Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Seeks Full Page Ad in New York Times
blakeross writes "Join us over at Spread Firefox as we raise funds for the most ambitious launch campaign in open source history. A portion of each donation will go towards taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times celebrating the release. All donors will be listed in the ad, the signatories of a declaration of independence from a monopolized and stagnant web."
"A declaration of independence from a stagnant web." Now that's an interesting statement. Perhaps a stagnant browser market or a stagnant browser war but the web certainly isn't stagnant. Hopefully they editors of this full page add will do a better job than the Slashdot editors did.
Personally I don't care for Firefox as the rest of the web doesn't really support it and pages don't render correctly. Firefox will not be THE player until the day that people start writing pages that work under Firefox, ignore IE's "quirks", and when they start to understand what spyware is, how to defend against it, and how to get rid of it.
I have very little faith that the public cares enough to do any of those things.
For a webpage with a lot of members who hate advertising, it sure is interesting to see how many stories about advertising we have and how many slashvertisements we get.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
to buy NYT and view ad.
Just make sure they don't have the ad opposite a full-page Microsoft one...
Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
the signatories of a declaration of independence from a monopolized and stagnant web
That type of hyperbole does nothing to help spread free software. I certainly hope the print-ad doesn't lower itself to these levels.
Trolling is a art,
Just made my donation...#186 according to the receipt. I think that this is going to be a great way to get out the message of browser alternatives. You can put in whatever name you want to be listed. I wonder how many times Bill Gates is going to show up?
My
Disguising it as a news story? Oh, wait... Ooops, never mind...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
so I'm going to pay money, so that a small portion will go to adverting a project that thinks the web is stagnent?
$5 to the following address and i too will spread firefox joy and happiness!!!
ALL YOUR BROWSERS ARE BELONG TO US!!
Maybe we should rename it to Friedefox !!!
"Declaration of Independence". I like firefox and all, but sometimes people just have to get over themselves.
"...all these people use firefox! switch!"
nonetheless, it should be interesting to see...
How abt other papers?
Why does yahoo do this
Hopefully this will boost the popularity of the browser enough to break the 10% browser share mark proper. Congrats to all the donors - this is great work!
will all the open source fanboys start running from Firefox because it is to "mainstream"?
I just started using it because it is finally an acceptable replacement of IE, i am just curious about all the die hards
Ought to be interesting to see how dorky this comes out...
number 214
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
A portion of the contribution? Exactly how much of my contribution will go towards the ad? Why not all? Call me cynical, but this sounds like a pretty good way to make some money.
/. about O/S browser needing help.
1. post story on
2. use 10% of donations towards ad.
3. PROFIT!!!
This will prove to be unnecessary. Firefox's market share is growing and will continue to grow due to word of mouth and techs like myself who are taking the time to install it and show people the benefits of it. Anyone who doesnt know what it is already will not be intrigued by an advertisement but will instead ignore it. These are the same people that find nothing wrong with internet explorer and enjoy the "benefits" of malware without having any clue of what information about their browsing it is phoning home to the developers of the software.
A full page ad in the Times may be a good way of getting a bit of publicity, but listing all the contributors along with some nerdy anti-microsoft-look-at-us-we're-not-evil manifesto seems like a slightly tacky endevour.
I'm just worried a rant will tarnish the product, which is excellent and should be advertised on it's own merits.
This makes your eighth post to slashdot.
Two have been ignored. Three others modded down to zero, the rest flamebait -1's.
I wonder why?
If I lived in NY I would definatly go for this. Instead of getting a $15 t-shirt this kind of endorsemnt is more unique, and seems like a great way to send the message that Firefox has arrived.
This ad won't be run until Firefox 1.0 is complete, I hope.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Firefox will only get a single shot with most users. If they download Firefox and have any problems with it at all they will go back to IE and never consider Firefox again.
Firefox is still gaining ground against IE. It may be better to wait a little longer and let Firefox muture a bit more before trying to convert the general masses with this type of advertising campaign.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Last time I checked, Wall Street was in New York. So why should the Journal be different than the Times...
Now I'll be folding open paper media for a browser!
In this case, the grass roots are doing the marketing...
It's quite ironic, actually incredibly ironic, that a process that is almost entirely driven by word of mouth would aim for promotion using above the line advertising.
Personally, and this is just an opinion, I reckon that money would be better spent on wining and dining journalists and trying to get Firefox on the cover of Times Magazine.
Or, alternatively, try to get Firefox banned for violating obscenity laws. That is usually excellent for publicity.
But a full-page advert? Seems kind of boring.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
I use firefox. i LIKE firefox... but i've simply had enough of the sensationalist bullshit that seems to persist on the spread firefox site. it seems full of over-excited teenagers who think that firefox IS the world. No, it really isn't.
'A declaration of independence from a stagnant web' STAGNANT WEB? No, ALIVE web, STAGNANT browsers because noone really wants to adopt endless new stnadards which can't be embraced for 5 years anyway.
It just drives me nuts... and all this ego shit doesn't do ANY good for the OS community, it just makes it look stupid and shallow. Firefox is not god like.. its very good, but this spread firefox thing just comes across like a jovial camp guy at a funeral. Shut up won't you?
This is a great move by Mozilla. Here are a few reasons.. 1. A good majority of people only know of Internet Explorer. They find it easy to use, and don't really have any problems with it. 2. What most of the people don't know is that there are major problems with security, and given that a lot of people do use it for bills online, shopping, etc. 3. The current stream of IE issues have made people more aware that they need to switch something more secure, but they really don't know what to switch to. 4. Wahla! They have Firefox, a credible, easy to use, and most importantly secure web browser that is starting up the browser wars all over again. With the ad, Firefox is going to get much more needed publicity and help changing a lot of things in HTML and the browser wars.
Can you hold off until I can get my name changed to John Hancock?
I read the Chicago Tribune every (95%+) morning. I don't generally miss anything in section 1, but I skim stuff in sections 2 (our Metro-area news).
Frankly, I would not even get close to seeing a full page advert in any section besides 1. Does this project seek to put the page in a leading section or in one of those 'Tempo', 'Sports', 'LifeStyles', or 'Living' sections? If so, what is the projected viewership?
Not to be casting aspersions on people my parent's age, but: Of those reading papers at all, which of them surf commonly, or even know how to download and install a program?
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
I'm not a Microsoft-basher; I use their products productively virtually every day of my life. Excel is my workhorse, Word my constant companion for nearly a decade, PowerPoint my standard for presentations, Visio Professional a powerful tool in my arsenal, and I rely on Outlook to keep track of notes, emails, contacts, tasks, and my calendar.
I have also been using Internet Explorer since about 1996, when it came pre-loaded on a computer I bought. I found it to be adequate, and certainly seemed to be on the cutting edge (anybody remember "push technology"?). But increasingly over time it came to be an annoyance, and may represent the worst of what Microsoft is accused of: arrogance (openly flaunting internet standards and creating new ones on its own), monopolistic aggression (folding IE into Windows, virtually destroying the independent browser market overnight), and outright carelessness (creating a browser with a seemingly endless number of security holes). IE is relatively slow and clunky, has a sub-par user interface, and seems to be an ideal breeding ground for adware, malware, spyware, worms, you name it.
saru mo ki kara ochiru
This could be very important. It's easy to underestimate the importance of marketing and getting out the word. The effect this can have on ordinary people (if you're reading this, your probably aren't one) is something That Very Big Corporation is well aware of.
kudos!
I thought the link was to spreadsamanthafox.com
I used to have problems with Firefox and pages not displaying right, but that issue has gone away completely for me with new release. Even the /. crap out has gone away. I think the time is right to show firefox to the world.
Open Source Sushi
They will soon make an annoucement that says the money will go toward a new server instead.
I was just looking at my web site, which has a "get firefox" banner button. I was wondering why it wasn't displaying on my webpage, then this article shows up on slashdot! Go figure, you people are slowing down the adoption of FireFox!
Check it out: http://www.joeslife.info/
Why'd you have to pick a liberal weenie hippy paper like the NYT? Put it in the NY Post!
Free Scotland!
Will you be a part of the open source legacy?
NY Times Ad CampaignLet's mark the launch of Firefox 1.0 with a community marketing campaign that will take the buzz around Firefox to the next level: the first-ever, full-page advertisement in a major daily newspaper created and paid for by the open source community.
Here is how it works:
* The full-page ad will include the names of everyone who supports the campaign along with a message about the benefits/features of Firefox.
* The campaign will act as a fundraiser to support all Firefox 1.0 launch activities, not just the ad itself.
* An individual contribution of $30 will get your name included in the ad ($10 student rate).
* Special recognition -- Community Champion -- will be given to people who enlist 10 of their friends in this campaign. (These folks have a shot at having their name in the lower half of the ad.)
* There are also two packages available for businesses to participate.
* If you have a Spread Firefox account, you will receive 100 sfx points per name slot that you purchase or refer.
* The goal: sign up 2500 names!
* More questions? Check the FAQ.
* Ready? Click the newspaper on the upper right to join in!
We (sfx members and Firefox users) will only ever have one Firefox 1.0 launch -- this is it! Let's take the world by storm.
PS: The buzz about this campaign is already starting. Check out the story on eWeek!
PS2: Thanks to everyone who's uploaded images showing how you're spreading the fire. Keep those images coming!
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I'm just glad they provided a student price. $30 is a lot more to a poor college student like me than $10 is.
Yay, I mostly love Firefox! What good news is this that hits my eyeballs?
All donors will be listed in the ad, the signatories of a declaration of independence from a monopolized and stagnant web.
Oh... I forgot, this is all part of that 'hackers are good luzers are bad Micro$oft is evil' movement. Eh... I'm not sure I have the energy for that... never mind then...
*opens IE*
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
# How will my donation be used?
Your donation will be used to fund the Firefox 1.0 launch campaign, including the full-page ad. Details about other aspects of the launch campaign will be available as we approach launch date.
They mention some release parties on the front page, so I assume that's where some of the money is also going. I think it would be much more effective if 100% was going to the ad, and not a release party that really doesn't do much to spread the word.
Because the WSJ hasn't been caught making up stories, or passing editorials off as hard news?
A goal of 2500 names at $30 per name... is $75,000 the going rate for a full page ad in the new york times? I'd imagine it to be a bit more than that... not to mention that only a portion of that $75,000 will be going towards it. Will this be a local ad?
* - replace Internet Explorer with "the internet" for most users.
Free Mac Mini
Perhaps the money would be better spent on Google Adwords and Overture matches, after-all is the target not web users, print advertising in one country is a bit narrow minded, and possibly not an effective way of spreading the word to net users.
I've been using Mozilla and later Firefox for quite a while now - I like it - but the bitter partisan political stuff is just a big turn off for many people. If you assault them with all sorts of insults to their PC, their OS, and even the web browser that works at least acceptably well for many of them, they'll probably write it off as some zealous partisan attack.
/.ed right now, and they didn't seem to have the ad up anyways, but I hope it's a bit more subdued than the summary.
The people who hate hate hate MS and/or IE have already moved on. I'm sure they'll cheer the ad, but that's a big waste of money.
SFF's site is
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Actually... the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html
--Coming up with something clever... please wait...
that is read heavy by the business community.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why is a list of names good marketing for Firefox?
I can just see it now...
Firefox browser 1.0 released
Mario "Lightfingers" Frazetti
Dane "the Gimp" Rostenkowski
Michael "Code Monkey" Miller
Peter "Frodo" Fry
etc...
Yea, I can see that the New York Times is a widely circulated news paper, but get real! How many people use a computer in the world...3 billion (just a number...don't nitpick) and the New York Times circulation is how big...??? (I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look it up.) That should be the question! Most people like me that are generic geeks, not fanatics, use whatever is available on the machine that I'm given. Yea, I have a firewall and anti-virus software, but I'm not going to download yet ANOTHER piece of software to browse the internet. Especially if it doesn't render pages correctly. Get over it.
Google is also mainstream, but still it is the most popular search engine, also amongst "open source fanboys". And there's only one reason to that: They think Google is still the best there is available for them. It does not matter if it is mainstream or not, its quality still has not been surpassed.
What's the big deal about Firefox? It uses just as much RAM as the Mozilla browser does.
Debian (which I use) has shown that the Mozilla browser, mail, chat & composer can be broken into separate packages. That's what the big deal about FF is supposed to be.
The things that I really like about Mozilla are:
If FF used significantly less RAM than Mozilla, I'd put up with it's deficiencies, though.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
An ad for an internet browser in the print edition of a newspaper that has an online counterpart? Hummmn, at least it will look good framed on the wall, I guess...
Because Firefox is open source so it will be free and remain free for always and all time till the end of eternity, and you can help freedom expand by donating ;).
I think what they really need over at SpreadFirefox is not more donations, but more servers and more bandwidth.
For now, I've got our IT guy's blessing on running FireFox on my computer, but if they find out that it bypasses their fancy card-based security system...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
maybe I'm just such a n00b that I dont know any better, but shouldnt it be /.ed nor ./ed ? I mean, sure, dotslash sounds cool too, but its just not the same...
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822.3.
Do you mean dr. Spock or mr. Spock?
-- Qu'est-ce que la propriété intellectuelle? It is thought control.
I know I'm making a big mistake responding to a troll, but he brings up an interesting issue that I have been thinking about recently. Some people consider The New York Times to be left wing. Some people also consider it to be the golden standard of reporting. There is no question that its editorial page has a left-leaning viewpoint.
On the other hand, some people think The Wall Street Journal is right wing. Some people think that it is the golden standard of reporting. There is no question that the editorial page has a right-leaning viewpoint.
Personally, I think that both newspapers are confronted with a problem and deal with it in different ways. I think that both have integrity that is lacking in a lot of news sources. But while they both try to eliminate political views from their articles, they sometimes come down to a tiny binary choice in places - whether to make it slightly left or slightly right. There's no way to get it perfectly in the center. And so the Times errs on the side of liberal, and the Journal errs on the side of conservative. They're both fine reads though.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
That's a really good point you have there. It shouldn't be about bashing someone else's choice, but saying, "here, try this, you might just like it".
Take for example Yahoo mail itself.Although it doesnt do a bad job of it like opera,its not near the perfect rendering of yahoo mail by IE.
As for overlap of text over each other , I have seen it happen over dozens of pages..
It also does a bad job in some sites where forms have to be filled - the form spaces go haywire,wont submit etc...but works well in IE.
Infact one of Firefox's own page had overlapping problems..I dont remember the link,but i had posted that link in one of my earlier comments [ If you can see my entire comment history:"Firefox messes up its own page" is the subject i think ]
For sites I am sure are secure, its better to stick with IE,because the webpage seems to render so prefectly in IE than in FF.You might have noticed this difference in many sites.May be because most sites are developed with IE in mind,but then thats the way it displayed in FF.
Many a time,I have filled forms with all details and hit submit,but wont work.then i switch to IE fill it again , it works flawless.Thats real iritation for me.
And you say " Apart from Slashdot, I can't find a page that doesn't render just fine in Firefox "......
huh
Why does yahoo do this
Seriously, people. Facts are facts.
From http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/:
The Foundation has been incorporated as a California not-for-profit corporation to ensure that the Mozilla project continues to exist beyond the participation of individual volunteers, to enable contributions of intellectual property and funds and to provide a vehicle for limiting legal exposure while participating in open-source software projects.
[...]
The Mozilla Foundation is a California non-profit corporation exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501(c)3. Donations are tax deductible.
The Mozilla Organization is a not-for-profit corporation.
Don't give them money if you don't want, but get your facts straight before you make the decision.
When will slashdot have standard compliant XHTML/CSS code?
Ah, ok, I was wrong. Still wondering why this "charity" would be more worthwhile than one that say, oh I dunno, feeds hungry people, provides health care for sick people, keeps tabs on our government, etc.? It seems pretty damn frivolous, when I have useful charities asking me for money every day, and doing something productive in my community (rape crisis center, drug rehabilitation halfway house, stopping pet overpopulation, etc.).
I don't respond to AC's.
"Are the STEWED PRUNES still in the HAIR DRYER?"
:P
What does this quote refer to? A Google search turns up Cialis advertisements
oh well...site has been slashdotted...
Any serious website will be looking towards standard compliance. This is the only way to ensure pages don't break with all manner of devices and software (including aids for the disabled).
It's amazing how many commerce sites in the past 4 years have suddenly started working with Mozilla. Look at the leaders in the industry, Amazon, Ebay etc.., they all work with pretty much all browsers. Their success is built upon simplicity meaning a maximum web audience.
Does anybody else have problems with the way firefox renders slashdot? The middle table seems to overlap the sidebar sometimes... I don't know if its just my browser, or if it happens for anyone else. Either way, i find it very ironic if it is that way.
Free Flat Screen
I thought we open source fanboys had fooled you again hsmith, we had a council meeting on Thursday to discuss the victory, Paul even brought the champagne. But no! Through your amazing investigative abilities you have beaten us once again. Proving that us open source fanboys only use a product because it's unpopular, not that it's good or anything, just because it's unpopular. And then, when something does indeed become popular, we switch for whatever reason. There dosn't even need to be a reason! No, not at all, that would make too much sense. Our scheme worked brilliantly for the past twenty years, until your mind stumbled across our plan.
Till next time hsmith, till next time!
I hereby volunteer to sign my name huge as hell on that declaration of independence.
stuff |
Well, it looks like the site is slashdotted. But if you still feel like giving away money to a good cause, I'm trying to raise funds to make dracosoftware.com a non-profit (So I don't have to worry about justifying running my hobby the same way I do now), and open-sourcing all my software. Or you could just give me money because I'm cute. Really. Cute like a button, that's me! (Prances around like rudolph) I'm cute! She think's I'm cute! ~D dracolytch@yahoo.com
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Why not USA TODAY? If the purpose of the ad is to spread awareness AND educate-USA today or the Wall Street Journal would be a better choice. Not to get into an argument about the political leanings of the paper, the Times readership tends to be more informed and better educated about this topic.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
If I were to donate, I don't think I'd want the money to go toward a full page ad. That seems to me like it wouldn't have much effect. What might work better is to follow the AOL approach and send out individual CDs with the software on it. That way, Joe Dialup doesn't have to worry about download times for it or anything. Print on the back some of the problems with IE, list the benefits of Firefox, state that Firefox is and always will be completely free, and that installation only takes minutes.
Converting them one a time is sure to work a lot better. Plus, I'm sure some percentage of people will install it believing that they'll now get the internet for free. Although those people will be disappointed that they still have to pay for their internet connection, at that point the software will already be installed, and they've run it at least once to see what happens. If they check an option to "always use this program to connect to the internet", some people may never figure out how to get IE back.
On the downside, for that small percentage of people, Firefox would seem to have the properties of Spyware, but chances are those people are already full to the brim with real spyware, so they've learned to live with it.
For the rest of the population...people will just keep the CDs lying around, using them as a coaster until their curiosity gets the better of them, at which point, they take the leap.
Come to think of it, you might as well throw OpenOffice on there too, along with anything else that will fit...
Stop slashdotting http://www.spreadfirefox.com/, help stop the stagnant web!
my other sig is a 500 page novel
Sounds like a good idea - but putting peoples names on the ad sounds a bit silly. How much room would 2500+ names take up on a page if they are even a slightly legible?
I don't even use Firefox (I'm an Opera user) but I paid because anything that improves the usage of Firefox will help improve standards on the web, which is good for the Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc. users out there!
As of last time I tried to check out the site, the spreading has stopped, i.e. Request timed out
it appears to be a mad lib of some sort.
Ahem! That is a very incorrect link. If you want to see the REAL google cache go here
Mods: DO NOT mod me up! Providing a link to a cache is not insightful or informative, it is merely helpful.
They will need another fund raising campaign to pay to resurrect their webserver and database from the ashes.
[alk]
They'll switch or they'll vomit. Either way I'm sleeping easy tonight!
Since we all think he's the most evil thing since Sauron ruled the Middle Earth, we all do understand what a bad idea it is to take out a full page ad to tell Microsoft, by name, who their enemies are, right?
Now if there was only an easy way to turn off that damn tabbed browsing feature in Firefox.
Why are you spending your time reading Slashdot, then? You should be out busting your ass for Habitat for Humanity, canvassing for all those charities you listed, volunteering at a soup kitchen, and clothing the naked.
... wait, you're willing to fritter away your time reading technology news and chatter? Time ~= money. You've demonstrated your willingness to contribute your time to something that isn't saving the world or neutering the un-neutered - how is contributing a few bucks any different?
Seriously. Drop what you're doing, now.
How dare you. (now I can't get to my account and rate pictures, like the one that I took and is posted (one student at a time))
If you are considering donating to this cause and haven't yet given money to the good people at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you could probably use a good priority realignment.
--
to some people, donating to a project that will help ease the frustration of spyware, viruses, etc in the masses is a worthy cause. Plus, it's a boost to Open Source software in the mainstream. Nobody is saying it's more important than any other type of donation. But to some people it IS important, nonetheless.
Everyone knows how stagnant and monopolized the web has been for the last 10 years or so.
/.?
In other news:
Linux has been a stagnant and closed source operating system.
How come such obvious crap makes it to the frontpage of
I fail to see what's wrong with a "stagnant browser"?
Now viruses, buffer overflows, bad security design, ok, IE is guilty as charged of those. But stagnant? Here I was thinking that's a damn good thing.
It reeks of the old dot-com thinking that surfing the web should be "an experience", or other such bullshit. Except while everyone wanted to _offer_ some unique experience, but noone wanted to _have_ it. Even the very same PHBs that preached about how their site will be an unique experience, you never heard them say "I visit this other site daily for the unique flashing hard-to-navigate experience."
Noone really wants a web page to be a unique life-changing experience, and noone really wants a browser that is more than a window into the web.
And in that picture, you really don't need more than the current browsers offer. They already do their job just fine, and the plethora of sites are doing a fine job with those browser features already. And whatever job they don't do directly, there are plugins for that. Time to move on already.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The web was a declaration of independence from a monopolized and stagnant print media.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Better idea: get a stoned chick to ask people to "switch"... that'll appeal to more people ;-)
The percentage of all web sites that are designed for Internet Explorer's bugs is tiny and shrinking. Serious companies that depend on their websites for business (banks, Amazon, online stockbrokers) got the message long ago; I haven't found a website that I need that I can't use with Mozilla or Firefox, in quite a long time.
Cutting-edge web designers, like Eric Meyer, have been leading the way to standards-based pages for years.
If they're gonna put a bright red target on their back (full page ad in NYT, then they'd better do this right... I can see it now: full page ad bragging about how secure firefox is and then some hacker or malware group figures out how to hijack or hack firefox... MS would pounce on this.
Moral: Do it right!!!
Firefox will only get a single shot with most users. If they download Firefox and have any problems with it at all they will go back to IE and never consider Firefox again.
That's correct, but if we don't try to change that, it'll remain like that forever. If more people are aware of Firefox and actually using it for their daily webbrowising experience, it'll lead to more open-standards complient pages and more awareness of what open-standards mean: no single vendor is able to lock you into their proprietary tools.
It may be better to wait a little longer and let Firefox muture a bit more before trying to convert the general masses with this type of advertising campaign.
Firefox won't ever "muture" to the point of supporting the old IE proprietary "standards of on e vendor alone", so it won't ever handle old pages designed specifically for IE quite right.
So please, don't come with this "let's wait and see" while Microsoft tries to lock the web with XAML and other sickness...
The time is now to change that. We have a kick-ass modern, slick web browser which is open-standards compliant and comes shock-full of great usability appliances and is also secretely comes with a fine smart-client technology which futurely will see much better use: XUL GUIs.
I don't feel like it...
mod parent down pls, it's clearly abuse!
Donation page here: mozillastore
xabi
Check populicio.us
I disagree...I think that preople sub consiously like to be told what is the best...they don't have the drive or ambition to go figure it out for themselves.
IMHO
what?
If they really want an affective campaign, buy a commercial during the Super Bowl. Not cheap....but hey, all /. peeps have deep pockets....no?
In the 1-point type that so many of my spam e-mails contain.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
thanks for modding it down folks... keep it on topic!
I like and use Firefox, Mozilla, and Camino. And I appreciate the effort that goes into making them good products.
But I really question the wisdom of using money towards expensive advertising for these products. If I am going to contribute money towards the project, I want it to be put towards making the expenses of building the good product (development, bandwidth/server infrastructure, etc.)
Why would I put my money towards convincing others to use the product? Frankly, I gain nothing by others being convinced to use it. If I want to consider it a donation to a good cause, I would be far more inclined to donate it to an organization like the Red Cross that provides food and shelter.
For all the effort slashdotters do to soread firefox , will Rob Malda - Cmdrtaco,help spread too?
Can slashdot lend...
Slashdot recommends Firefox
to the ad?
Queer enough,even slashdot doesnt render properly in FF.
Does any site in this world have
" Best Viewed in firefox 1.0 & Above " tag?
Does even mozilla.org/firefox have that?
If not let them atleast put it up b4 going to advert.
Why does yahoo do this
Wrong word, use hiperal 'HIP - er - al'
It's a combination of 'hippy' and 'liberal'. I made it up myself. Here's the definition:
Hiperal - "A person of either gender who does not shave, hugs trees and believes capitalism in general is a bad thing and that terrorists are freedom fighters."
How do I know they're not going to take my donation and buy beer!?
Then again, either way it's money well spent!
Me neither. You can remove the FF search bar and use the URL bar, but not like in Mozilla. I believe decides whether the URL is valid and then searches or not depending on that. It is not as nice (or obvious) as the way Mozilla does it.
Cheers,
Roger
Do you have any better hostages?
Average Joe isn't going to install anything but Internet Explorer unless his "computer expert" friend tells him it's shit. Hell, as you say, he probably doesn't even know what Internet Explorer is.
The advert should be in computer magazines frequented by "power users" and/or windows administrators. Actually, this is also the market that the Linux distributions should be pointing at, there's no point trying to sell or even give Linux to end users, they don't understand what it does.
Deleted
Is this firefox's problem or slashdot's?
Yeah, say it's better. But don't go into some webpolitical diatribe about declarations of independence from stagnant monopomonkeys or what-have-you...
just say, "Firefox. Safer, Faster, Free. Better than IE." except without the cheesy rhyme.
As spreadfirefox.com is dogged by the slashdotting you may want to go direct to the donation page that explains more and allows you to sign up. Basically it's $30 per name you'd like to appear on the advert. I donated $300 (the maximum personal donation) you don't need to enter more names than you actually need.
Get a full page in in the Wall Street Journal instead.
Do you have ESP?
So everyone scrounges up their pennies and they get a full page NY Times ad.. everyone sees it and says "wow firefox" then mayyyyyybe a handful of people even check it out.. firefox is just going to fade away like any other non-megacorp browser. The way a marketing effort works is by being persistent.. going all out one time might even win a battle but it's nothing in a war.
On the day the ad hits, they'd better be damn sure they've got a set-up that can take what may be a bit more potent than a slashdotting to handle the downloads. During the .com era, I had a very good friend who worked at a Superbowl advertiser. About 5 seconds after their ad ran, their site was borked.
Firefox as an app is ready, IMO (I don't use IE anymore and don't have to dick around) - just make sure the infrastructure is ready, too.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Now, my work's webmail (iPlanet..how ironic) has issues w/the send button, but other than that I don't have problems.
My online banking with bankone works fine, as do all of my other financial sites. I even have paid all my bills for phones and other places w/firefox just fine.
Slashdot does render a bit off sometimes on the left side, but it is all I've really noticed.
Mozilla would get further by paying the Dells of the world to put Firefox on their PCs as the default browser.
Speak truth to power.
To me "take back the web" means preventing seizures of free-speech hard drives. There is still Mosaic and Lynx, after all, right?
I have been a fan of Firefox since before 0.1 and just bought $80 of stuff from the Mozilla Store, but I do not like the way the Mozilla Foundation is going.
5 6302&action=view> by the powers that be is that Firefox 1.0 be distrubuted under what they call an "end user license agreement" that disallows modification or distribution, and that restricts what you can use Firefox for--similar to the terms of Microsoft's software. If this happens, I will not be using Firefox in the future. It might even be argued that developers of Mozilla's software should have taken head of warnings about the NPL and MPL by FSF et al. This is an example of why copyleft is superior to less-restrictive licenses (especially ones that put less restrictions on certain organisations as special cases).
Personally, I think if they better integrated themselves with the FOSS community and started using traditional FOSS methods (as well as enocuranging the FOSS community to spread the word), this would help their marketing a lot better than an ad in the NYT. I do not object to the ad of itself--it may be a good idea--but it is an example of the way MF are thinking--specifically thinking ("monopoly"..."stagnant"...) about abusing their power over what is a brilliant piece of software.
>>in open source history<< (from story)
The *real* *question* is whether Firefox is free or open-source? My real objection is the attempts of people at MF to make Firefox neither (i.e.: proprietary). The whole thing about making the name and artwork proprietary a while back was not so bad (although it certainly led people to question MF's morality), as it was easy to remove references to "Firefox" or "Mozilla" and all the relevant artwork (but it still means that official builds are not free and do not follow DFSG).
The latest proposal <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=1
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
First Donation!
I think... their site said 0 names so far when I donated. I can't get back in to check now!
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Bitter partisan political stuff??
I think the ad in the New York Times is to recruit new users, not new developers. Users likely won't read the discussion boards and mailing lists. They aren't going to start reading Slashdot just because they switched to Firefox.
They should be blissfully happy running Firefox, as I am, without knowing about the problems in the developer community.
http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/
The website "www.lazylightning.org" is a Last Measure/Goatse site! That's sick!
and they'll publish it for free...
Then everyone will KNOW about Slashdot and its contents including Firefox and Cowboys Neal.
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Let me get this straight. Some users might not choose Firefox because they have an awkward MS keyboard?
.0001% of all broswer users? Talk about a non-issue.
What's that like?
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Ads like this don't come cheap. Is the New York Times giving them any kind of break?
Sounds like the cash could be better spent.
=1000101
Yes, you could complain that you're giving to a for-profit organisation. But you'd be wrong.
the layman's guide to computer science
I've tried firefox several times, it's just rather crude and doesn't work nearly as nice as the mozilla suite. I just don't see what the big fuss is about.
If I'm going to donate money it will be to a worthy cause like starving children or something. Not for software advertising.
I downloaded the latest Firefox version for OS X but it just doesn't cut it for me. I use Safari and I love the minimalist interface. Even the way Tabs are presented in Safari is perfectly thought out. Firefox is slowing gaining ground in the interface department but it's still too 1997. It has a few extra features but I don't have a pressing need for any of them. I also don't see any speed advantages. I wish them luck against IE for Windows world, but Safari already won that battle on OS X.
Dear Sean,
As with most IT folk, we spend a great deal of time reading slashdot. Thank you for pointing out the FireFox security compromise. And consider your blessing revoked.
Regards,
DoD IT guy
A List Apart had a story where they redesigned Slashdot to make it CSS-based (yes, it still looked the same afterwards).
Changing every single page on the site to CSS takes a lot of work
Not true. If you check out Slashcode you will see that there aren't that many templates.
Martin May
Open source means bug free
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
The
$30 to get your name in the paper.
And most of the ad just be a list of names, which will consume most of the space best used to plug Firefox itself.
A better donation strategy would be:
$100 for your name to be added, limit of N names
$anything if you just want to chip in and help out.
This allows those who don't have $30 to spend to contribute (I'd love to contribute a couple of bucks if it were a well-designed advertisement), while giving the big donaters a reward for their donation without making the ad nothing more than a list of names.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Seriously, the web browser you use is practically a religion now. "Spread the good word about Firefox, and save the souls of those IEites"
And since when does "many choices of web browsers" mean "monopolized"?
Praise Opera, without which we are naught.
Your grandma won't change from IE for the same reason that my dad keeps using that stupid Compuserve browser. You have to get them going with it from the outset, or present them with conclusive preoof that Firefox is better along with a totally bombproof means of getting it installed.
What's the real objective that we're trying to achieve? If you can't afford to repeat, repeat, repeat, then there are probably many more productive things you can do with the money.
That apart, I'm about to send out A2-sized Red Hat configuration deskpads to IT resellers this side of the pond, and have offered free space to put something related to Mozilla on it (given it is part of every Red Hat distribution). So far, no-one can give me anything I can use on it :-(
I'd be delighted to put any Mozilla ad on it if someone could rustle one up - or point me at one I can use.
Ian W.
Put together a retail version for Win/Mac that can be sold in the stores next to the popup/spyware tools. If you ever go into a BestCircuitDepotUSA, there is almost always someone in those aisles. A well designed informative box could do wonders. You would'nt believe some of the junkware that gets bought because people are desperate to free themselves of the popup/spyware scourge.
Points to hit on...
Popups can be controlled.
Plugins can be easily monitored and deactivated
Email viruses are much less likely to cause trouble.
People pay $100+ to try solve those problems, and they don't understand that most of those tools are themselves spyware.
My 0.02
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
They want to make up for all the insults they made over time in Slashdot headlines. You know the ones about soul-sucking, evil, firstborn-requiring etc. subscriptions in order to read their articles.
If the cost is even half that, at $30 to get your name on the page, thats 1,667 names they're going to have to cram into the advert. And if only a portion of each donation goes towards the cost of the Ad, there'll be even more names. There'll be no space left for the message!
Someone has not thought this through at all.
446 for me. This was just over an hour after the Slashdot story was put up.
Kind of surprised there are so few putting their money where their mouth is.
Mozilla at least had the "preload to ram" option to help launch times.
FF has no such thing, and since I switched my parents to it, they usually launch 15 or so copies, clicking away waiting for the window to appear. I talked to them about this behavior but they just don't care. Ah well.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Isn't this quite a narrow advertising effort - for a start, do the dead-tree ads appear on the NYT website (unlikely) and also, isn't this limited to only people who buy the dead-tree NYT (yes, I know that's not just New Yorkers)? It seems quite a US-centric advertising effort - who outside the US would bother contributing to it?
I for one welcome our new Firefox overlords.
Hail to the godzilla! Long live Mozilla Firefox
Mozilla is killing me here - I thought that the whole point of open source was for users to decide ON THIER OWN if they want to switch from the commercial apps to free ones?!
Why advertise? Especially in the times? Are you guys nuts?
Fools. Try raising money for homless people or those without food or running water. That's more admirable that getting me to switch from IE to FireFox because IE enables Active-X by default..
Geezus.
Still wondering why this "charity" would be more worthwhile than one that say, oh I dunno, feeds hungry people, provides health care for sick people, keeps tabs on our government, etc.?
:)
It's not.
Donate to both.
Problem solved.
The enemies of Democracy are
The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organisation and therefore all money made has to go to furthering the foundation
Or paying the executives. There's no reason a "non-profit" can't pay it's CEO $1,000,000/year, and still not show a profit.
I don't respond to AC's.
Okay, well, Firefox is better than IE already (for starters, I'm using Firefox right now but somehow IE just doesn't work on my Mandrake Linux system), but three hours ago we learn of Firefox crapping out on bogus HTML code where MS IE was demonstrably more robust.
I would like to see these errors fixed in Firefox before it is launched (as v1.0) and before the NYTimes ad, and not only because we want Firefox to be ready to make a good first impression. Fixing these errors also shows me that the Mozilla Dev team is willing to take a realistic view of how good their product is, acknowledge problems, and fix it. Until they do that, I'm not prepared to spend money promoting the product.
I recognize that fixing these HTML parsing errors will take an ungodly amount of time. It will probably mean pushing the release date into December or 2005. But if they don't, MozDev (I mean the Mozilla Development Team) would then be acting like a large corporation: plan the budget two years ahead of time, plan the schedule one year ahead of time, and stick to it no matter what happens "or else senior management will have our heads!" Well, one advantage of non-corporate F/OSS is the agility in revising schedules and the large clout of the technical staff rather than marketing.
Please, MozDev, recognize the problem: Firefox crashes, and MS IE doesn't. Fix it. You are the shining example of F/OSS, the #1 application usable on Windows and F/OSS OS's alike. Don't let the hype and the need to "save face" push you into launching Firefox before it's ready. Microsoft pushed back Longhorn; you can push back FF v1.0.
And lest I sound like an ingrate, Firefox has been an absolutely astounding piece of software that is key to refuting Microsoft's claim that "F/OSS doesn't work". It's exactly for this reason that I don't want it all ruined because Mozilla puts out a full-page ad before it robustly parses improper HTML.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
The editorial history of the Times is vile. In the early 20th century it promoted eugenics as a "wonderful" new science. In 1927, it was delighted by Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court decision declaring forced sterilization constitutional. Just this year it refused to give back a Pulitizer won in the early 1930s for covering up Stalin's murder of millions of Ukranian farmers. It the late 1950s it helped put the worst dictator in the Western hemisphere in power (Castro).
In the 1960s, it helped to cloak the drive for abortion legalization (intended to reduce the birthrates of poor blacks, hispanics and whites) behind a hysteria about a "population explosion"--while the US birthrate plunged rather than soared. More recently, it has found little of interest in the 300,000 people buried in mass graves in Iraqi. Pointing to them would make the paper's own "Great Satan," President Bush, look like the decent man he is. You could go on and on. There's little that's really nasty and foul done that it hasn't championed.
Those who want read how the liberal media in general promoted state-controlled breeding (eugenics and forced sterilization) can go to Eugenics and the News Media for more details.
Those who want to understand the 1960s drive for abortion legalization can read this PDF: Preface to The Pivot of Civilization. The entire book, a history of Planned Parenthood's roots, has been released under a Creative Commons license and will download from here: The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective. That's quite a deal. The hardback version of the book retails for $50. Feel free to pass copies on.
The good folk working with FireFox are making a serious ethical blunder. Compared to the New York Times, even Microsoft's evils are as nothing. Gates may be greedy and power hungry, but he's yet to become an open champion of scientific bigotry and forced sterilization. Nor has he helped to conceal mass murder or abortion as an elitist eugenic measure. For those, you must turn to the nation's "Bigots of Record"--the editors and reporters of the New York Times.
The idea of buying a full-page ad in the Times should be dumped. Something good like open source shouldn't be giving money to such a foul beast.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
i always feel better when i see a splash screen. if FF had this, then people would not be tempted to re-click.
I just commented on that. In fact all of you should.
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
Help get Firefox full-page ad in The New York Times!
Please bear with us while we weather a Slashdotting!
If they can't handle a Slashdotting, how are they going to deal with a New-York Times-ing?The latest proposal by the powers that be is that Firefox 1.0 be distrubuted under what they call an "end user license agreement" that disallows modification or distribution, and that restricts what you can use Firefox for--similar to the terms of Microsoft's software. If this happens, I will not be using Firefox in the future.
I personally think that the same thing that happened to XFree will probably happen to Firefox, assuming they go that route. I'm not sure if its possible, considering I havent read the licensing around the Mozilla Organization, but it wouldnt surprise me to see a fork of the last possible version the minute they adopt more restrictive licensing.
.
"Practically" a religion? Just thank Marc that you're not being proselytized by the Church of Emacs.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
What if the names are the message? Like if they make a Firefox logo by coloring the names (in small print) the right colors, or something like that. You can be creative about it and still make it fit.
Oh, by full page, do they mean a full spread of left, right, top and bottom (like a whole sheet) or just one side of that?
Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist
The only thing I read in the post is the NYPD Blotter and the Weird But True segments. And I only pick the paper up on the train after someone has left it.
Now on the other hand, the NYT is a paper that's read all over the world. Granted it might not be the best newspaper ever published, but it does have a wider audience than the NY Post. Isn't the goal here to reach as many Joes as possible?
If I can't know it'll be free now and forever, I will not give my money for it. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
If they want some restrictive "end user license agreement", then they're not getting my money.
Windows XP SP2 / FF 1.0PR
I get so tired of having to copy, tab, paste, didnt work, tab back, copy, copy, copy, copy, tab, paste. Dammit. tab, copy, copy, tab, paste. FUCKING COME ON. tab, copy, copy, tab, paste. There, finally.
Apparently I'm not the only one with the issue.
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200 for copy paste bug firefox.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
They should add the update functionality before an actual "1.0", don't you think?
/. firefox stories. This feature should have top priority in the current firefox development. Or do you want to get first a 20% market share to disgruntle and disappoint the masses (painful uninstall, install, get all extensions again process). They will back off from firefox and lose their interest in IE alternatives.
This has been discussed a couple of times, especially in the latest
It may seem a little harsh, but in the Macs we don't have nearly the same browser monoculture we have in Windows. And of course, the Windows user base is an order of magnitude larger than Macintosh's. So the battle must be fought in Win32 world.
OTOH, if you really mean by saying that 'Safari already won that battle' is that there's no need to use anything but Safari, then you're thinking down the same path that led us to our current predicament. By the same token, too high a usage rate for Firefox (above 70%) is also a bad thing, but considering that scenario is rather far-fetched, no one worries about it today.
AC, well said. I wish more people realized the same thing.
A portion of each donation will go towards taking out a full-page ad
Where does the rest go? Into someones pockets. Do not donate to this scam.
Sure. If you explain what "it" stands for (oh...and what on Earth does the BSD license to do with Firefox--I was talking about the MPL and NPL).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/023 6213&tid=113&tid=128&tid=154&tid=2 18
Is that all going to fit?
Anyway... $30 and I get my name in the NYT? Sounds good to me. But, someone out there is going to have to get me a print copy as I'm UK based.
It being the BSD license, and how people state "Don't put it under GPL, put it under BSD instead, for it is superior"...
to firefox, slashdot will have to fi x the layout for all those extra users.
I'm sure they will attain their goal; I'm trying to get to the Donate Page now!
I'm trying to get the Donate Page to take my money. Keeps insisiting my ZIP code is wrong for my credit card. Most assuredly, it isn't...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If you had actually read the bug this file is attached to you'd have noticed that this was a first proposal based on Netscape's old licence *AND* that it has already been shot down - so where's the big scandal?
(Along those same lines - I hate that suddenly just about every recent installer for GPLed software displays the GPL as an EULA when the GPL is only binding for those people that distribute the software and not neccessarily the end-user who just uses a pre-compiled binary. Why should those end-users have to provide sources et al as long as they don't distribute modified binaries? The GPL is no end-user license; it's usually in a file called COPYING.txt, not USAGE.txt...)
np: Ulrich Schnauss - Clear Day (A Strangely Isolated Place)
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
Maybe about:credits is a good place to start. Am maybe I'm biased because my name is already there.
Joseph Elwell.
Why not the Wall Street Journal or something that is more relevant to everyone. Not everyone reads NYT. USA Today would be better...
-- $G
How are they abusing their power? This is a legit piece of OSS, licensed under the OSF approved Mozilla Public License.
/. legal teachings, trademarks are lost if they are not protected. See Xerox, Kleenex, and maybe eventually Google for such instances. Lack of trademarked artwork in no way hinders the actual functionality of the software, so what's the problem? In a more practical sense, protecting their trademark also ensures that not just anyone can roll a Firefox build, put in lots of crappy patches that make it suck, and make it look just as legit as the official builds. In that instance, who gets the blame for a shoddy product? More than likely not the person who made the build.
The "artwork" problem you mention stemmed from the fact that MF is protecting its trademarks. The code itself is free and available, but as you may remember from
Plus, what bug # are you referring to? You link to an attachment, but an attachment means nothing without the discussion and context of the actual bug. Not to mention the attachment has a revision date of June 2004.
Right now, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Marketing and brand recognition is one of the categories where OSS suffers, simply because everyone is busy coding and resources are scarce. Even recently, most of the major marketing efforts on *behalf of* Linux are coming from major corporations (with cash), such as IBM, Novell, and RedHat. Linus is too busy to be worried about TV ads (rightfully so). It's good to see that Mozilla recognizes this is a weakness, and continues to address it.
Don't forget that because this is all open source, if something really truly bad starts to happen, nothing stops you from branching and starting your own project. See xorg if you need an example.
How many people in the target audience actually care about versions numbers? Let's be realistic here its probably between 0 and 0. People who have not heard about Firefox already (ie the target audience) are not going to say "oh its ONLY 1.0, I'll wait for 2.0". Version numbers only matter to geeks not normal users. My wife, my father, my brother, and my mother all would NOT be able to answer the question "What versions of IE and Windows Media Player do you use?". And these are people who surf the web, do spreadsheets etc on a daily basis. Icon placement and name are what matters. Version number does not. Trust me that's the last thing people are going to think about when they see this ad.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Typed very quickly--sorry if this does not make much sense:
*If* MF are going down this route--I've had my suspicions for some time and even more so now, but my grandparent post may have been a little presumptious--then, the MPL would allow the code to be forked, so long-term there would be no problem, but MF could make it a pain to do so--in fact maybe peeps should download what they can off Mozilla.Org. I, also, don't know how clear it is in the CVS who owns all the copyright and what everything is licensed under. It is possible for them to play on uncertainty.
Personally, I think for the very reason that it would be forked, MF will not go the whole hog (and make it `more' proprietary if that is possible--bit like "more free" or "more unique"). They may (and have to some extent) play on the uncertainty surrounding which bits are proprietary and which are free though. If I'm being really cynical, one could argue that the whole popular NYT-ad &c marketing stunts are about advertising Mozilla Foundation & Firefox so they get popular with the non-freedom-aware masses, so that if it forked most users would still use the MF version regardless of whether it is proprietary or not.
It is possible that MF `only' want to create a cloud of uncertainty over whether the software they release is free or proprietary so they can threaten lawsuits against someone or something. IMO, however, this is worse than making it proprietary. At least M$ are honest and freely admit that their software is proprietary (& you have to sell your soul to them &c...). In fact if an organisations attempts to confuse/cloud what a piece of software's licensing terms are, this is, theoretically, the time whne everyone (even proprietary-software lovers) should ditch it and try and fork if legally possible. MF are trying to release Moz & Fx under several different licenses already (some contradicting each other--in fact the new "EULA" has terms to deal with contradicting MF licenses). They also have a "trademark license" which is actually a copyright license in disguise. This sort of legal confusion is starting to piss of me (and probably other users and developers).
NB: Even before the EULA gets implemented (if it does), the artwork and crash-reporter are proprietary, thereby making Firefox proprietary. Also it already asks you to agree to MPL (which is pointless) when installing.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
This was not a proposal, if you would care to actually read the bug this was attached to, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25267 9
The Bug is that Firefox needs an EULA, and the reporter of the bug just added Netscape's old EULA as a starting point. They then realized that that EULA's language is not going to work, and are now working on a new one.
I actually prefer the close button for all tabs being on the right. If you prefer it on each button, its probably possible to write an extension to change it
What REALLY bugs me about FF on OS X is the fact that middle click opening links in new tabs is broken. That is the single reason why I've stayed with safari.
The only time I've ever seen this happen is when I "upgraded" my father's computer from Windows ME to 98. Before I had the correct drivers installed and it was displaying in 16 colors, Firefox wouldn't load, but Mozilla would. Probably something to do with the display hardware or software.
To stop this sort of thing, it really should be illegal (if it is not already) to misrepresent how something is licensed. Telling other people they can copy something when they cannot (or even giving them contradictory messages) is IMO worse than illegally copying it yourself.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Or maybe the FOSS community should look at Mozilla and what they're doing right. How many other open source project are as successful as Mozilla? On the desktop? Cross-platform? Against Microsoft? You know, maybe the "FOSS methods" methods you mention are just not as good as traditional marketing for these sorts of applications.
:)
The *real* *question* is whether Firefox is free or open-source?
No, that's not the *real* question. Hate to break it to you, but only a very very tiny minority even worries about that question. Real questions that matter to the success of Mozilla are things like: is it easy to use? Is it standards compliant? Is it easy to install?
This is an example of why copyleft is superior to less-restrictive licenses
I disagree. Oh, you mean, the GPL is superior because is restricts what I can do with the code.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
So lets get this straight. I criticised the MPL/NPL. You now think I should explain to you why the BSD license (not one I mentioned) is better than the BSD license ("it").
Well, it would be handy knowing which BSD license you mean and what "better" means, but anyway, if both "BSD license"s refer to the same license, you are asking me to say whether an undisclosed license associated with BSD is better than itself.
Well this is very interesting question because if I say it is better than itself then it logically cannot be, and if I say....
Oh nevermind...why am I talking to dumbass ACs?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Not too much difference between them. I know many people who would change banks just because they are going to be charged $5 a month for the online service, and feel the service should be free.
Blar.
I like and use Firefox. But to be perfectly honest, it isn't the huge leap over IE that people want it to be. The achievement has been in getting something to run as well as IE, which is monstrously difficult in itself (one of the very first times an open source group has equalled commercial software in terms of user experience).
The primary benefits of Firefox are:
1. Security. You don't get spyware and such. You can also get the same result if you disable ActiveX controls and other features in IE, but most people don't do this. If Microsoft changed the defaults--which they won't because many sites depend on them--then IE would be on part with FF.
2. Tabbed browsing. This is a fairly small interface feature, though a very useful one. If Microsoft added it to IE--and they undoubtedly will, because it's easy to do--then there goes the biggest visible difference.
I realize that FF has other nice features (and I fully agree with people who cite them, because, again, I like and use FF), but those are the biggies. And the big negative feature is simply this: Sites that rely on ActiveX controls don't work under FF. Yes, I know, security, blah, blah, blah, but most people only see the "not working" part.
What about Camino? It's my choice on Mac OS X.
citi-bank.com does not resolve according to nslookup.
Or maybe the FOSS community should look at >>Mozilla and what they're doing right...<<
/. which has an annoying interface for keyboard use)--I'm at uni and don't have a PC in my halls set up yet.]
I love Mozilla, and I love Firefox even more and have done ever since before 0.1. I was questioning the recent thinking of some of the people at MF, not whether Mozilla & Firefox are the best things since sliced bread (which, incidentally, is not that great).
>>You know, maybe the "FOSS methods" methods you mention are just not as good as traditional marketing for these sorts of applications.<<
I actually agree with you on that point. You probably need both for *marketing*. It is one of the reasons why I like Mozilla & Firefox. I, as I stated am not sure whether the NYT ad is the most efficient way to spend marketing money--it is not as clear as some of the other campaigns--but maybe I will be proved wrong.
>>but only a very very tiny minority even worries about that question.<<
Mainly because they do not realise it exists and what the real difference between the two is. If you people took the time to understand/research what the question meant (both from pragmatic and moral, and short- and long-term perspective)... I was expressing a fear that some unscrupulous people (I don't know who) in MF may play on the masses' ignorance on this issue.
>>is it easy to use? Is it standards compliant? Is it easy to install?<<
You think that using an open and free model might not have had something to do with these things? You think that if you use an MS-style proprietary business model, you would get standards-compliance and ease of use?
>>I disagree. Oh, you mean, the GPL is superior because is restricts what I can do with the code.<<
Well...not specifically you...but it does stop free software from being made into proprietary software (which if some get their way looks like it could be the way of Mozilla & Firefox--parts of them are already proprietary actually--but I hope and think that this will probably not happen.) It also clears up confusion over whether a particular version of the software is free or proprietary--especially where a company/organisation chooses to lie about this. You might think about these things as superiour (in the sense of usually encouraging freedom) especially to a license like NPL where one organisation (was NS apparently now MF) has special powers to make a proprietary fork of a free-software package.
Hopefully that made sense. [I'm very tired, hungry, being on PC too long and fed up with using a PC without a mouse installed (along with Moz 1.0 which cleverly doesn't have as many key shortcuts as later versions and
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
This might help : (from http://users.tns.net/~skingery/firefox/Home_Page.h tml)
/Prefetch:1 to the end of the line in the target field.
/Prefetch:1
Firefox is slow to load initially on Windows XP. You can speed this up a bit by using XP's built in prefetcher. Simply right-click on the Firefox icon you use to start the browser. Add the text
The whole line should look something like the following:
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
Well I get new product recommendations on slashdot all the time. Heh. You damn geeks making me spend my hard-earned student loans.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Theres a few reasons why I use FireFox instead of Safari on OS X:
1) Tab close button on the tab itself... it's a real hassle when I go to switch a tab and actually close it by being a little off the mark.
2) No confirmation for closing the actual window when you have tabs open. If by some mistake, you actually close the whole window (either by not thinking for a moment or mistakenly thinking you're closing a browser window opened from a link) it's extremely annoying that it will close all your tabs. Firefox and Mozilla will ask for confirmation when closing a window with multiple tabs.
3) Rendering is busted! My website doesn't render correctly in Safari 1.3 and it's W3C COMPLIANT! So wtf there. Granted, it renders fine in 2.0 that is distributed with the OS X 10.4 preview but still the fact it took them years to get to that point is a little silly. (I guess I just hold Apple to a higher standard than others).
4) Completely lack of extensibility. I understand that simple is good and all and that's what most people like about it but sheesh some sort of plug-in api would be nice.
Those are my gripes and why I don't use Safari.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
You laugh but I'm applying for a job at MS.
No frickin' way I'd publish my name on there!
A lot of it has to do with designers and marketing departments that are overly concerned with pixel perfect "branding" and not so much with actual functionality/sales. They would actually prefer that someone who won't be getting the pixel-perfect "experience" not see the site at all.
because some dumbass AC's are paranoid members at work who don't want their information saved.
I'm talking about how oftentimes I see on a forum or such someone will release their little "tool" under GPL, and then a fanboy will say xBSD License is SO much better than that atrocity that is GPL, and then they state GPL is weak.
You have however stated that GPL is stronger at protecting open source in the standard of "Open", so I was asking for some sort of proof that this is correct.
Oh nevermind...why am I talking to a fellow TinFoilHat who isn't so TFH as to login?
...and filed appropriately (flushhhhh)
Firefox already renders most of the web properly, or at least effectively. Also, I've only ever had Firefox crash on ONE site (and none since upgrading to 0.9 and later), NOT one of every six that I visited. Slashdot now renders correctly. In all cases where there have been rendering problems it was attributed to broken HTML or IE-only plugins or other junk.
Anyways, ALL standards (not just W3C) are recommendations (there are no laws mandating conformance--otherwise they wouldn't be called standards--they would be REGULATIONS). And in my personal/freelance development work EVERYTHING I use is fully compliant (my personal home page for example, is fully/strictly compliant to XHTML 1.1 and CSS 2). So no, not EVERYONE uses non-standard tools and methods. If an ordinary joe like me can do it, everyone else on the net can too...no excuses.
My point is that Firefox need only render popular sites that are reasonably conformant. Who cares if some idiot's blog on Geocities can't render? More importantly, Firefox has to do it reliably and securely, and fail gracefully (not chrashing--rather it should show error messages or display as much as possible based on accurately following standards). By doing this and driving towards 10-20% market share and beyond, developers will be pressured into using standards, just like the rising market share of IE resulted in the stagnation and blight of IE-only plugins/BHOs, activex, etc.
And in other news, BSD is dying, the Internet will implode soon, and an asteroid will hit Florida on November 1.
What are you talking about.
1) In safari the tabs are fixed size. Once you have more tabs then can fit on your bar you have to use the stupid drop down. In firefox the tabs automatically resize temselves.
2) Firefox has more features including some I can't live without like find as you type.
3) firefox looks better (IMHO).
4) Better popup blocking and flash bocking.
5) Profiles
6) "Block images from this server"
I could go on and on.
You may like safari better and I respect that but don't go around pretending that everybody would feel the same way. I for one think that firefox is a way better browser then Safari and I bet many other would feel the same way.
evil is as evil does
This is just as non-free as qmail, and people really desipse it for that. Why should it be different from Mozilla?
I use both macs and windows quite a bit so I'd like to point out a few things.
Safari is a damn nice browser on OSX. I agree about the minimalist interface, and it is pretty fast considering I use it on a 700mhz G3 (ouch). I've used several versions of firefox on OSX and they seem really crappy and slow. I can understand why a lot of Mac users would be turned off by it. One of the reasons for this though is that they're focusing a majority of their effort on the Windows side of things. This may suck to people who don't use Windows, but it makes sense. They want to make a difference and Windows is over 90% of the market, so of course they're going to focus on that the most.
You cant judge firefox until you've used it on Windows. It is DAMN nice, and blazingly fast. It's also really stable, even with assloads of extensions installed. I have about 10 extensions installed, and I have a crash maybe once every few months. That's average with any other browser I'd say.
That's one of the thigns that sucks about safari though - it's not extensible. You get only what Apple wants you to get. Extensions in firefox are a god send and let you customize your browser exactly the way you want it. This is one of its best selling points, along with the awesome rendering engine (gecko) of course.
So I'm not really sure what my point is, but I guess it sounded like you hadn't tried firefox on anything but OSX. I just wanted to say that on Windows, it kicks serious ass, and Microsoft should be starting to get a bit worried by now.
Joseph?
I would like to try Firefox. Where is a version that's built for glibc 2.2? (I'm using SuSE 8.1, and this installation is just a bit more than a year old. I consider installations of such an age not as new any more, but still as current.) Demanding glibc 2.3 is not a Good Thing(tm), IMO.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Of course that's true, and it's easy to turn against them.
That's why I signed up as Osama Bin Laden, George W Bush, and Kerry (to cover all bases). Once Microsoft finishes going after those guys, look out Bill!
The flickering on Gamespot is due to bug 132337 . This was fixed last week, but I'm not sure it'll make it into Firefox 1.0.
For onlt $500 you get your business name and something like 14 names in a seperate box.
Having a buiness name appear in the NYT has to count for something...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
it's still up. But it's grinded to a halt...
No one has mentioned the one feature of Safari that keeps me using it. You can use command-shift-left arrow or right arrow to switch between tabs. I use that keboard shortcut more than any other when browsing. I like Firefox, I use it for website that Safari doesn't play nice with, but I'd use it a lot more if I could use a keyboard shortcut to switch tabs.
Actually neither of those things you said about the attachment are at all clear to me from the bug comments or the attachment itself (but I'm tired), but, assuming you are right, the bug itself seems to nonetheless be calling for further restrictions on Firefox's licensing (and does have serious support) which can only be a bad thing.
There isn't a big scandal yet (except the more minor thing that, as I've stated elsewhere, some (dispensible) parts of Firefox are already proprietary).
WRT forcing people to agree to the GPL:
Licenses are not agreements, so it makes no sense agreeing to a license (hence license agreement in "EULA" is an oxymoron which I think means that it is actually an agreement or contract but one that is a bit like a license (or that the agreement's author wants you to think is)). [It doesn't make much sense as license and agreements are diametrically opposed from a legal perspective: the former is a (not necessarily solicited) one-way permission to do something (e.g.: letting someone fish in your lake); the latter, a two-way agreement between parties involving reward for both sides (e.g.: buying and selling).]
Also, there are two possible legal issues with trying to force users to agree to the GNU GPL, that I can think of:
* Firstly, depending how the text of such a dialog box is phrased, it could (and is likely to) violate the "copyright" (EIR&DR) of third-party copyright holders of parts of that software--who have chosen to release only under the GNU GPL (or a less permissive license)--by attempting to put restrictions on use of the software.
* Secondly, one may argue that the inclusion of the GNU GPL (linked) within the software itself results in that software being non-free as the GNU GPL is non-free (at least the preamble is and the FSF have given mixed messages about the rest).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
1) Tab close button on the tab itself... it's a real hassle when I go to switch a tab and actually close it by being a little off the mark.
Exactly. Why would a user want to close something she's not looking at?
Does the Dock have a little X next to each icon where you can end a program? Of course not, that would lead to data-loss accidents. You first have to restore the program so you can see its window, and then click on the X to quit it.
I've been a fan of Moz since the start and before that Netscape, I've donated my $30 :)
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
1) In safari the tabs are fixed size. Once you have more tabs then can fit on your bar you have to use the stupid drop down. In firefox the tabs automatically resize temselves.
Conversely, firefox has a minimum size to which it will shrink a tab. Once you hit that point, additional tabs just pour off into nowhereland. They keep opening, but you can never see the tabs to click on them.
Firefox needs a way to produce a menu of ALL webpages you have open- in any tab, in any window...
Just thought I'd share that with whoever reads this.
ctrl-tab and ctrl-shift-tab. Now switch. :)
Advertising like that is likely a waste of money. Why not use those funds to pay the programmers to make FireFox even better?
I'm still using 0.8 on my iBook, and it not only works perfectly fine, but it's got a nice Safari-like toolbar theme (albeit aqua rather than metal). It looks at least as Mac-like as Safari. The only problem is that I haven't found a theme for newer Firefox that looks like this, which is why I haven't upgraded yet.
I use it instead of Safari because I like the tab handling (as others have described) better.
Anyway, if you want I can email you my copy -- just email me at mrchaotica (at) gmail or write your email in a reply to this post (that goes for anyone, by the way).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Mozilla foundation has a BIG following. Why not just declare one day a 'Mozilla Day' and have everyone who likes Mozilla and wants to help use a Mozilla-supplied .signature that day. Maybe a Mozilla Day could be a Mozilla Week or Mozilla Month. Wouldn't that be more effective than the NY Times ad, in the end?
Simpy
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
Although I mostly use Opera (works just a bit better then FF for me, although FF is pretty close now), whenever I come at a page that does not render properly in Opera or FF I always look for a 'contact'-possibillity on the site and use it to inform the webmaster. :-) ) and ask them to do something about it. Many times I get an answer that this problem was unknown and will be looked at. It's been a long time ago that I got an answer in the sense of "Well, maybe YOU have a problem, but all the rest of our clients/visitors use IE and it works for them so we won't change a thing". (But no answer is still not uncommon, alas).
I give a description of the problems, tell them wich browser(s) I use (and that I use IE only at gunpoint
So if you experience (sp?) problems with a site, tell the webmaster. (S)He will find out that IE is NOT the only browser in this world and many times pay attention to the problems.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Just give us a full-page spread of Firefox-ko and Thunderbird-ko, that'll get everyone's attention.
[o]_O
FYI, Bank of America works just fine in Firefox and Mozilla.
From 6:24am this morning
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
what would be a good for launch publicity is to 'cheat' firefox into the top ranking hit for anything relating to web browsers. :-D
Google for internet explorer, firefox comes out top hit, Google for web browser, firefox comes out as top hit. You get the idea
My other OS is also FreeBSD
He could hardly be serious.
They key problem with your statement here (and everyone else who makes these claims) is the confusion about who "I" is referring to. By stating your point in this manner, you leave a grey area that leads people to assume that the GPL somehow abridges the rights of the person who created the content (as compared to a BSD-style license).
The truth of the matter is that as compared to a BSD-style license, none of the author's rights are further abridged by going GPL - it is the end-user's rights which are further abridged.
GPL = I make code. I give code to everyone. Everyone shares my creation in the spirit that I originally created it, or they're not allowed to share in it at all.
BSD = I make code. I give code to everyone. Nice people share my creation in the spirit that I originally created it, but mean people are free to steal my ideas and their augmentations from the free community and make a killing off of it, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
The only tenable position from which one can argue that their rights were restricted by the GPL is the position of the mean guy above, who was trying to rip off the open source coder. In which case you can suck it.
11*43+456^2
Well then, as you seem to be so smart. Explain than why all linux distro's can use the name Linux freely (and patch the kernel as they see fit), but cannot use the freaking icon of firefox on their desktop if they actually fix bugs in firefox?
This stinks, and is exactly why i don't use it. Its a nice browser, and lots of OSS people contribute effort and patches to improve it. But I hope they don't forget this now that they are gaining users.
Interesting to see if power doesn't only corrupt corporations, but also foundations....
Filler: Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s,
http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/ads.html
e Win95.jpg
n ilaSitesCom/welibm.jpg
I prefer this one:
http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads5/Appl
or this one:
http://static.userland.com/manilasites/images/MMa
This is by far the biggest problem with the Internet business model. Consumers want free content, producers want to give consumers what they want, providers want to charge producers or tax consumers through intrusive ads. Consumers hate the ads because they want their free content. Consumers already feel like they've given their share of money by paying the ISP for the cost of entry.
Nobody has come up with a bulletproof business model, but one suggestion has been to meter your data like your electricity, water, and gas. That could work, as long as the money went back to the source's provider. That way, the cost of provision is shared by those who use it. This system could be unnecessarily cumbersome and no doubt costly to set up.
Are there websites that offer more theories or business models for the Internet on a large scale? My quick Google search revealed business models for businesses on the Internet.
I appreciate the effort, for sure. It's good to see someone actually doing something to increase awareness to the masses.
However -- if alternative, standards-compliant web browsers are ever going to be taken seriously by typical home users who couldn't care less, the community should be doing more than a full page ad containing "Congrats on reaching version 1!" followed by a list of obscure names of geeks who donated.
How many of these individuals can even tell you what version of the AOL InterWeb they are using now?
It would most likely be more beneficial to spend the money on a targeted, well-rounded, cross-media, strategic advertising campaign that communicates WHY the software should be taken seriously and the consequences of not doing so in non-technical terms.
Advertising on a nationally syndicated computer help radio show like Kim Komando's would be a good start.
Hopefully this one ad won't be the last thing the Spread Firefox group will do. I look forward to what comes next.
Explain than why all linux distro's can use the name Linux freely (and patch the kernel as they see fit)
Because Linus Torvalds allows them to use the trademarked name.
Dare I mention that you can right-click a tab in Firefox and have the option of closing it without activating it?
it just doesn't cut it for me...Safari already won that battle on OS
From personal preference to sweeping generalization? I personally loath Safari, from its heavy brushed-metal interface, to its poor handling of password-protected (pr0n) sites, to its more frequent crashes and lack of extensibility. Oh, and it's slower. YMMV.
I've been using firefox for a while now and there is a serious (and annoying) bug that causes firefox to use 100% cpu quite frequently. It was present on 0.9 and still is on 1.0 PR.
Only a very poorly-designed app wouldn't prompt the user to save any unsaved information before quitting.
Not true. The fact that you are looking at page 12 of document ABC.HTM is itself a kind of data; data that will be lost when quit. Sure, ABC.HTM is easy enough to remember, but real-world URLs can be hundreds of characters long.
It's the same with tabs. The relative scarcity of actually wanting to close a tab you're not currently viewing, multiplied by the proportional ease of doing that in 1 click rather than 2, is less than the effort it would take to recover a lost web page from memory/history (multiplied by the probablity). Then there's the fact that needing to avoid those dangerous close-buttons in between each tab forces a user to click far slower than otherwise possible.
Actually, you can right- (or control-) click on a program's icon and select "Quit" to quit it.
I was, of course, only referring to the fastest way to accomplish something.
Furthermore, what is this shit about putting everybody's name in the NY Times?
The best thing would be to have the names as light grey text on a white background, as a background to the whole ad.
From http://www.askmen.com/women/singer_60/95_samantha_ fox.html
Why We Like Her
Sam Fox not only sang deep, meaningful songs, but she jiggled while doing it.
Why is She Famous
Samantha Fox is one of the world's most famous singers. Her song "Touch Me," is instantly recognizable anywhere. Her posters (nude and clothed) are among the most common in any of the world's car garages, and one of the most successful ever.
Each one of us has different memories of Samantha Fox. If you are from the UK, you inevitably remember the ultimate Page 3 girl. If you are from anywhere else in the world, you undoubtedly remember the songs "Touch Me," "Naughty Girls (Need Love To)," or "I Only Wanna Be With You."
She was one of the '80s biggest female acts, and one of its most photographed. Her albums reached the Number 1 position in 15 countries (her best result in the US was the Number 5 spot), and she easily sold out arenas. She once performed for over 200,000 fans in 3 days in India, and had 50,000 people in Colombia wait for her at the airport.
You can get Safari-style tabs in Mac Firefox.
IANAL... /., escrow. In this case, if they said that people could copy even when the license said they couldn't could make that point in the license irrelevant.
i learned a term here on
yes, i didn't quite get what exactly escrow means.
The attachment is on bug 252679. Rafael Ebron, who attached it, said "this attachment is invalid and the review is '-'. A EULA is needed to protect us from frivolous lawsuits and that's all."
The shareholder is always right.
too bad i won't see the firefox ad in the new york times since i am using firefox with an ad-blocking/popup-stopping script. muahaha.
If anyone can use the firefox name and logo for their own version of firefox, then people can stick ad/malware and distribute their own version of it, which could give firefox a bad name ("i downloaded firefox and i got 30 porn popups, and my cpu caught fire from the extra cpu load, don't use it!").
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Very clever idea.
However they might just see an OEM rate increase for Windows if they did that. If I were Michael Dell I would be afraid of that.
But certainly if Alienware or a smaller vendor or better yet Apple includes Firefox in addition to Safri, it would surely increase the adaption rate.
http://saveie6.com/
Safari is not a great browser. It has significant compatability problems, at least with the pages I used it with.
Camino is the way to go. Once loaded, it's as fast as Safari, and it's MUCH better at rendering correctness. It's designed for OS X, and looks like a native app. It has had a minimalist interface similar to Safari's since before Safari existed. It's easily the best browser for Mac.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
But isn't that exactly the point of FOSS, that someone can build and release their own version?
If you can only use your changes privately, then it's not much better than MS's Shared Source...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
If 'open source' were only an ideological one, then you might be right. But it's not -- Mozilla more than anything has shown that it has practical benefits, too. Most people might not care that Mozilla is free and open source, but they do care that it's fast, secure, well featured, supports standards, and is in active development. And those are all a direct result of it being free and open source.
Whether FireFox continues to be free and open source is important to everyone, whether they realise it or not, because that affects whether it'll continue to be all of those things in the future.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Keep in mind that according to the roadmap, Firefox 1.0 for OS X is lagging behind 1.0 for the other platforms. So you're right, it's not ready on OS X, but they're not claiming that it is.
they should create a msi installation image for mass deployment! they should spend money creating that package instead of placing it on an add and they will get more conversions. we have hundreds of computers just waiting for a switch to firefox. though there are some msi installations created by 3rd party, i would like it come from the team. they should also be able to integrate it to group policy in windows.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
And personally, I use Saft and PithHelmet to address your other concerns.
Oh get of ya'll high horsey, if its good and free as in no cash needed, then use it.
Otherwise, go and stick to IE and die, or pay for opera or MYIE.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Get Mozilla Firefox It doesn't make that annoying sound when you click on links.
I hate to say this, but they better raise a LOT of money for a full-page New York Times ad. I believe such an ad will cost US$50,000 for the national edition, and circa US$80,000 for the New York metro edition.
I do think that putting it in USA Today is a better choice, since USA Today is widely available all over the USA.
I agree there should be a way to get to them but they don't disappear. They will appear once again as you close other tabs.
evil is as evil does
Heck, to come to think of it, if they'd use somethnig like AAlib ... they could even use 'letters' to construct up images =)
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
Here's the same thing in FireFox -- it scales tabs exactly the same way.
Why invest in a newspaper ad when we could reach our audience through cheap popup ads?
In my opinion they should post lots of portraits of Slashdotters who have already switched so the general public could see that the most cool people already use it, think "ipse dixit?" and instantly want to jump on the bandwagon as well, because of their emotional appeal. This is an appeal to popularity, argumentum ad verecundiam and ad populum at the same time. Granted, it is a genetic fallacy, appeal to misleading authority and ignoratio elenchi, but strangely enough it really works well in marketing directed to profanum vulgus, it's always been. We will only have to present it in the form of an argument by consensus. There should be cool and "3173" people on one side, all using Firebird, Mozilla, and Galeon, and boring people on the other side, wearing suits and using Internet Explorer, Opera, Netscape, and other proprietary software. This is a great idea.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Yes till about 15 tabs. Firefox can accomodate over 25 on my screen.
evil is as evil does
Here's Firefox with 25 tabs open -- each tab only has a favicon listed, which makes it difficult to determine what each tab is. Additionally, you can't access all the tabs at once -- it doesn't even offer a pull-down menu to access tabs past the edge.
Safari manages to keep the visible tabs at a useable size, and provides a simple way to access the rest. Firefox shrinks tabs to the point of uselessness, and prevents you from accessing the overflow.
i find that ebanking on HSBC is impossible for me because the ebanking gateway doesn't recognise teh LINUX os!!! NOT good. i have to use Konqueror with spoofing turned on to get it to work
meh
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
BSD = I make code. I give code to everyone. Nice people share my creation in the spirit that I originally created it, but mean people are free to steal my ideas and their augmentations from the free community and make a killing off of it, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
How are they stealing your ideas if you just gave your ideas to them and said the ideas can be used however they want? And since when is making money mean and not making money nice?
thus, it is a more international choice.
Also, at this step, you probably want the "more informed and better educated" readership, they are more likely to be semi-early adopters of a "new" product.
"each tab has enough space available to feature a meaningful label, and 'overflow' tabs are available in a pull-down menu."
What you consider a feature I consider an annoyance. I don't want the damned overflow feature I want more tabs I can click on directly.
evil is as evil does
You can still build and release it as MyCustomBrowser, just not as Firefox.
Ctrl-Page up/down works very nicely, as does the already mentioned Ctrl-Tab...
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
I'm metamoderating the offtopic as fair:
- You invited the moderation
- You could have responded about the sig. in the users journal.
Although I'm used to seing that as OSS or F/OSS instead of OS.
It's stealing if I intended my ideas to become public property for the good of everyone, and someone else decides to capitalize on that effort without benefitting the community in the same way I did with the original work. Take the example of the known BSD network stack code in MS products. The BSD guys put their open-source license on that stack because they wanted to benefit a community. They surely didn't wish to give microsoft a leg up in their decidedly anti-community practices. Yet by using their BSD license instead of a more restrictive GPL license, they allowed that to happen.
And I never said there was anything wrong with making money.
11*43+456^2
It might, except that J. Random Reader isn't going to "get" an ad promoting several competing products, and it would waste the not-insignificant amount of dough that went into the effort. After all, to the non-initiated, an advertisement for everything but IE will come across as desperate.
That being said, I'm all for a full-page ad in the NYT for Safari. It has to be a different ad, though.
"You can use command-shift-left arrow or right arrow to switch between tabs."
:-(
I HATE that misfeature of Safari. On several OS X applications (Textedit, Appleworks) command-shift-left arrow and command-shift-right arrow are keyboard shortcuts for highlighting the from the middle of a line to its beginning or end. The makers of Safari apparently forgot that people do type in web browsers--for example, to write comments in web forums like the one I'm typing now--and thought that the keyboard shortcuts they used for switching tabs were "safe" when they weren't. That made it a pain to edit text typed into text boxes.
Of course, consistency of keyboard shortcuts across applications is one area where OS X is inferior to Windows XP, or even Linux (if one doesn't take into account old applications like Emacs or XFig that predate the now somewhat standard Qt or GTK+ toolkits).
Actually, if one types a few paragraphs of text into a text box in Safari, the echoing of letters typed into a text box slows to a crawl. That was the main reason I stopped using Safari and started using Firefox.