going to give it up without a fight.

    Firefox and others don't have to come out on top. There just needs to be a significant presence of browsers other than IE on the net to negate Microsofts ability to abuse. When 98% of browsers are IE, they can basterdize standards and it looks like the 2% are the screwed up ones. If several other browsers are largely in use (don't need to be #1) then it will be more apparent which browser is actually screwed up and not following standards.

    Well, I can see it in Safari, and Joe can see in Firefox. Sally says it works with Opera. How come it looks so weird on your computer?

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
  25. Re:Not Opera-specific? by aed · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just who do you think came up with mouse gestures?

    Not Opera, that's for sure :-)

    I remember using software which gave me mouse gestures in Windows about 9 years ago, not too long after the first release of Windows 95.

    According to their site, Opera released their first Windows browser (version 2.1) in 1996.

  26. Stability by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On one of my old systems, Opera happened to be the only browser light/fast enough to run reasonably on that system.

    My main dislike of it? It was unstable as hell. :( It crashed frequently, even more often than IE on my Windows boxes.

    At that time, Mozilla was massively bloated. From what I've heard, and experienced, Firefox is much closer to Opera in terms of size and speed than the Mozilla of old, and it's *damn stable*.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  27. Indeed, the browser wars are back by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was a die-hard IE guy. But what with CERT recommending using an alternate browser for security purposes.. and Microsoft's own recommendations for security all but disabling many sites (I believe their recommendation was to turn off active scripting).. that was when I switched browsers.

    But, alas, because "Set program access and defaults" doesn't actually do $hit.. last weekend I was infected by spyware using IE. Nasty, nasty stuff that just won't die.

    So IE is out for me.. I don't blame Microsoft for the malware (although I DO blame them for a link opening with IE when I had FF set as the default..).. but enough is enough.

    The sites that don't work properly with FF are few.. and I can easily decide if the site is worthy of really browsing by using the open in IE extension.

    My criticism of FF is that extensions break with each release, and that security updates are not available as patches (I could tolerate ONE of them.. but combined it's really a nuisance).

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  28. Simple by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because IE isn't standards-compliant and barfs on standards-compliant pages very often.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  29. Re:Huh? by gowen · · Score: 4, Funny
    When were they gone?
    What? Didn't you see those photos of Bill Gates standing on the USS Mariner in front of the banner that said "Mission Accomplished"?

    Now watch this C: drive.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  30. For me it has... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After being ignored the 1st time I decided to keep a copy the text of my latest email to Bellsouth. When trying to access their page with my latest version of Opera I am told to "upgrade" to IE or Netscape. For the record most of the times when I access this page it's to pay my bill.

    ---
    Once again I would like to renew my request that your website be updated to support all modern browsers. The idea that by running a current version of Opera but then being told to "upgrade" speaks poorly of your website and it's staff.

    The fact that all one must do to access Bellsouth's website is to change the user agent gives lie to the fact any upgrade is need.

    Please respect your customers by allowing them the option of using whatever modern browser they wish instead of making them think that they must use a browser that has so many security issues that the federal government has dissuaded it's use or one that has become outdated.

    Thank you.
    ---

    Yes it may be a little harsh but sometimes you have to be pretty forthright to get past the corperate mindset. Until I get a response I plan on sending this same text once a week.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  31. LAYER and JSSS? by Numen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That would be the properly selected ones like the LAYER tag then? Or JSSS as the prefered alternative to CSS?

    Netscapes track record pre-Mozilla with the W3C makes MS look like angels.

    Firefox is a fantastic browser, but lets not start revising history. The original Netscape sucked and deserved to fall flat on its face.

    1. Re:LAYER and JSSS? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sir, you deserve dome sort of award for not mentioning the hated blink-tag.

      (Apologies if it's bringing back horrible memories)

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
  32. Re:Huh? by davandhol · · Score: 3, Informative

    Netscape 6 & 7 were based on Mozilla, with added "features."

  33. Re:Huh? by Sweetshark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Nazis felt they were bred to be superior (period).
    Its less importent to know what the Nazis felt. Its more importent to find out why so many germans played along. And the reasons for that are to be found in WW I (the versailles treaty giving the germans the sole responsibility for the war, forbidding almost all military, and requesting reparations that made it impossible for germany to recover economically. The reason for WWII is the way WWI was ended. check your facts here.
    The french wanted revenge (why else did they pickk versailles) for 1870 but went over the top. In the end this was the foundation for another war.

  34. Re:Huh? Will longhorn become... by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sorry, but you've taken the "change letters in a word to express your disgust" principle to ridiculous extremes. M$ is acceptable here at Slashdot. "LongTHORN" is just silly. I vote to suspend your account. Any other takers?

  35. Build a better mouse trap... by DavidBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I thought that Microsoft got rid of all of the competition by illegal exercise of its monopoly power?

    The good news is that innovation (including better security) are good reasons to switch from even heavily-entrenched products.

    The bad news is that some people may have to admit that Microsoft isn't as guilty as they want it to be. IE beat Netscape for the simple reason that it sucked less. Sure, maybe being a "monopoly" helped, but that doesn't mean much when browsers were and are still given away for free (a trend which M$ didn't start).

    If Firefox overtakes IE, I win. If IE gets better, I still win. If Netscape pulls out from under years of browsers not any better and usually worse and more bloaty than IE, I still win. I win, I win, I win. And, honestly, I don't care who else wins with me. It can be MS, or Apple, or the open source community. The point is that competition is still alive in the browser world, even if all of the things Netscape whined about were true.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  36. Re:*sigh* "Best Viewed"? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

    I put a 'Best viewed using a computer!' notice up on a site I built.

    THOSE OF US WHO GET INTERNET ACCESS VIA TELEGRAPH FIND THIS DISCRIMINATORY STOP WE DONT ALL HAVE COMPUTERS STOP SO PLEASE STOP

    Along with a 'Web server powered by electricity'...

    SOME PEOPLE I KNOW STILL USE SMOKE SIGNALS STOP

  37. I'm finding this to be less of a problem by G27+Radio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that the typical person I deal with lately catches on pretty quickly to the idea of using a different web browser. Every single home computer I've worked on in the last couple months has been barely usable due to all the spyware on them.

    After cleaning up their machines I install Firefox and tell them about the pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. I tell them that at this point they should only use IE as a last resort. The explaination literally takes about 30 seconds and I haven't had any problems with people not "getting it."

    I've done this for easily a dozen different people in the last month, and every one I've talked to afterwards has mentioned how much nicer it is browsing with Firefox.

    Maybe I've just been lucky with the people I've done work for recently, but it seems to me that most people are more than happy to make the switch once the software is installed and demonstrated to them.

    Undoubtedly there are people out there that just can't be bothered (from what I've read on here at least,) but at that point it's their problem and they'll be paying me if I have to come back and clean the crap off their computer again.

    PS: I just wish Firefox would render Slashdot consistently. WTF?