Slashdot Mirror


FireFox Sets the World Ablaze

An anonymous reader submitted a story about Blake Ross and his involvement in the Firefox project. Just the latest in a steady stream of Firefox PR pieces, although with a more human take than just the 'Firefox is a good browser' stories.

436 comments

  1. He got one right by justsomebody · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft is probably getting nervous

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    1. Re:He got one right by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Doubtfull.

    2. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but Firefox *IS* good..... ???

    3. Re:He got one right by SilentChris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Microsoft is probably getting nervous"

      Nervous about what? The web browser was the battle from 1997. Today it's web services, connecting new front-ends with really old databases, and the like. The web browser is simply a window on money-making backends, and the money is what Microsoft worries about.

    4. Re:He got one right by justsomebody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I think Microsoft is getting a little nervous," Ross said. "They aren't sleeping anymore. They're talking about us on their Weblog and have started to contact the press about us."

      Before you doubt you should at least read the article. There's been a lot more work done on IE in time of FF than before. Read M$ blogs and interviews, you'll notice FF mentioned a lot. If that's not nervous then I don't know what it is.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    5. Re:He got one right by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In any race, the advantage is to the persuer.

      They see some competition, so they are getting a move on.

      So, I wouldn't say nervous, I'd say 'called to action'.

    6. Re:He got one right by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but without controling window you can't control interior that people see inside (which services on which servers).

      Backend is north nothing if no one uses it.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    7. Re:He got one right by beaverbrother · · Score: 1

      Why would they? When is the last time that they made money off of internet explorer? They plan on having the next rendition of the browser, IE7 be their last for a reason-- developing it further add no value to the company, especially when there are alternatives available for their customers to use in combination with Windows.

    8. Re:He got one right by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nervous about what exactly? How does owning a large percentage of the browser market make money when the browsers are given away free? All they have to lose here is bragging rights.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    9. Re:He got one right by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes and no. If the majority of people are using Windows and IE, there's a better argument for building browser extensions and other client-side Microsoft technologies (like Windows itself). Move people to other browsers and you take that away.

      Eric
      How to detect Internet Explorer (pretty relevant)
    10. Re:He got one right by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Giving something away doesn't mean you don't mak e money out of it. As for the last one? I doubt it. High percentage of net will still be existing without any new services .

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    11. Re:He got one right by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you seen ASP.NET stuff? It's moved entirely away from client-side ActiveX-pushing. You can pretty much load it up in Firefox, Safari and Lynx, etc. and expect results.

      It'd be different if MS was still pushing client-side controls, but they're not. What they're pushing is a proprietary backend with a standards-based frontend. Again, they could care less about the browser wars.

    12. Re:He got one right by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 1

      The backend...north of nothing, but south of something. Or something like that.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    13. Re:He got one right by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct. As you say Microsoft is pushing stuff that *any* browser can handle. Which means you don't need IE, which means you don't need Windows.

      So by Firefox pushing the envelope you get more people who wouldn't otherwise switch browsers. That will lead in turn to less people using Windows because they *have* too and more people who us tech-types can switch to something else (Linux), and finally give Microsoft a run for their money with other OS's.

      This is a long term process to be sure but it is happening and ironically Microsoft is encouraging it with the open standards front ends they are supporting with their proprietary backend stuff.


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:He got one right by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One must consider that if people are willing to leave the comfort (and I mean from the typical user perspective) of Microsoft software for the browser, they may become more willing to consider other non-MS products too. If users become comfortable, in small steps, with open source software, that could be the beginning of a migration.

    15. Re:He got one right by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "that will lead in turn to less people using Windows"

      I agree with everything except that point. I don't see anyone moving away from Windows while using Firefox. I think it's a solid browser -- probably the most usable thing Open Source has ever borne (outside of, say, Tivo) -- but there's nothing in it that says to Joey User "Hey, move with me to Linux."

      In fact, I'd think it MORE possible that now that Windows users have a decent browser (a critical problem) they'll stick around with Windows. People don't change things unless they need change. The browser needed change. Windows, now with a fairly stable NT underbelly and automatic patching, doesn't necessarily.

    16. Re:He got one right by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

      I don't know about standards compliant, but at least usable by all browsers (for the most part).

    17. Re:He got one right by freqres · · Score: 3, Informative

      For 'rich client-side functionality', you can host .Net Windows Forms controls in IE. It's ActiveX all over again except it's .Net. See article Hosting .NET Windows Forms Controls in IE

      Also, some of the more advance ASP.Net controls only work in IE such as the TabStrip control available from MSDN.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    18. Re:He got one right by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't see anyone moving away from Windows while using Firefox.

      I do. I just convinced some friends to buy a Mac. Because their bank's website was defective, they had to use recent versions of IE [0]. Now that it fixed and working in Firefox, their single last reason for sticking with Windows is gone. That's clearly not the case for everyone, but for someone who just wants to browse the web and read email, IE-only websites may be the only thing keeping them on Windows.

      [0] There is no version of IE for Mac. There used to be one, but it's old, nasty, and no longer supported by MS.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    19. Re:He got one right by Dasch · · Score: 1

      In any race, the advantage is to the guy in front...

    20. Re:He got one right by skiman1979 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Again, they could care less about the browser wars.

      Sorry, a bit off-topic, but I had to respond. Why does it seem everyone says that people "could care less"? If they could care less, then that implies they care. Shouldn't it be "couldn't care less"?

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    21. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that was definitely insightful, and certainly worthy being moderated up.

    22. Re:He got one right by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must very obviously have never been in front of a race of any sort.

      It's a very old, very true, very well known saying used by anyone who races anything. The person in persuit has the advantage. The person in back has a highler level of motivation. it's a lot easier to catch someone, than stay in front of someone.

      Who says it has to be a guy anyways?

    23. Re:He got one right by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      You're right. Even Visual Studio 2005 uses standards compliance for targets rather than saying IE 5 compatible.

    24. Re:He got one right by Citizen+Gold · · Score: 1

      If "The web browser is simply a window on money-making backends" as you say then for those that have tried it I guess the Firefox team have build a better window...

    25. Re:He got one right by Pete+LaGrange · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a very old, very true, very well known saying used by losers

      --
      loyalty above all, save honor
    26. Re:He got one right by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're not getting it.
      Maybe you're an idiot.
      Either way, I'll try and explaining this again.

      The saying is intended to express that it's easier to catch up than stay in front. So when you're int eh lead you need to bust ass to stay there. The inverse, is that when you're behind to keep on trucking because you ultimately have the advantage.

      But like I said, you're likely a simple man, so you probably won't get this either.

    27. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      YHBT, HAND...

    28. Re:He got one right by drsmithy · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Sorry, a bit off-topic, but I had to respond. Why does it seem everyone says that people "could care less"? If they could care less, then that implies they care. Shouldn't it be "couldn't care less"?

      It *should* be, but Americans have butchered the phrase to the degree that "could care less" is now accepted usage un the US, despite it being nonsensical.

    29. Re:He got one right by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      I always make an effort to say "couldn't" and sometimes people look at me as if I have 2 extra heads or something.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    30. Re:He got one right by Pete+LaGrange · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're not getting it.

      Obviously.

      Maybe you're an idiot.

      Possibly.

      Either way, I'll try and explaining this again.

      And then you proceed to explain nothing, you make statements without proof.

      The saying is intended to express that it's easier to catch up than stay in front. So when you're int eh lead you need to bust ass to stay there. The inverse, is that when you're behind to keep on trucking because you ultimately have the advantage.

      False to fact, no matter how time worn.

      But like I said, you're likely a simple man, so you probably won't get this either.

      I might if there was something besides pronouncements from on high to "get".
      --
      loyalty above all, save honor
    31. Re:He got one right by burns210 · · Score: 3, Informative

      *tag* i'm in.

      Proof? Easy. What market do you want? OS, Browser, Email. lets keep it simple...

      *Netscape lost to IE. Regardless of the marketing/antitrust issues, by IE4 vs. nn 4 time, IE won. Why? Because It is harder to keep a lead(Netscape) then it is to take over a lead(IE).

      *Google over Yahoo. Yahoo was top dog, with altavista and a couple others, granted. But Google came on the scene, them being late to the game meant they could design around other's(yahoo's portal) faults.

      Having a system in the lead means you need to keep improving on that system to stayin the lead. This gets harder and harder.

      The persuer(those who join later, or are just a lesser-product) have the ability to see the field and design around the problems others have had.

      *Gmail vs. Yahoo Mail and Hotmail. Size regardless, their design(how they can have 1 gig a user is genious in how they handle it) and their UI is unmatched.

      *BeOS vs. Mac and Windows. BeOS was the shiznit, because it was created after seeing what absolutely sucked about Windows and Mac(and Unix).

      *Firefox vs. IE. IE was stagnant and asleep at the wheel. Firefox came in(and replaced mozilla) as the light, fast, leave browser that worked great and was safe.

      What is so hard to understand? The persuer has an advantage because, among other things, they have a fresh start.

      Microsoft woke up, and will move towards an IE7 release. Competition is a good thing. Remember?

    32. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It *should* be, but Americans have butchered the phrase to the degree that "could care less" is now accepted usage un the US, despite it being nonsensical.

      Yeah right. It's not nonsensical, it's meant to be sarcastic. But hey, it's a chance to bash the US for using a figure of speech.

    33. Re:He got one right by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      Yes, we Americans are crazy with our "sarcasm". Can you believe that people sometimes say the opposite of what they mean to empashize their point? It's no wonder you can't understand us. Sarcasm is certainly a difficult topic, and I assure you that none of think less of you just because you are unable to figure it out. Why, I once heard a guy say--get this--"big deal" when he actually meant that something was not, in fact, a big deal. It's wild! I don't know how us Americans manage to communicate at all. Thanks for bringing this idiotic linguistic absurdity to our attention. I'm sure we'll all stop using sarcasm immediately! You have truly done us a great service with your post. I assure you that we could care less about your opinions on our idioms.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    34. Re:He got one right by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      American's may have gotten sarcasm down, but we are still fighting a losing battle to grasp irony.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    35. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows, now with a fairly stable NT underbelly and automatic patching, doesn't necessarily [need to be changed for linux]."

      Sure, ignoring all issues but user experience.

      Say, hypothetically, Linux did deliver an experience on par with that of Windows in terms of the home desktop user. Suppose that they even played together nicely. Would you say that it didn't matter which of the two products a person used? Or would you encourage them to use the publicly developed product?

      This is something that often gets glossed over or outright dismissed as simple ideology, but it can be easily demonstrated that it has a tangible effect on software development over the long term.

      For example, the motives for distributing software you've written. That would be either for money or because you can, it might help someone in a similar situation. In the first case, the most obvious money making device is to 'hold out' on certain features and charge for them, additionally, later on. One such example is PowerPoint, which only recently gained the ability to render more than 1-bit transparencies. Give me a break.

      In the second case there is nothing to be gained from 'holding out.' The better your work, the more respect you get. You can build yourself in to an acclaimed developer and land a nice gig at transmeta or something.

      Personally, I would recommend some recent Linux distros to desktop-folk even if they don't support image manipulation (for example) in the file browser. These distros do include the means to create such a function. Get enough people using linux, wanting this feature, and eventually someone will write it, someone else will improve upon it and like so it shall grow in to a mature, tested product and maybe one day become a default option! (The ultimate dream of functions.)

      It's clear to me which of the two development models is preferable. One model can bring out latent talents in users, insures code disclosure and, um, is free. The other's only benefit to society that I can see are the jobs it creates. Unfortunately it's also an example of 'trickle down' economics that simply don't have to exist for good software to be developed. Currently it's just a question of how much convenience the user is willing to give up. Convenience is another gulf that has closed to a mere gap and continues to diminish.

    36. Re:He got one right by lateral · · Score: 1
      The person in persuit has the advantage.

      Er, the person in front has the distinct advantage of being nearer the finish line...

      L.

    37. Re:He got one right by Pete+LaGrange · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Competition is a good thing.

      That doesn't make the original statement true. OP said "In any race, the advantage is to the persuer." This is observably false. Cherry picking exceptions[1] does nothing to prove the original statement. Please point out the advantage in the following situation.

      Horse race, leader one length from finish, persuing entry six (or sixty!) lengths back.

      [1] And not very good exceptions, at that. Software usage is not a race, races finish.

      --
      loyalty above all, save honor
    38. Re:He got one right by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Microsoft may not be making money off of their browser, but it does help them keep a name for themselves. Firefox helps end users realize that other companies make good or, *gasp*, better software than Microsoft. This, in turn, lessens their reliance on MS products.

      Also, I think the Firefox project has been an inspiration to open source developers and users. As stated in TFA, it's one of the first open source projects to really make it into the mainstream. That's seen as something that can be done now, which is pretty important IMHO.

      I don't see Firefox as being the end of Microsoft by any means. What I see is that Firefox may be the beginning of something big.

    39. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somehow doubt losing the browser wars would be that much of a blow to MS. They bundle it with every copy of every OS they distribute, effectively giving IE away for free anyway. It's not as if they'd lose money if everyone switched to Firefox, particularly when you consider that getting people to switch browser is quite a lot easier than getting them to switch OS. MS make no less money off a Windows XP box loaded with Firefox than they do off a Windows XP box loaded with IE.

    40. Re:He got one right by sepluv · · Score: 1
      That will lead in turn to less people using Windows because they *have* too and more people who us tech-types can switch to...
      This is one of the scariest aspects of the ever-multiplying virus that is Firefox 1.0 ;-).
      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    41. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE7 is already here

    42. Re:He got one right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahah, sarcasm, I see.

    43. Re:He got one right by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      .Net makes me shudder, reminds me of why I dislike php, asp and all the other langauages that see structure as a propritory play thing.

    44. Re:He got one right by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      The question is does the compotion make them listion o run around like headless chickens?

    45. Re:He got one right by burns210 · · Score: 1

      I have played with IE7... One of the cooler open source projects around, in my opinion. very neat idea.

    46. Re:He got one right by PsychoSid · · Score: 1
      I am curious as to why MS is so bothered about the browser market ? It's not as if they charge for it. Office or Windows on the other hand yeah.

      Can it be about reputation only ?

    47. Re:He got one right by minus9 · · Score: 1


      Using sarcasm in text. That's a really good idea.

    48. Re:He got one right by the+angry+liberal · · Score: 1

      In any race, the advantage is to the guy in front...

      Not really. In auto racing, the lead car is using a large part of its horsepower to plow through the air. At high speeds, this will leave a wake behind the car and allow the persuing car to conserve fuel and, if done correctly, can help propel him into the lead when pulling out of turns.

      That is how 40 cars, all with the exact same HP, blast past each other at 5-20mph difference in speeds.

      The effects of this can be extreme, try pulling up near the rear of a large vehicle while they are travelling 70-80mph. If you have a smooth OD, you should be able to be at nearly an idle if you keep the distances close. Just don't crash.

  2. Copy of the article for reference by teiresias · · Score: 4, Informative

    Like David and Goliath, the Mozilla Foundation -- a small, nonprofit organization offering open-source software -- is set to battle the software giant Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) Latest News about Microsoft in the realm of Internet browsers.

    Mozilla's weapon of choice against its Goliath? Mozilla Firefox 1.0: A super-fast Web browser, in part created by Stanford sophomore Blake Ross, set to compete against Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

    As in the parable, the little guy's chances are looking good. On November 9, the day Mozilla Firefox was released, over one million people downloaded the browser. People on all seven continents are downloading and using the browser -- yes, even a research group in Antarctica is surfing the Web with Mozilla Firefox.

    Balancing his time between classes and the development of the browser, Ross has been working part-time at Mozilla to develop the project and remains part of the Mozilla Firefox core team. The release of Mozilla Firefox has certainly made a mark in Web culture: Ross has interviewed with major publications such as USA Today, as well as with online zines such as Business 2.0.
    A Better Browser

    Although the process has certainly been exhausting, Ross said he is eager to witness his creation take full flight.

    "It's exciting because open-source software hadn't really taken off until Firefox," Ross said. "Other open-source products were more for techie people and weren't really developed for the user."

    Ross started working on building "a better" browser while other kids were just getting hooked on instant messenger. He worked on the earlier versions of Netscape at the age of 14 and eventually interned for the company following his freshman year of high school.

    Although he enjoyed the experience, Ross found working at Netscape to be somewhat frustrating.

    "Larger open-source companies usually have a group of 50 people making decisions on the interface," Ross said. "Basically, if someone wants to have something in the software, they'll include it. There's no review process. So a friend of mine -- David Hyatt, who now works at Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) Latest News about Apple -- and I started to work on an experimental browser based on the Netscape code."

    Their first browser came to be known as Phoenix. The duo promoted the browser to the Mozilla Foundation and began working on fixing the bugs, asking a group of volunteers around the world to help develop the software. Phoenix developed into another version, which they deemed Firebird, which developed into the final version, the now-famous Mozilla Firefox.
    Global Effort

    The Mozilla Foundation, based in Mountain View, Calif., was established in July of last year and is supported by the Netscape division of American Online. Unlike companies such as Microsoft, which keep their information closely guarded, Mozilla encourages programmers to nitpick through the software and make improvements. Users who locate bugs are highly encouraged to report them.

    Kevin Christopher, a senior and resident computer consultant for Faisan, said that he has been using browsers other than Internet Explorer for a few years and distrusts Microsoft's products. He said he prefers using open-source software.

    "The concern I share with a lot of other people is a general lack of confidence in Microsoft's code: We don't really know what is well-written versus what is held together by duct tape," Christopher said. "When it comes to the safety of my computer, I'm trusting the application where independent experts can examine the source code, instead of relying on Microsoft's promises."

    The Mozilla Foundation is only a tiny organization compared to the market-dominating behemoth, but Mozilla Firefox is already making a dent in Web browsing usage. Since June of this year, Mozilla's share of Web browsing increased three percentage points; Microsoft's share, on the other hand, slipped three, according to the Internet usage tracker WebSideStory.
    Challenging Microsoft

    "

    --
    -Teiresias
    1. Re:Copy of the article for reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David and Goliath a parable? Don't think so.

    2. Re:Copy of the article for reference by m50d · · Score: 0

      IIRC the story must be exaggerated at least, as the heights etc. given are implausible.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Copy of the article for reference by dan_bethe · · Score: 1
      "The concern I share with a lot of other people is a general lack of confidence in Microsoft's code: We don't really know what is well-written versus what is held together by duct tape,...."

      Held together by duct tape? Luxury! How about that which is implanted by Phineas Gage style brain surgery, such as the kernel mode web browser and the OLE-binary-dump file formats?!?!

    4. Re:Copy of the article for reference by software_trainer · · Score: 1

      Exactly as described? Almost. Historians accept the story as being probably true. Goliath probably suffered from Gigantism, which often leads to blurry and tunnel vision by causing pressure on the optic nerve. Thus, David's ability to walk up to Goliath undetected, which the early storytellers attributed to David becoming miraculously invisible.

      Gigantism also causes susceptibility to head trauma. Thus, David's ability to take down a helmeted opponent with a single stone from his sling. By the way, in tests sling stones achieve an average velocity of about 30m/s, so this is not implausible.

      The problem I see with this story is that people are looking for a physical miracle that defies the laws of physics, and that's not where they should be looking. Instead, they should be looking at the fact that while all the hardened warriors were peeing their sandals instead of going out to face Goliath, a no-name shepherd boy had the faith and courage to step forward and accept Goliath's challenge. In doing so, he ended the battle before it began. If he hadn't accepted Goliath's challenge, the two armies would have resorted to a mass battle instead.

    5. Re:Copy of the article for reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly as described? Almost. Historians accept the story as being probably true. Goliath probably suffered from Gigantism, which often leads to blurry and tunnel vision by causing pressure on the optic nerve. Thus, David's ability to walk up to Goliath undetected, which the early storytellers attributed to David becoming miraculously invisible.

      I think the more plausible story is that it's a tall tale. It's a biographic tale about the background of the king, told by an admiring subject no doubt: a war story of heroism, and pretty much same as all the others in every culture on the planet that tells stories about their leaders. Embellishments are to be expected, and the whole story should be taken with the whole Dead Sea's worth of salt. First test: how much historical evidence is in existence for the person of Goliath?

      You don't seem like one of these people who tries to come up with scientific rationalizations for every story in the bible, so do consider that the most plausible explanation of myth is ... that it's a myth!

    6. Re:Copy of the article for reference by christopherfinke · · Score: 4, Funny
      people start putting Firetruck banner ads all over the place
      Don't like it? Get Firefox and install AdBlock! :-)
    7. Re:Copy of the article for reference by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      and yet, no actual evidence that it happened, just a bunch of pseudo-science garbage that says "it could possibly have happened", and then you jump to the conclusion that since its in that book, that it must be true.

      now - do you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago?

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    8. Re:Copy of the article for reference by software_trainer · · Score: 1

      First test: how much historical evidence is in existence for the person of Goliath?


      About as much as many other 2000-year-old historical figures, which is to say, enough to establish probability but not proof. If you're interested in what evidence there is, you could check out this video from the Discovery Store.


      a war story of heroism, and pretty much same as all the others in every culture on the planet that tells stories about their leaders. Embellishments are to be expected...


      Of course! History is written by the winners. Or at least, the winner's personal historian. And this story was embellished when the storyteller included miraculous invisibility and strength. My point was that the real miracle happened in David's heart when his faith and courage overcame fear, not in some physics-defying display of invisibility and superhuman strength. By definition, there is no such thing as a physical miracle. When a "miracle" happens that defies your existing model of the world, and you establish that it really did happen, you change your model to accomodate the new event. Viola', now your "miracle" has become a "phenomenon." It's only the human spirit that continually defies explanation by new models and theories. Unless you're a strict determinist, in which case we have philosphical chasm that is pretty much impossible to broach.

    9. Re:Copy of the article for reference by software_trainer · · Score: 1
      ...just a bunch of pseudo-science garbage...

      My apologies. I didn't realize that current research on Acromegaly is psuedo-science. Someone should tell all those researchers working on it, or the 3-4 per million people who have it, that nothing is wrong and it's all in their heads.

      and then you jump to the conclusion that since its in that book, that it must be true.

      Maybe you missed the fact that I was talking about what historians generally believe to be the truth behind that story. Or maybe you should have looked up the word "probably," which I used several times in that post.

      If this story had not been included in "that book," but instead was in one of the many scrolls from the time period that didn't make it into "that book," would it have more credibility for you? Just because some people attribute religious significance, or even veneration, to "that book" doesn't reduce its value as a historical source document.

      now - do you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago?

      What in the world does what I believe about creationism vs. evolution have to do with uncovering the probable history behind the David and Goliath story? I don't get it. Were you held hostage by some Biblical literalists or something? Relax, kid, it's just an online discussion.

  3. No links?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Nice article. Too bad there isn't one link to the Mozilla website.

    1. Re:No links?!? by quamaretto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it's too gosh-darn bad. Not that the Mozilla servers aren't going to start getting batshit insane from all the traffic anyway. Why not just completely do them in now?
      (You will note that Spread Firefox is mostly down at the moment.)

      --
      *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
    2. Re:No links?!? by mobets · · Score: 1

      Isn't the mozilla website being hosted at some university these days? I don't think bandwidth is a problem for them...

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    3. Re:No links?!? by quamaretto · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Yeah, I guess I heard something about that. I'm really more worried about Spread Firefox, which goes down just about every time something makes it onto Slashdot. They need some help.

      --
      *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
    4. Re:No links?!? by Reducer2001 · · Score: 1
      --
      When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
  4. My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft used Firefox in a press image they sent out promoting their MSN Search.

    1. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by sik0fewl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Eee.. I bet that guy's fired.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    2. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Malicious · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Windows Market Place even has an article on Firefox. If IE was a woman, she'd be calling Firefox a slut for sure.

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    3. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nothing special about that. Read article and you'll see that M$ wanted to show that their search now fully operates with other browsers. They used Oprea too, but as it was said, Opera wasn't showing some terrible success

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    4. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      How can you tell? With a picture that small, I'm not convinced; do you have a bigger version?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the buttons, toolbar and spinner placement. It's the default Firefox theme/setup. IE's default looks different.

    6. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by mzwaterski · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that was Microsoft's image and not simply the author of the story's image? Maybe I missed something...

    7. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the caption: "This photo provided by Microsoft shows Their search tool and the prefenece rankings that can be defined by the user. (AP Photo/HO/Microsoft)"

    8. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I was a slut.

      But I think girls not liking to surf pr0n with me and the fact that I am a guy makes this slut-wish irrelevent to the parents intentions.

    9. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the firefox google search bar is clearly visible, as well as the positioning of the bookmarks toolbar

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    10. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 0, Redundant
      From windowsmarketplace.com: Firefox Supported OS:
      • Windows 98
      • Windows Me
      • Windows NT
      • Windows 2000
      • Windows XP
      • Windows 95
      Oh, yeah, and that other one... uhh... linux?
    11. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Lispy · · Score: 1

      It's funny that despite the fact that Firefox get much better user rankings and reviews the XANA browser appears to be the most popular download on Windowsmarketplace. I - just - don't - get - it. ;-)

    12. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      They also say that Firefox is a 'browser for Windows' and that it requires 'Windows 95, 98, 2000 or XP'. Infact from their whole mention of it one could assume that Microsoft had done you a huge favour by offering you a better browser.

      No mention of the fact that it works on Linux or OS X. Spin it your way, uh huh :\

      --
      Beep beep.
    13. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Hence the "Windows" in the "WindowsMarketPlace." Our kind aren't catered to in that neck of the woods. :P

    14. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Begemot · · Score: 1

      They do that all the time. For example, few years back during one of the first .NET PDC I participated here in Israel, all lectors used Emacs for C#. Ugly ingratiating trick if you ask me.

    15. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Aha! Now I see it. It even looks like they were using the search bar for something (there's text in it). It makes me wonder if they added MSN search to it....

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by AugstWest · · Score: 1

      The "other one"?

      If you're going to complain about exclusion, you should recognize that OSX has a version as well.

      Hell, there's even a version for Be.

    17. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by mookid77 · · Score: 1

      Heck there is a port for my Sharp Zaurus too, I guess that would fall under linux. Still neat, none the less Mookid

    18. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Thinman · · Score: 1
      Not so bad as you can see there.

      Most of the comments are on favour of FireFox...

      regards

    19. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by mwolff · · Score: 1

      Anyone have a larger picture of it than that? That's too funny.

    20. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by doormat · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that the website did not render correctly in FF 1.0.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    21. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by strider44 · · Score: 1

      it rendered fine for me and I'm using linux with FF1.0 (I mean if they're going to sabotage their website wouldn't they do it properly so the real baddies can't read it?)

    22. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It builds and runs on Solaris, IRIX, the *BSD`s and i'm sure many other unix platforms too with little difficulty..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    23. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no surprise Opera wasn't very successful. Microsoft have a history of tampering with pages in order to break Opera. But please stop with the "M$" nonsense, it just makes you look childish.

    24. Re:My favorite Firefox related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add BSD to the list, too.

  5. I've read a thousand articles by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On 'linux, the new OS for the Desktop' articles in various local papers. However, I don't know any 'normal' person who has adopted it. People use what they use. I know people who still use NS4. Firefox is great and all, but you stiil have to force people to change. Otherwise, they will just use whatever browser is installed on their computer.

    1. Re:I've read a thousand articles by downward+dog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know people who still use NS4.

      I think it's time for an intervention.

    2. Re:I've read a thousand articles by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      And now listen to your words. Don't you think that gaining so much in such short time is impressive? IE had boost when browser wars werre active because it was included with OS. And its growth wasn't so much bigger than FF even if you count this advantage.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    3. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know a number of people who have switched to FireFox because of word-of-mouth. Normal, every day, mac users.

    4. Re:I've read a thousand articles by nwbvt · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I know my family uses Firefox. I had installed it on the main computer a few months ago when I was home, and since it has become their default browser (without me pushing it on them or anything, all I did was have a little icon on the desktop), and my dad has it installed on his laptop.

      People don't need to be forced to do anything, given a choice they will choose what they think is best. And if they choose an obsolete browser like IE 6, who cares? They are the ones who end up suffering. In fact, having them using IE keeps hackers trying to exploit IE security flaws instead of Firefox flaws (and yes, those do exist).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    5. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think it's time for a homicide...

    6. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that gaining so much in such short time is impressive?

      Yeah, and look who they quote about switching to Firefox in the article - CS students and computer consultants. That one million downloads on the day it was released was 95% geeks most of which probably had a party to celebrate it afterwards (which was a follow up to the pre-release lan party they had the night before). You know what my wife does when the pop ups and spyware start annoying her (by which I mean making her laptop damn near unusable)? She unplugs the ethernet cable.

    7. Re:I've read a thousand articles by oexeo · · Score: 2, Informative
      I know people who still use NS4. [...] but you stiil have to force people to change.

      And, it's not just people who haven't bothered (or are unable) to upgrade, some to this day are intentionally inflicting such an atrocity upon themselves.

      It's not just themselves their inflicting such pain, it's also the the web development community trying to push web standards, their biggest opposition being NS4 users.

    8. Re:I've read a thousand articles by jtmas83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've read a thousand articles on 'linux, the new OS for the Desktop' articles in various local papers. However, I don't know any 'normal' person who has adopted it.

      Are you seriously comparing the adoption of Firefox to the adoption of Linux? Come on...Firefox is a ~5 MB download that takes about a minute to install on any of the major OSes; to try Firefox the user doesn't have to delete or migrate a single bit of data from their computer. If they don't like Firefox they can either just ignore it and use IE or they can completely delete it from their computer without having to restore anything.

      How is this in any way similar to linux?

    9. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Omestes · · Score: 1

      That really isn't true, I know that I've gotten at least six people to switch over in the course of this semester, and thats not counting the people who switched of their own violition. Our school makes it availible in all the computer labs (some of them don't even have IE on the desktops), and their tech CD strongly recomends that you install it.

      Both of my parents heard the buzz and PR off the internet, and are asking me to install it over thanksgiving for them.

      Firefox is spreading because of articles like this, and because of pure WOM.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    10. Re:I've read a thousand articles by hendridm · · Score: 1
      And if they choose an obsolete browser like IE 6, who cares? They are the ones who end up suffering.

      Unless you're a web developer who is actually interested in supporting web standards and doesn't like developing for two browsers - IE and everything else.

    11. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      That really isn't true, I know that I've gotten at least six people to switch over in the course of this semester,

      Both of my parents heard the buzz and PR off the internet, and are asking me to install it over thanksgiving for them.

      My point exactly - you helped people switch, your parents want you to install it. Would those 6 people switch without your help? If you don't install it on Thanksgiving, will your parents be using IE until Christmas? Spring break? Next summer? Forever?

    12. Re:I've read a thousand articles by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      Your average computer nerd is sort of a de facto admin to their computer-illiterate friends. I irregularly tweak about ten peoples' computers in exchange for pizza and beer, though not to the point of annoyance.

      We all know it's like invasive oral surgery to get people away from IE, even though firefox has most of the same features. People freak when stuff isn't where they expect it to be, and yes, most people don't even know what a web browser is.

      However, certain statements can overcome inertia, like, "Use this or someone could steal your credit card numbers, format your hard drive, and get you convicted as a child pornographer." So yeah, I force people to change. It's worked a few times.

    13. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Fade_to_Blah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if they choose an obsolete browser like IE 6, who cares?

      Usually I would have to agree with you. But the problem is known as the Computer Science syndrome (well covered on slashdot). For those that dont know, that means every damn person that you know is going to ask you to fix their computer...remove the spyware and viruses....and show them the holy grail of computing. I really dont have time for this. Most of my close friends and family are using Firefox because I forced them to. Why? Because I dont want to have to spend 4 hours removing the virus of the week that effects IE. I care because its cutting into my personal time.

    14. Re:I've read a thousand articles by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      There is some truth to what you are saying, but there is an increasing trend towards Linux, Mozilla, and various other FOSS projects. Inertia is a powerful force, but not an unstoppable one.

      One of my good friends is a student and bartender. He is not on a technical track. However, last time I went to his house to fix his Windows box I asked him if he'd like to try Linux. His answer was an enthusiastic "yeah!" So I installed Mandrake and did the initial setup for him, which included Firefox. He hasn't looked back yet, and he's even making friends with the command line.

      I personally know at least thirty people who now use Firefox routinely. Mostly on Windows, but it's an improvement. None, so far as I know, were forced to use it.

      All anectdotal evidence, to be sure, but my evidence is hardly rare. FOSS really is starting to take off in the greater marketplace.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    15. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Firefox is great and all, but you stiil have to force people to change.


      True. And the primary reason why people are changing to Firefox is because they are tired of continually contracting viruses through IE.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    16. Re:I've read a thousand articles by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      People use what they use. I know people who still use NS4. Firefox is great and all, but you stiil have to force people to change. Otherwise, they will just use whatever browser is installed on their computer.

      I can agree with that as long as you're talking about the most computer-illiterate section of the market-- i.e. my grandparents. They'll use whatever browser you put in front of them, and they'll call it 'the internets'. It's not so much out of laziness or indifference, they just don't know how to download things or install programs. They barely know how to check their own e-mail. Yes, those people, you'll have to just install it for them. Put a shortcut to Firefox on their desktop, give it the Internet Explorer icon, and change it's name from "Shortcut to Firefox.exe" to "Internets". They'll barely know the difference.

      On the other hand I help out with a friend's small business computer problems sometimes, and he had a spyware problem, so I installed Firefox on his Windows Machine. Next time I came back, he had tried to install Firefox on all of his computers, including his Macintoshes.

      I say 'tried' because he doesn't even know how to install Firefox on a Macintosh. For those who don't use OSX, the procedure consists of dragging a single icon from a disk image to anywhere on your hard drive (preferbly your 'Applications' folder). So that's how non-computer-geek the guy was, but he really liked Firefox, and wanted to have it on all his computers.

      Ok, so my point isn't to evangelise Firefox here, but what I'm saying is, don't underestimate the users too much. If you're offering another piece of software, the sales-pitch being that it's almost as easy to use, and it has good politics (OSS/GPL), then they'll probably be indifferent. If you're offering 2 [roughly] equivalent pieces of software, one of which is already installed and ready-to-use, they'll just keep what they have. However, if it's really offering a better user experience, even the semi-clueless are able to make up their own minds to switch. If you're really offering them better software (better in ways that they'll notice) with no downside-- well, then they'll go through some effort to switch.

      The totally-clueless, well, even when they're easy to convince, you'll still have to install it for them anyway, so it's almost just as well to go ahead and install it and see if they notice.

    17. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Salo2112 · · Score: 1

      I gave a way a few hundred copies of FF - and some other free utilities - at work and I have had a lot of people say they prefered it to IE. It's happening, Reg.

    18. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their != they're or, to be complete: their != they're != there

    19. Re:I've read a thousand articles by oexeo · · Score: 1

      > their != they're or, to be complete: their != they're != there

      I'm aware of this, yet it's a bad habit I can't seem to brake

    20. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Early adopters typically set the trend for this sort of thing. My mother didn't discover Firefox by herself, I installed it for her. The company I work for now uses Firefox and Thunderbird as standard issue because of me and the staff are installing them at home out of their own free will.

    21. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Actually, I left something out, appearently. My parents will need my help. At least 3 of those 6 would have either figured it out for themselves, or have found some other poor geek do it for them.

      That, and the fact that the school STRONGLY reccomends the instalation of it, and gets their wandering techs to install it at EVERY opertunity (they tried giving my friend 1.0 final, when he had PR installed, and was perfectly happy, I had to intercede).

      This is the most momentum of any geeky trends hitting the mainstream that I have ever seen. Lay people want it without my insistance, or even telling them about it, hey just need assistance.

      I think that FF has a good chance of becomeing the first open software to pick up the mainstream on its own.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    22. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      You are right to a point. People use what they use UNLESS there is a very good reason not to. Security is a very good reason. I do know several 'normal' (read average windows users) who have adopted Firefox. In one case their system was so badly infected that Microsoft IE wouldn't work but Firefox did. In most of the other cases once Firefox was installed they didn't notice much difference and I informed them that if they returned to IE they should expect become re-infected much more quickly. These were all 30+ years of age. I agree that younger people might be less likely to switch because they might depend on IE-only features (e.g. automatic install of adware associated with some of the peer-to-peer and chat sites).

    23. Re:I've read a thousand articles by brianlawson · · Score: 1

      mod parent up +1 "I feel your pain"

    24. Re:I've read a thousand articles by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Along similar lines, I've been quite surprised how computer apt my family members have become over the last 3 or 4 years. I mean sure, I still have to do tech support over this Thanksgiving holiday. But it's much quicker & consists of only the more difficult stuff. They've learned to take care of the other stuff on their own. Wow!

      Plus, when I showed my parents Firefox they really thought it was neat. They really liked the tabbed browsing & integrated search bar. We'll have to wait and see if they have it installed this Thursday.

    25. Re:I've read a thousand articles by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1
      People don't need to be forced to do anything, given a choice they will choose what they think is best. And if they choose an obsolete browser like IE 6, who cares? They are the ones who end up suffering

      Network Effects.

    26. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you stiil have to force people to change.

      Blessed be the virus-writers, for they shall be the driving force of evolution :-)

    27. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Kethinov · · Score: 1
      I don't know any 'normal' person who has adopted it.
      I know several. Even my parents made the switch painlessly. It's simple really. If you're not addicted to Windows games (or other proprietary Windows software) there's nothing to lose and so much to gain.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    28. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Alsee · · Score: 1

      In fact, having them using IE keeps hackers trying to exploit IE security flaws instead of Firefox flaws (and yes, those do exist).

      Somehow I'm picturing you and your family going into a combat zone, and you suggesting it's a good thing if your family doesn't want to wear body armor because then the snipers will be less likely to target you.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    29. Re:I've read a thousand articles by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be splitting up so the enemy couldn't fire a single RPG and get all of us.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    30. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Alsee · · Score: 1

      No weasling out of it now! You distinctly indicated 'who cares if they end up suffering' and for the hackers to target IE instead of Firefox!

      Grin.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    31. Re:I've read a thousand articles by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      No, I've distinctly indicated that we are all better off with a heterogeneous browser market as that keeps any single vulnerability from being so widespread that it could do massive damage.

      If you are a farmer, you don't want all your crops to be too related or else one single disaster (such as disease or a parasite) could wipe out your entire crop.

      Unless you are one of those idiots who thinks Firefox is invulnerable to any type of security problem.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    32. Re:I've read a thousand articles by Alsee · · Score: 1

      My two posts were meant to be humorous.

      No, I've distinctly indicated that we are all better off with a heterogeneous browser market as that keeps any single vulnerability from being so widespread that it could do massive damage.

      Actually you didn't. Recheck what you wrote.
      I certainly understood that was your intent, but you never actually wrote anything to indicate that motivation / that reasoning.

      And check my last post as well. It was accurate, you *did* say X, Y and Z. The JOKE was that since you didn't actually mention that reasoning it was extremely easy to read (X,Y) as reasoning/motivation for Z, thus triggering me to imagine the picture as described in my first post. An image which made me laugh.

      Blah. Disecting humor is no fun.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. Things we already all agree on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Firefox is good.
    Microsoft is bad.
    Linux is really cool.
    As long as it doesn't come from Red Hat.
    We don't like George W.
    We do like the space elevator.
    And we, for one, welcome our new *fill in the blank* overlords.

    OK, now can we go back to things that are interesting?

    1. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot

      In Soviet Russia, World set Firefox ablaze

    2. Re:Things we already all agree on. by ratso87 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I like Bush and run Fedora...theory nuked...lol!

      --
      "With God All Things Are Possible" State of Ohio Motto
    3. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Malc · · Score: 1

      Over in this base that belongs to us we're arguing about whether Steve King is alive or not. Can you help?

    4. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Malc · · Score: 1

      P.S. Replying by telling us to pour hot grits down our pants won't cut. Not unless you can get Natalie Portman in to the Goatse picture.

    5. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I like G.W. Bush, and I actually use my UID to post.

      Then again, stuff that comes out of Red Hat is completely free and GPL'd, if I'm not mistaken, which is a Good Thing (TM).

      Let's just boil it down to one point:
      -We like to generalize things of which we know nothing about.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    6. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Hinhule · · Score: 0

      And suddenly my mind pictured poor Natalie "inside" Goatse

      YOU BASTARD! I'll never be able to think about Natalie again!

    7. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs is God, but only in the lickable section of the site.

    8. Re:Things we already all agree on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Dubya. Everything else we can agree on though :).

  7. Interesting quote from article by RandoX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Having a good open-source browser that appears to be evolving very quickly exposes Microsoft to the risk that Mozilla will get good enough to start luring folks to it."

    Over 1 million downloads in one day. I think the luring may have already begun.

    1. Re:Interesting quote from article by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Having a good open-source browser that appears to be evolving very quickly exposes Microsoft to the risk that Mozilla will get good enough to start luring folks to it."

      Presumably the insightful bit is that although Firefox is the better software by far, it should be lucky if even a few people are convinced to try it because it's competing against Microsoft.

      It might "lure" a few people away from the one true browser, but they're crazy to even bother, some of these journalists seem to be thinking, and then proceed by examining why someone would want to write a browser when Microsoft already has one.

      Oh, and I like the way they write the name of that company. It's "Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) [Links to more microsoft stories] [links to Microsoft stock quotes]" don't you know? Nevermind this is a Mozilla article.

    2. Re:Interesting quote from article by Trinition · · Score: 1

      Over 1 million downloads in one day

      If downloads meant anything, then IE would have no user base at all because hardly anyone downloaded it.

      Also, just because someone downloaded something, it doesn't mean:

      • They installed it
      • They [uninstalled / stopped using] the alternative
      • They like it

      I for one have downloaded FireFox 3 times. The last time, I never even got around to installing it. I honestly just don't like it. So, at the very least, you must subtract 3 from 1,000,000 when mentally converting 1,000,000 downloads into actual users.

    3. Re:Interesting quote from article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If downloads meant anything, then IE would have no user base at all because hardly anyone downloaded it.

      Except for, uh, every Windows user who's ever updated IE. Since a clear majority of Win9x-2000 users are on IE 6, and a clear majority of WinXP users are on IE 6 SP 2, the implication is that a clear majority of Windows users HAVE downloaded IE, at least once.

      Downloads still don't mean anything, but for a different reason than the one you identify. The real reason is that EVERY Windows user who keeps their OS up to date has downloaded IE, probably several times - including all the ones who never use the IE browser as such.

    4. Re:Interesting quote from article by strider44 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people also download it and install it on multiple computers using the one copy (including me). Perhaps you should add 3 on there for my personal contribution!

      I think the people who install it on multiple computers (including internet cafe's and workplaces etc) far outnumber people like you.

  8. Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by AcquaCow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and not only does the spyware stay away, but the net admins won't read your gmail ;)

    (The details: Putty now has more than just remote/local port fowarding. You can now select "dynamic" and allocate a local port. This port will then act as a local socks 4/5 proxy allowing you to encrypt/tunnel your web traffic out to another server that is preferably owned by yourself.)

    I honestly cannot live w/o Firefox at this point.

    Thank you Firefox team!

    -- Dave

    --

    up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
    *makes note to limit user processes...
    1. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Can you explain how to set up the remote end of this? Preferably using OpenSSH on the remote side?

      Or a link would be great.

      -Peter

    2. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      sounds like an intersting idea. a little guide would be nice.

    3. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by paul248 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it doesn't require any special settings on the receiving end. Just add a dynamic tunnel in PuTTY, using some local port (such as 1080). Then log in through ssh, and use 127.0.0.1:1080 as a SOCKS proxy in your browser.

    4. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by dknight · · Score: 1

      Seriously, a little howto on this one would be really handy ;) I'd love to get this setup here at work.

    5. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by zecg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it's just Gmail you're worried about, then you can just change your bookmark from http://gmailblahblah to https://gmailblahblah. Then it's not just the login that's encrypted, but all traffic to the end of session.

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
    6. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      putty -D 1080 remote.box

      Putty doesn't have a graphical option for this yet...just done from the CLI

      Then, configure firefox to use localhost port 1080 (or whatever port you choose) as the socks proxy.

      This can be done with ssh also (ssh -D)

    7. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Sweet.

      It works for me for gmail and (of all things) Merriam-Webster online, but it doesn't work for Slashdot or Google. The page just "loads" instantly, but no change appears on screen (i.e. If I put slashdot.org in my address bar and press enter while I'm at m-w.com the page says there, even though Firefox acts as if it has loaded Slashdot.)

      Any ideas?

      -Peter

    8. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by grishnav · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ wishlist/portfwd-dynamic.html

    9. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can also be used to do P2P apps, IM apps, anything can can use a proxy.

      SSH protocol is so cool! Get around anything!!!

    10. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Um, yeah, PuTTY does. Connection > SSH > Tunnels > Port Forwarding - Source Port 1080 / Destination blank / Dynamic - Add. It'll show up in the box as D1080. Then, just connect to your SSH server (may wish to save session) and you can use the tunnel. You can even choose to run without a terminal/shell and with compression.

    11. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by mogrify · · Score: 1

      You can go to http://ipspy.metropipe.net/, for example, to test whether it's working... the IP it displays should be the IP of the SSH server.

      --
      perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    12. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " and not only does the spyware stay away, but the net admins won't read your gmail ;)"

      If you go to https://gmail.google.com/ in IE or FF, your entire gmail session will be SSL encrypted (256 bit AES). This applies for the login and the session.

      This does not work for http://gmail.google.com/ or https://www.gmail.com/ . (In this case it switches to https for the login and back to http for the session.)

    13. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by jtmas83 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this! I can't believe that I either didn't notice this before or that Google doesn't make this more visible.

    14. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide a general link or howto on accomplishing this...

    15. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone know how to do this through content management software?

    16. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by DoctorPhish · · Score: 4, Informative

      This was the first thing I set up on my machine at the new company I started working at 3 months ago. They had a single web proxy as the only route out of the intranet. This is how I did it.

      First the client:
      I installed putty, and under tunnels, set it to do port forwarding from my local http and vnc (5900?) ports to my remote firewall as if they were local to the firewall (eg. 10.0.0.3:5900).
      Then I set firefox and VNC to look at localhost as the proxy or address to connect to.

      Then, the server:
      I have an ssh server running on my openbsd firewall at home, locked down to only allow connections to a few IP addresses. I added the company's outside IP address.
      I installed TinyProxy as a web proxy (that was all the configuration I needed on the server side)

      Then, since the proxy only allows web traffic through standard ports, I had my putty traffic go through the company's https port.
      Finally, I had to redirect traffic from the company IP address on the https port to port 22 (ssh).

      Works like a hot damn!

      As an aside, my wife is currently in Japan, and I talked her through (over the phone) how to set up the same thing to connect up to her computer here through VNC (when she was having trouble setting up her mail on her mom's computer in Japan).
      It's that easy (once the server is set up)

    17. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Same thing with SOCKS 4 and 5. And with OpenSSH (Cygwin) using the -D switch. :-(

      -Peter

    18. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by NullPhi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did someone say they wanted a guide?

      Here is a guide I just made... with pretty screenshots and such...

      Dynamic Port Forwarding Guide

    19. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Gmail...yeah, that's what you don't want them to see ;)

      I do the same thing with Firefox, PuTTY and my SSH server at home running Squid...but it's important to point out that you can do the same thing with Internet Explorer or Opera...every major browser lets you point it at a proxy server. OTOH, I think Opera lets you do it in a more convenient fashion...hit F12 to bring up a "Quick Preferences" popup and you can toggle whether or not you want to use your proxy.

    20. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Drakonian · · Score: 1
      Is there a way to make the Gmail notifier use the https site?

      Cheers.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    21. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope your network security people find out and you get fired. There's a reason (presumably) they have that firewall, and you've compromised the integrity of your company's internal network. There's absolutely no excuse for that - if you need special access for business purposes, your IT dept should be able to accommodate you. Instead, they have an open hole that they can't control and could do serious damage.

    22. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by kevinmf · · Score: 1

      come on - serious damage? are you one of those sysadmins?

    23. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by DoctorPhish · · Score: 1

      You are correct, and any competent sysadmin would notice the increase in encrypted traffic from your IP and call you on it in short order. So it's a good thing I have IT's blessing ;)
      So, be careful using this if you're just trying to be sneaky!

    24. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that still doesn't let me browse porn sites on company time.

    25. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by zecg · · Score: 1

      No, but it at least lets you sift through your porn spam in peace.

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
    26. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean your *local* net admins won't read your mail.

      The net admins between your remote box and gmail will.

      https it.

    27. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It will use 256-bit AES if your using a mozilla based browser. If your using IE you'l be restricted to the obsolete and flawed 128-bit RC4 algorythm since IE doesnt support AES or any ciphers stronger than 128-bit.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    28. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The Switchproxy extension for firefox is nice and lets you flip between multiple proxies easily, usefull for laptops where your going between multiple networks regularly.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    29. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      What's the difference/advantage of using a socks proxy as opposed to a regular http proxy?

      Currently, I've got PuTTY set with L8080->localhost:8181 with squid running on my home machine listening on 8181, which is closed to the outside. Firefox has localhost:8080 set in the proxy settings. Is switching to dynamic or SOCKS better in anyway?

    30. Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude's right. Any outgoing ssh connection could have port forwarding turned on from the outside in. And if that outside port is available to the world, you're fucked.

      I'm not a sysadmin, but if I were, I'd ban all ssh access from within a secured network. Telnet too, for obvious but different reasons. Unless there's a guaranteed way to disable remote port forwarding from the client end (and even if you can, they could install their non-disabled version, so I doubt it's truly possible).

  9. Mass-Populance Peer Reviews remain undisputed by Dark+Coder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Never underestimate the power of the "word of mouth."

  10. Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Pugflop · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fox is on FIRE! Haven't you seen the icon? That poor flaming canine is running around the world, setting it ablaze.

    1. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No doubt being chased by a pack of dogs and numerous upper class British twits on horse back.

    2. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxes are felines

      Whoever told this was incorrect.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid

    3. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Foxes are felines

      Sure. Just like wolves ...

      Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten ...

      German for: In case you don't have a clue, just STFU (hey, that rhimes!) :-)
    4. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by igny · · Score: 1
      The fox is on FIRE!

      Common baby, run Linspire!

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by doodlelogic · · Score: 1
      No doubt being chased by a pack of dogs and numerous upper class British twits on horse back.
      Not for long... Bill Passed
    6. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I think they have more than enough money, lawyers, ex-popstars and free time to keep this stuck in the courts for a good while yet. And since when do the rich have to obey the law anyway?

    7. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a firefox is a red panda. So it isn't canine or vulpine. I'm too lazy to trace the latin for panda.

    8. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Sweetshark · · Score: 1

      poor flaming canine is a panda!

    9. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since when do the rich have to obey the law anyway?

      Hey, we imprisoned Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, remember? And he wasn't even obnoxiously posh. I'm sure we can bang a few toffs up without anyone complaining...

    10. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by veg_all · · Score: 1

      Poor flaming vulpine.

      --
      grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
    11. Re:Well of course it sets the world ablaze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think firefoxes are actually felines.

  11. http://www.google.com/firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      More importantly, why hasn't it been made the default Firefox start page?

      I use it for mine, at least (changed from regular google).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is the default Firefox homepage.

    3. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid it may be Google, Being Evil(tm).

    4. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by tijnbraun · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is the default firefox start page. (If you do a fresh install)

    5. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by NetNifty · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is the default Firefox start page for Firefox 1.0 . I didn't have a home page set (well, set to a blank page) and after installing Firefox 1.0 on two machines it set to http://www.google.com/firefox. Maybe the 1.0 installer only changes the start page to http://www.google.com/firefox if you don't have a start page set.

    6. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Lariano · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a checkbox in the installer that's enabled by default to reset your homepage to that site.

    7. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      or the corresponding ie page (freaky)

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    8. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by ect5150 · · Score: 1

      or check out this one!

      http://www.google.com/ie

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    9. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That would be why I didn't notice: I use a Mac (as well as Gentoo Linux), so there's no installer.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom.

    11. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by lga · · Score: 1

      It is the default start page if you install Firefox for the first time.

      If you have used it before then it doesn't change your existing start page. The windows version does ask you if you want to change it, however.

    12. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Holi · · Score: 1

      from the size of it and the layout it looks like it is for the pocketpc version of ie.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    13. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Kesh · · Score: 1
      That would be why I didn't notice: I use a Mac (as well as Gentoo Linux), so there's no installer.

      No installer, but if you simply had the default homepage in FF set to the regular mozilla.org Firefox page, it was changed to the new Google Firefox page when 1.0 was 'installed'.

      I'm guessing that, if anything else was set for the homepage, it wasn't changed.

    14. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Vicsun · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hey lookie here. We aren't all that special ;(

    15. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by HumanTorch · · Score: 1

      I think it's to encourage browser companies to use Google as the default startup page.

    16. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh. I stand corrected.

      Somebody with mod points, please mod my previous (incorrect) post back down!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Jauz · · Score: 1
    18. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2, Informative

      That the page that Google uses to replace the MSN Search bar you get when you run a default search engine in IE. See here.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    19. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should consider changing the homepage if it's set to regular Google too, since the Firefox page serves the same purpose.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    20. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by anethema · · Score: 1

      Yeah just slower.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    21. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by dhollist · · Score: 1

      Boos and hisses anyone? http://www.google.com/microsoft

    22. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by cascadefx · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is different... it is a subject search that restricts searches to Mac oriented sites. The same goes for http://www.google.com/microsoft and http://www.google.com/linux. The others are listed here.

    23. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Is it? I hadn't noticed.

      Although now that I look, the Firefox Start page lacks the "more>> [search types]" and "language tools" links and the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, which is unfortunate. Google needs to add them back.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    24. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what's google's motivation for providing this? It comes across as some sort of endorsement... No, wait, there is an http://google.com/ie, just smaller and not as attractive.

    25. Re:http://www.google.com/firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget http://www.google.com/linux

  12. Plug-ins part of the browser? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative
    One main complaint made by critics is that the browser cannot open sites or requires plug-ins that are already part of Internet Explorer.

    As to the first issue of the above comment taken from the article, the reason FireFox can't open some sites is because the sites themselves are not coded correctly or require ActiveX *cough*SAP*cough*

    Run a page through the W3C HTML Validator and you'll see how poorly those sites are coded or are hacked about to render correctly only in IE.

    As far as the second issue is concerned, since when are plug-ins part of a browser? The very definition of a plug-in means they are something to added after the fact to do something.

    Maybe the author meant Extensions for FireFox.

    As far as I'm concerned FireFox does exactly what I want it to do right after the install. Other than making a few tweaks to turn things off and on, just like you would have to do in IE, FireFox runs as right as rain.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I think they were complaining that stuff that is a plugin for Firefox is a builtin for IE.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they were complaining that stuff that is a plugin for Firefox is a builtin for IE.

      Which, of course, is perfect.

      If I don't need/want a particular plugin, it saves me the time/memory/bandwidth.

    3. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      You can even get ActiveX in Firefox if you want it with the ActiveX extension. It's definitely not perfect since a lot of sites that use ActiveX also use lots of IE-specific, non-standard Javascript with it. But for simple ActiveX embedded video player components and stuff, like on launch.yahoo.com and mtv.com it works like a charm. And by default it is just configured to let a few plugin classids run, so random spyware stuff can't run or install itself.

      Still probably not as secure as not using ActiveX at all, but if you really want it, it's nice to have the option, and the level of control you have is much nicer than you'd get with IE. Somebody (maybe me) will probably clean it up soon and make a nice GUI to configure the options for the ActiveX plugin more easily so you don't need to edit any text files too.

    4. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      The thing is, ActiveX is a good tool in the right hands. Big buisness WANT stuff like OWC (office web components) and until such systems are supported many people (such as myself) simply cant use Firefox. As for the HTML/Javascript problems. Yes a lot of pages and software isn't built right and failes to conform to the standards. However, which is better, being more forgiving and allowing (for example) javasctip to not require semicolons at the end of lines (somthing I see a lot from people with a background in VB) or failing to load the page? Keep in mind that the end user realy has no control over how the page is built and if it comes down to using Firefox and not getting to their data or using IE oods are they will stick with Microsoft.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Walterk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny, seeing what you get when running /. through the validator.

      Is this a cover up? *grabs tinfoil hat*

    6. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, really.

      How is it the fault of the browser if a web site is written in a nonstandard way so that its pages can only work correctly with some other browser?

    7. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Is this a cover up?

      Yes. Put simply, the slashdot crew got sick of us complaining about the non-standards compliant state of the HTML slash emits. It's kind of a double standard, see, lambasting IE for non-standards compliance and praising Gecko for standards compliance, all the while being non-standards compliant yourself...

    8. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same idea... but I was about to post a WTF comment.

    9. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not standards-compliant because they deal with users on IE and old browsers. Sucks, but you can't shun users in order to be a pragmatist.

    10. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      You mean the 403-forbidden?

      Anyway... I don't really CARE if a site is standards-compliant; I care if it works across the board; the two are not necessarily contiguous. Since I can't control what bugs browsers have in their rendering engines, and wish to NOT force a certain browser on visitors, I use some "noncompliant" structures myself, because I've found they render more consistently than the "compliant" way of doing things.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err, you can use stylesheets for different browsers if it's really necessary. You know some very big sites have switched to using standards don't you? Wired for example. Seems they do just fine.

      If necessary you could deliver table based code (at least make it valid for God's sake) to old browsers and divs etc to newer ones.

      Slashdot is not standards-compliant because they're lazy. People have even redone the site in CSS already, several times over.

    12. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by dcam · · Score: 1

      The problem with this kind of viewpoint is that while it may work, as it diverges from the standards, it is less likely to do so in the future. I prefer to write HTML that is standards compliant and works in most borwsers. Most does not include NS4.

      --
      meh
    13. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That may be if you're doing browser-specific stuff in the first place. My objective is to make stuff as broadly-accessable as possible, and that means I allow for browser bugs and deficiencies, so long as it doesn't break anything else.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by vivek7006 · · Score: 1


      I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve http://www.slashdot.org

      403 Forbidden

    15. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by dcam · · Score: 1

      This is true. I write web apps, not stuff that is generally accessible to the outside world. Nonetheless despite some pretty heavy use of Javascript the sites I write support every major browser of the last couple of years (with the exception of IE for Mac).

      --
      meh
    16. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the reason FireFox can't open some sites is because the sites themselves are not coded correctly or require ActiveX *cough*SAP*cough*

      Ahem. I do a fair bit of playing around with CMS/website design software such as Tikiwiki. All opensource tools, typically written for LAMP, certainly don't use ActiveX, and unfortunately Firefox doesn't always render the output correctly. Sometimes on basic things like

      <CENTER>
      tags not working. How embarrassing.

      This is not a dig at the authors, who have worked for free for a long time and have only recently had to deal with a new browser, and tackle bugs very quickly. Simply that the OS movement does not magically guarantee perfect code or compliance.

    17. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway... I don't really CARE if a site is standards-compliant; I care if it works across the board; the two are not necessarily contiguous. Since I can't control what bugs browsers have in their rendering engines, and wish to NOT force a certain browser on visitors, I use some "noncompliant" structures myself, because I've found they render more consistently than the "compliant" way of doing things.

      The trouble with diverging from the standards is that you run the risk of things breaking in browsers you haven't tested in. Like future browsers. Who wants to go back and fix all their pages when a new version of a browser is released?

      Typically, people will say "that'll never happen" at this point. But it's happened for practically every major browser release since about Netscape 1.2. For example, Internet Explorer 6 broke pages that assumed the wrong box model and certain ways of centring tables. And Netscape 6 dropped support for layers. And soon after that (Netscape 6.1?), stylesheets with the wrong media type were ignored.

      The bottom line is that if you deviate from standards, you have no idea when your pages are going to break. There are ways around 99% of the bugs people typically eschew standards for, and virtually nobody cares about the 1% that you do actually have to use non-standard stuff for (things like word-wrapping edge-cases).

    18. Re:Plug-ins part of the browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all due respect, authors who talk about "tags not working" rarely understand HTML very well. Tags aren't instructions, they are delimiters. In most cases I have seen of people complaining that their "tags don't work", the code in question is not even close to being valid. Perhaps posting an example would help.

  13. Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Take this paragraph for example:

    Their first browser came to be known as Phoenix. The duo promoted the browser to the Mozilla Foundation and began working on fixing the bugs, asking a group of volunteers around the world to help develop the software. Phoenix developed into another version, which they deemed Firebird, which developed into the final version, the now-famous Mozilla Firefox.

    Unless I've blacked out and had my memories scrambled as a result, the reason for Pheonix becoming Firebird becoming Firefox were legal and other dificulties over the usage of those previous names. Anyone reading this article would be given the impression that those were desired name changes, not ones that were practically forced.

    And if the article can't even get why Firefox is called Firefox right it makes you wonder what else it's less than accurate about.

    Elsewhere in the article it says that "one of the novel features is the tab option, which allows users to open several Web sites at once in the same window." Well, if by "novel" you mean copied from another competing browser that has had that feature for ages, yeah, I guess it's novel.

    Seriously, this article has some flaws and inaccuracies that you could drive a bus through.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, if by "novel" you mean copied from another competing browser that has had that feature for ages, yeah, I guess it's novel.
      Heh, I guess Mozilla is the new Apple!

      [disclaimer: I am a Mac and Firefox user, so this is a joke, not a troll.]
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by dema · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone reading this article would be given the impression that those were desired name changes, not ones that were practically forced.

      I wouldn't call it inaccurate to keep from going too in-depth with why the name changed so many times. No where in the article does it imply Mozilla decided they didn't like the current name, so they changed it; that would be innacurate. The people who already know the story, know the story; the people who don't probably don't care, so why bother? This isn't a story about the history of Firefox, its main focus is one developer.

      Seriously, this article has some flaws and inaccuracies that you could drive a bus through.

      Examples? I hardly think nitpicking the word 'novel' (which was poor choice) is something you could "drive a bus through."

    3. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that there is no mention of the Mozilla broswer suite and that the guy makes it sound like he and his buddy single-handedly wrote the first versions of MoFirePhoenixBirdZilla from the original Netscape source.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    4. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by amrust · · Score: 1
      How about the fact that there is no mention of the Mozilla broswer suite and that the guy makes it sound like he and his buddy single-handedly wrote the first versions of MoFirePhoenixBirdZilla from the original Netscape source.

      Yeah, I noticed that, too. Quite disappointing. What gets me, is: All this rukkus about Firefox, and I've never used it once. Why? Because I use the more flexible Mozilla Suite instead. It does everything I need in a web browser, and more. Plus, it doesn't crash every 20 or so uses.

      Despite the "brilliant marketing" behind the Firefox campaign, I have never been able to get anyone to switch to Firefox from IE. They say it looks to flimsy, and doesn't have email client with it. Also, what company would opt for the goofy Firefox brand, over the more mature Mozilla symbology? People tell me that Firefox "looks like some shady piece of Shareware", but Mozilla integrates seamlessly on desktops.

      --
      VOTE!
    5. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by Rasdan · · Score: 1

      Despite the "brilliant marketing" behind the Firefox campaign, I have never been able to get anyone to switch to Firefox from IE.

      Everyone I've shown Firefox to has switched from IE. Especially when they've been hit with the various browser hijacks for IE that are VERY difficult to remove. That and built-in pop-up blocking and they're sold. It's not all that difficult.

    6. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      The people who already know the story, know the story; the people who don't probably don't care, so why bother?

      Well if things are that damn simple then why bother to tell the truth about anything? Anyone who already knows the truth, knows the truth; the people who don't probably don't care, so why bother?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    7. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by dema · · Score: 1

      Well if things are that damn simple then why bother to tell the truth about anything?

      How is not mentioning why the name changed so many times a lie?

    8. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a troll to me. First you say that you've never used Firefox once and then you say you've never been able to get anyone to switch to Firefox from IE. Because it looks "flimsly" and "doesn't have an email client". That's wonderful logic....

    9. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by amrust · · Score: 1

      Regardless of your 'label the dissenter as a troll' tactic, I can assure you I have never used Firefox in my life. I was confusing in my earlier post... I should have said "I don't know anyone who has switched to Firefox PERMANENTLY". Let me try to explain myself a little better:

      I'm simply saying that when I tell people about the concept/product of Firefox, they ask where to download it. I send them to the site, and they try it out for awhile. And then a week or so later, they ask me about the "one with the email and everything included."

      Didn't mean to cause a problem. Just stating an opinion. My apologies.

      --
      VOTE!
    10. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that it was. What I am saying is that is if "the people who already know the story, know the story; the people who don't probably don't care, so why bother?" is the attitude you take to life in general then you're asking for trouble.

      And as for this article specifically, well, as others have pointed out, it very much gives the impression that Firefox is something that the guy knocked up together with a couple of his friends rather than a bigger, more colaborative venture with contributions from many more people.

      A lot of the article is made up of people giving personal opinions, some of which is also presented in a questionable manner, but which I didn't think it was fair to comment on because opinions are opinions, not facts. However, the article as a whole tends to present these opinions as facts, which is a dangerous thing to do, for obvious reasons.

      With regards to my questioning its overall accuracy, I used the examples that I did because they were clearly being presented as facts rather than opinions but yet were either misleading (in the case of the name changes) or totally incorrect (in the case of tabbed browsing).

      There are aspects of the article that I didn't poke at too hard because they weren't as black and white, so in those cases I cut the writer some slack, but if you think it's OK to shade or blur the truth for the sake of good copy then you've clearly got different expectations than I have of what's acceptable in journalism and what's not.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    11. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by dema · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should email that to the author's teacher (:

    12. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Wasn't aware I was using a tactic against you...sorry.

      You said "I've never used firefox" then "I have never been able to get anyone to switch to Firefox from IE". Not contradicting yourself, but certainly sounded like you were spewing BS (that being someone who hasn't used something has tried to convince others to use it and failed to do so...meaning what?).

      If you mis-stated yourself, why are you being so hostile to me?

      Forget it, I don't care.

    13. Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... by amrust · · Score: 1
      Um...I wasn't being hostile to anbody. From my reply, I don't know where that's coming from. Just clearing up the fact I haven't been able to permanently switch anyone to Firefox. Let me also be clear on this: I wasn't smarting off to you, or anyone. Totally not my style to do so.

      As I said elsewhere, I need to give FF a spin myself, so I can speak from experience on it.

      My bad.

      --
      VOTE!
  14. First ON TOPIC post? by dkh2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a sad state of affairs when the first 4 to 6 posts on a story are lame attempts to be first, or lame attempts to flame those who tried to be first.

    Anyway, I have to give the article points for being readable and informative. It's a nice piece of PR for a browser that really does out shine much if not all of the competition. If you've read the article, good for you. If yoy haven't, you owe it to yourself to do so.

    Likewise, if you haven't already tried Firefox you owe it to yourself - even if you're using Safari on OS X. I work in a Microsoft laden department and the official recommendation is for either Firefox, or Safari.

    --
    My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    1. Re:First ON TOPIC post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      if you haven't already tried Firefox you owe it to yourself - even if you're using Safari on OS X

      I still like Safari better - patched to use the Aqua theme and with PithHelmet as adblocker, that is. :)

      Andreas
    2. Re:First ON TOPIC post? by jflanger · · Score: 1

      Well, notice that it's actually written by a reporter from the Stanford Daily. I read it last week in print. And yes, it was in the 'features' section, intended literally -as- a nice piece of PR for FireFox and good ole Mr. Ross.

    3. Re:First ON TOPIC post? by Biomechanical · · Score: 1

      That's funny, around 4chan it's more like,

      `You Fail Teh Intarweb!'

      --
      His name is Robert Paulsen...
  15. From TFA: by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hackers typically attack the market giant -- Internet Explorer, in the world of Web browsing -- leaving Firefox relatively safe and sound.

    Its good to know that journalists are getting it right.

    Once Firefox takes the lead in the web client arena, I guess we will all switch to IE because Firefox would be the new target of exploits, not IE.

    Now I know that Mozilla and Firefox have not been immune to vulnerabilities, but I would bet that it is in the way they are coded and not just marketshare.

    I've heard that there is an open source web server that has more marketsare than say IIS, but does not have the same number of security issues like IIS has.

    1. Re:From TFA: by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I've heard that there is an open source web server that has more marketsare than say IIS, but does not have the same number of security issues like IIS has.

      It's called Apache. From Apache.org

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:From TFA: by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      "Once Firefox takes the lead in the web client arena, I guess we will all switch to IE because Firefox would be the new target of exploits, not IE."

      The result of which will be there will be no one dominate browser, making it difficult for hackers to exploit near universal security issues. Many will use IE, many will use Mozilla/Firefox, many will use Opera, many may even use Konqueror.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    3. Re:From TFA: by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's called httpd...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:From TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that there is an open source web server that has more marketsare than say IIS, but does not have the same number of security issues like IIS has.

      Unfortunatly it has more. According to BugTraq, anyway, Apache 2 has had a lot more vulnerabilities than IIS 6.

      I'm afraid the closed source isn't any more (or less) secure than open source. I do think market share does having something to do with exploits. Larger surface area, just makes sense.

    5. Re:From TFA: by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      This is a myth, and like most myths, it does contain a kernel of truth. It is true that virus and malware authors target Internet Explorer because it is widely distributed (and used) but that's not the only reason, or even the main reason.

      Virus authors require two things from their targets -- wide deployment and ease of compromising. If a program is not widely deployed then it becomes a less appealing target because the virus may not find enough of them to make the effort worthwhile. Similarly, if the target is sufficiently hard to crack, it becomes less appealing to do so because of the work involved.

      This explains why IIS is so frequently cracked. It has a large install base (not dominant, but large enough) and contains flaws that are relatively easy to exploit. Same with IE. It has a large enough install base (the exact size does not matter) and it is easy to exploit.

      It is the combination of those two features that determine the popularity of any particular piece of software has in the crackers' circles.

      P.S. -- the web server you're thinking of is Apache. Apache has the largest install base in the web server market, but there are far fewer exploits for it than there are for IIS. In Apache's case, it is the fact that it is hard to crack that has resulted in fewer exploits in the wild. The install-base requirement is definitely there.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    6. Re:From TFA: by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Practically, it's called Apache...

    7. Re:From TFA: by powerlinekid · · Score: 1

      Apache is the webserver and it has a much larger market share than IIS. Apache has had holes but no where near the percentage of them compared to IIS.

      As for Firefox, yeah its got holes. However most of them are because of windows. Something happens, Firefox doesn't know what to do with it and passes it to Windows. Its Firefox's mistake for doing this but its still a bug in Windows that is the issue. IE does the same thing. Firefox on Linux is much more secure. I'd actually be interested in seeing how many exploits there are for Firefox/Windows verse Firefox/Linux. Then the question is raised is this a Firefox issue or a Windows one?
      *Note - Like I said above, its still Firefox's fault for assuming Windows was safe*

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
  16. Incidentally, if you're compiling FireFox 1.0... by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...put "ac_add_options --disable-freetype2" in your .mozconfig. Otherwise you'll get errors in grx/src/freetype.

  17. #1 reason not to use Firefox. by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's listed right there in the article:
    It keeps setting stuff ablaze.

    I tried it a few weeks ago, but had to stop almost immediately when my harddrive caught on fire, and melted right through the case.

    Then the CPU exploded and the ram started smoking.

    To its credit, though, Firefox is a pretty good browser. It worked for nearly an hour after that before my monitor melted.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:#1 reason not to use Firefox. by dkh2 · · Score: 1

      Your RAM started smoking because it had must had an orgasm.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    2. Re:#1 reason not to use Firefox. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I tried it a few weeks ago, but had to stop almost immediately when my harddrive caught on fire, and melted right through the case.

      It's open source. Just go through and comment out all the places where it uses the HCF instruction.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:#1 reason not to use Firefox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't happen to be using a Prescott, would you?

  18. World Domination? by Delrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long will it be before Firefox replaces IE?

    I can't wait till banks and companies to develop IE specific applications are forced to ensure Firefox compatibility, I am still suck using IE in a few cases, would love to just uninstall the thing and be done with it!

    1. Re:World Domination? by stinkyfingers · · Score: 1

      How long will it be before Firefox replaces IE?

      Not sure
      Any day now

    2. Re:World Domination? by Lerxst+Pratt · · Score: 1

      When you figure out how to uninstall IE, let the rest of us know! Seriously, though. The only thing I use IE for is Windows Update. That's it!

    3. Re:World Domination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am still suck using IE

      Eloquently said!

    4. Re:World Domination? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      FWIW the UK based ethical Co-op bank online banking works fine in Firefox :-)

      http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/

    5. Re:World Domination? by Delrin · · Score: 1

      Freudian slip apparently! ;-)

      (there were at least 5 spelling errors in my post!)

      I must be silpping!

    6. Re:World Domination? by Delrin · · Score: 1

      Cool, now to transfer my accounts from Canada! ;-)

  19. Great Quote by Spaceman40 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Microsoft has tried to convince users that they need or want to have the browser coupled into every Microsoft application and vice versa ... [which] has led to software that is too 'integrated' to be secure against viruses -- kind of like having a heart attack every time you have a headache,"

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    1. Re:Great Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Cheriton is an interesting and knowledgeable guy. He did some early and innovative work in distributed systems, including the Thoth operating system which we ran in my lab for awhile.

      Over the years, he's had some great insights and some wild and crazy ideas. He gave a talk once in which he noted that the Internet backbone logically needs to have the fattest pipe, an idea which at the time was rather novel.

      I think in the same talk he suggested that as network bandwidth and router speed increases, the speed-of-light transmission latency over the backbone segments may actually become useful as a delay line for store-and-forward routing. It may be a crazy idea, but you have to admit, it's fun to think about.

      That's David Cheriton, and he's a serious and dedicated computer scientist too.

  20. Increasing Firefox usage statistics by patro · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of BBSpot's tongue-in-cheek Top 11 Firefox extensions:

    MajorityNow - Surfs while your computer is idle to increase the browser usage stats for Firefox.

    Should not be too hard to implement. :)

    1. Re:Increasing Firefox usage statistics by nmoog · · Score: 1

      And no self respecting slashdot moderator would be without my all new amazing
      Slashdot Moderator Extension! Out now!

    2. Re:Increasing Firefox usage statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine having millions of computers at homes and offices relentlessly browsing the web via FireFox while their master is sleeping and leaving their marks in the logs of websites everywhere...

      I want to install this extension ASAP.

    3. Re:Increasing Firefox usage statistics by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      I can see at least 6 of those 11 being implemented in the next week! 8-)

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  21. Yes Firefox is great but... by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When is the 100% cpu bug going to be fixed?

    1. Re:Yes Firefox is great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (OT therefore Anonymous)

      Moderators: a one-sentence claim of a problem that the poster doesn't elaborate on isn't "Insightful".

    2. Re:Yes Firefox is great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have this problem as well. Look at how much RAM Firefox uses, it seems like it doesn't free up memory after you have closed the tab.

  22. History is instructive by jamesl · · Score: 1

    The history here is very instructive. When we first included browser capabilities in Windows they did not get much use. Netscape continued to have over 80% share and there was no pressure on its price. Only when our browser won the overwhelming majority of all reviews did our share move up and Netscape have to come back down to a competitive price. It took a great deal of innovative work for us to not only catch up but move ahead in the browser business and we can be very proud of our contributions on behalf of consumers.

    From Bill Gates' memo to his executive staff on the AOL/Netscape merger
    http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/microsoft/le galdocs/120198_gates.html/

    Time to get back to work.

    If you read the whole memo, you'll see that the "competitive price" is zero.

  23. Long road ahead by cshah+1 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Firefox still has the burden of IE being bundled with windows. Firefox has made great progress, unfortunatly 90% of users still use IE

    --
    KARMA POLICE ARREST THIS MAN HE TALKS IN MATHS- radiohead
    1. Re:Long road ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boohoo, waaa waaa. You sound like a Jew, so shut the fuck up.

  24. Security vunerabilities by kyhwana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So why hasn't http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vul nerabilities.html
    been updated now that 1.0 is out?

    --
    My email addy? should be easy enough.
  25. OK, I feel inadequate... by mogrify · · Score: 5, Funny

    At 19 I could barely figure out how to roll out of bed before 11:00AM, much less reinvent the concept of a web browser and start my own consulting company. I guess now that I'm 25, I'm doomed to watch teenagers innovate my career out from under me and die sad and alone.

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    1. Re:OK, I feel inadequate... by Lispy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm 28 and I can inform you that you are absolutely, stunningly right.

    2. Re:OK, I feel inadequate... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm doomed to watch teenagers innovate my career out from under me and die sad and alone

      Or you can hire a bunch of teenagers to stay up all night and work while you go home to your spouse and kids. It's all about balance.

      Eric
  26. Yes, three things. by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, three things:

    Firefox is good.
    Microsoft is bad.
    Linux is really cool.

  27. Re:Firefox problem -- can't click some links?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the deuce is this off-topic? It's asking a question about Firefox, the subject at hand!

    Geez...

  28. Firefox by loconet · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Firefox is indeed a good browser, even Microsoft agrees.

    From the screenshot caption:
    This photo provided by Microsoft shows Their search tool and the prefenece rankings that can be defined by the user. (AP Photo/HO/Microsoft)

    --
    [alk]
  29. Re:Incidentally, if you're compiling FireFox 1.0.. by mfg · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's because the FreeType people keep changing things. I've no idea which version of FreeType it will actually compile cleanly with, but adding

    -DFT_RENDER_MODE_NORMAL=ft_render_mode_normal -DFT_KERNING_DEFAULT=ft_kerning_default

    to the DEFINES line in .../layout/svg/renderer/src/libart/Makefile will make it compile with 2.0.9

  30. Re:Incidentally, if you're compiling FireFox 1.0.. by tcopeland · · Score: 1

    Why in the world would the parent post be modded "troll"?

    Jeepers... if that info hadn't been passed on to me from a helpful fellow on #mozilla, I'd probably still be struggling with it... I figured it might help someone else.

  31. Where is the NY Times Ad? by augustz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was a big push to get contributors for the NY Times ad. I contributed myself. The idea was to have something out connected to 1.0 release +/- 3 weeks.

    I can't seem to even find a draft layout of the ad. Am I missing something? Worried that in their excitment at receiving lots of money, they've added a million features to the site, but have slowed up on the ad which attracted folks in the first place.

    Probably I just need a clarifying pointer to the place where the mockups are.

    1. Re:Where is the NY Times Ad? by fobsen · · Score: 5, Informative
      Seems like there is a little delay, but everything is fine:
      So what's up with the ad? Rob Davis and I are managing the production of the ad and making sure that it gets done to our exacting standards. It's painstaking work, but we are committed to getting the ad in print sometime in early to mid-December. We've got a good deal of the design and thinking behind it worked out, so expect a preview sometime next week (we can't wait either)! Of course, embarking on this kind of design project is no easy task. Frankly, we need some help (what, you thought you could donate and leave the hard work up to someone else?!). So here's what I need and here's how we're gunna do this:
      Read the full blog-entry here: http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=node/view/6291.
  32. Firefox is bad PR taken to extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla.org should be ashamed. Firefox has so many bugs it is a joke. This has become a massive PR campaign instead of a great product release.

    1. They announce a 1.0 "prerelease" - if it's pre release then don't call it 1.0
    2. Check the forums there are thousands of issues and bugs - they should have waited and released it when it was ready and not when a PR hack said it was ready.
    3. Mozilla rocks! It is stable and works. Firefox broke things that work in Mozilla. Come on, this is a hack job to make a PR release date.

    In reality, releasing a product in this manner plays right into the hands of Microsoft.

  33. Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by amrust · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Why would you not just use the Mozilla Suite for your browser? You don't need to install 10 different extensions to Firefox to get your needed functionality... just use the Mozilla Suite. Don't want to use Mozilla Mail, because you like Outlook better? Then just don't use the built in mail client. Nothing says you have to use the Mail client to use the Mozilla browser.

    I have never understood the idea of Firefox, because (IMO) it detracts from the combined beauty of the Mozilla Suite. People don't want 5 or 6 applications running on their computers, especially when 1 will fill the bill for them quite nicely.

    --
    VOTE!
    1. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um,,, isn't that what Microsoft tried to do, and everyone on this board now bitches about????

    2. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by amrust · · Score: 1
      You missed this:

      Don't want to use Mozilla Mail, because you like Outlook better? Then just don't use the built in mail client. Nothing says you have to use the Mail client to use the Mozilla browser.

      I just don't understand why anyone would choose Firefox, once they've tried Mozilla Suite.

      --
      VOTE!
    3. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Funny



      I don't want one application running that uses as much RAM and processor as 5 seperate applications, when all I really want is a fast simple email client and a light, fast web browser.

      Moz Suite is a bloated resource hog that should have been sent to the butcher's long ago. Regarding your suggestion about not using the mail client if you don't like it fine. Tell me how to get the stupid browser not to load the mail client when all I want is just a browser.

      The combined beauty of Moz Suite is analogous to the combined beauty of peanut butter and a '57 chevy... sure some things can be smashed together, but why?

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    4. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by Kurrurrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, fine then, analogy time. Lets say someone is shopping for a car. They are looking for something that is quick, small and simple. You are the car dealer. You keep suggesting SUVs and Minivans to this person. They don't need the space, but hey, its there if they want it. However, having that capability means they don't get the features they wanted, small and fast. I had the mozilla suite before I had firefox. The suite was a pain because it had to run in the taskbar and just ate up memory. And if you didn't want it in the taskbar, it took forever to load up. With Firefox, there is nothing running constantly in the background, there is no absurd load time, and there is no bloat. I just don't understand why you can't understand that many people just want something small and quick for their browsing needs.

      --
      -Doug
    5. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by amrust · · Score: 1
      Ok, fine then, analogy time. Lets say someone is shopping for a car. They are looking for something that is quick, small and simple. You are the car dealer. You keep suggesting SUVs and Minivans to this person...

      I'll stop you right there. If they came in and told me they wanted quick and small and simple, I'd sell them a compact. Not an SUV. Bad salesman, bad analogy.

      I had the mozilla suite before I had firefox. The suite was a pain because it had to run in the taskbar and just ate up memory. And if you didn't want it in the taskbar, it took forever to load up.

      Mine doesn't. Mine does not run in the taskbar, and loads up quick as lightning. Sounds like a hardware problem to me.

      I just don't understand why you can't understand that many people just want something small and quick for their browsing needs.

      I do understand some people want a compact, when they could have an SUV. Let's try another analogy...equally flimsy. ;) Who would opt for a compact car over an SUV, when BOTH ARE FREE? From conversations with others, I also understand that they start asking me for "this extension" and "that extension", to do things that Firefox won't do right off the bat. They're like "...extension? OK, What else do I need to download for this crazy thing? Why doesn't it just WORK?"

      --
      VOTE!
    6. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by Kurrurrin · · Score: 1

      I'll stop you right there. If they came in and told me they wanted quick and small and simple, I'd sell them a compact. Not an SUV. Bad salesman, bad analogy.

      Bad salesman is right, because thats essentially what you are doing. You are trying to sell an SUV people who want a compact, and you don't understand why they would even want a compact: "I have never understood the idea of Firefox" and "I just don't understand why anyone would choose Firefox, once they've tried Mozilla Suite." Some people don't use email clients at all, or any of the other applications in the mozilla suite. So why would they want something that runs all those things regardless of need?

      Mine doesn't. Mine does not run in the taskbar, and loads up quick as lightning. Sounds like a hardware problem to me.

      Then maybe my memory is fuzzy. It has been a long time since I bothered with the suite.

      I do understand some people want a compact, when they could have an SUV. Let's try another analogy...equally flimsy. ;) Who would opt for a compact car over an SUV, when BOTH ARE FREE?

      I would, for one. I don't want to drive around a giant, lumbering behemoth; I want something small, quick and nimble. And I know that I'm not alone in that sentiment.

      From conversations with others, I also understand that they start asking me for "this extension" and "that extension", to do things that Firefox won't do right off the bat. They're like "...extension? OK, What else do I need to download for this crazy thing? Why doesn't it just WORK?"

      I've never had to download anything extraneous, so maybe its a hardware problem.

      --
      -Doug
    7. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by n0d3 · · Score: 1

      they aren't so different, the two. The biggest part of the browser is, the rendering engine I would think. The rendering engine is also a big part of the mail client.

      The way I see it, if you use both, install mozilla suite (without the chatclient etc etc). If you only need the mail client, or only need the browser, go with FF or TB. They do share quite a codebase.
      Now if FF and TB used the same dll's where possible, It would matter even less (afaik they don't just yet)

      Anyway, from what I read a few months back, the suite will be FF + TB more or less. The mozilla org doesn't want to maintain two different projects if not needed.

      As for stability, I use both browsers. One PC's i don't need mailclient, or webmail is enough, I use firefox. I use mozilla suite where I use both the mail and browser (90% simultaniously go check your mem useage suite vs FF+TB now!). And with 1.7.3 I can't say I have had a crash in ages. Then again, I haven't had one with FireFox as of yet either :) but must say I don't use it all that much.

      So as final words, use FF if you only need the browser, use TB if you only need the mail, use Mozilla if you want both. As for appearances, plenty of themes for all 3. Even the same look and feel is possible for both, so that shouldn't be a reason.

      P.S. I think gentoo users : ) will really enjoy a cleanly built suite without all those bloaty chatclients n such.

    8. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by Jumperalex · · Score: 1
      Yeah that is about exactly what I DO NOT want.

      I want to run the best choice for each application. Contrary to what some people seem to think in this world (beyond the internat and computers I mean) just because someone can make one thing really well does NOT mean they can do everything well.

      Or like all-season tires: In trying to do two things it does neither well.

      Also, and this is the EXACT reason I stopped using netscape mail back in the day: when ever I want to change one application (ie the browser) it had detrimentla effects on other applications (ie my mail). I got tired of having to jump through hoops t ochange my browser to protect my mail.

      I settled on Pegasus (which is not the point) and now ahve been able to change around browsers and update browsers at will with no worries about losing mail.

      In short 6 separate applications is EXACTLY what I DO WANT and I want each of them to ONLY do that and nothing else. Because anything else is 1) bloat and 2) wastes time better spent perfecting the main application focus

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    9. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by amrust · · Score: 1

      OK. Forget everything I said. I'm wrong.

      I don't like the rating system here, since my original comment was rated to "flamebait", even though that was not my intention at all. It seems you can't offer a dissenting opinion on Firefox here on Slashdot.

      Maybe I'll try Firefox sometime. At least then, I'd be speaking from experience with BOTH programs.

      Lesson learned.

      --
      VOTE!
    10. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by bfields · · Score: 1
      Tell me how to get the stupid browser not to load the mail client when all I want is just a browser.

      Demand paging?

    11. Re:Just use the full Suite, and be done with it by igoryonya · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering for a long time, what's it in the FireFox that isn't in Mozilla. I started with Mozaic then moved to Netscape. Played with alpha and beta Mozilla, when it was still very unstable, tried to upgrade Netscape to Netscape 6, when it came out. It was still based on Mozilla .9 if I remember correctly. An upgrade wasn't very successful, because it didn't migrate my email very cleanly. There where miscellaneous problems and glitches with migrated email. It worked fine, if configured from scratch, but not when I migrated it. So, I kept using Netscape 4.7 until Netscape 6.1 came out. It didn't have the problem any more. I loved that all those apps (email/browser/IM/address book/and more recently IRC) were integrated into one app, because I didn't have to start separate applications for different tasks. Also, because they were all using the same core, they (as far as I understand) shared the memory. Less ram used, more ram left for the rest of the tasks.

      Up until version 7.1, I was using Netscape. I wanted to switch to Mozilla, because it was already version 1.7 and Netscape got stuck at Mozilla version 1.4, but I didn't want to loose the IM. I was thinking on writing my own IM sidebar extension for Mozilla that would support ICQ and AIM. It would allow me to switch from Netscape to Mozilla. I still had Mozilla installed during time that I was using Netscape and occasionally was upgrading it, but I didn't use it as my default browser because, like I said, Netscape had IM client and all my Email was in Netscape. I started learning XUL, so I could write my own IM extension. After performing some research, found JabberZilla project.

      Because of JabberZilla, I finally switched to Mozilla and didn't have to write my own IM. Currently I am using Mozilla.

      I played with FireFox ever since it came out and frankly, I didn't see any advantage of using FireFox over Mozilla suite. I didn't see anything special about FireFox that would make it so much better then Mozilla suite. I can't figure out what's all the hype is about.

      At first, I thought that it was just a stand alone browser separated from Mozilla suite that has all the same features that the browser in the Mozilla suite, but then found out that not all the browser extensions work the same in Mozilla and FireFox. I started thinking that they have completely different GUI shell, even their Properties box looks completely different.

      May be I am so stupid that I don't see the obvious, but please, help me, point out to me, why is everybody dropping Mozilla Suite and switching to FireFox.

  34. Sounds great but... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    It's really not Firefox specific. Any browser can take advantage of plink really.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  35. Neither flawed nor inaccurate. by pavon · · Score: 2, Informative

    These are not flaws in the article, they are called editing. The purpose of the article was to give some background into how Firefox was developed, and how it stacks up to IE. It was not to present the Complete History of Browsers. Nothing they said was incorrect. The browser did go through three names - that is a fact, and the nitty gritty details of why this happened were completely inconsequential to the story. Tabbed browsing is novel for the 90% people in the world who have never seen it, and taken in the context of what about Firefox is better than IE, is a completely accurate statement.

    If the author of the article did include the arcane details of every irrelevant piece of information related to the browser, the finished article would be far less readable and interesting - in other words if you had written the article then it would be flawed in achieving its desired intention.

    1. Re:Neither flawed nor inaccurate. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Water running for a tap isn't something enjoyed by 90 percent of the people in the world but if I install a tap in a remote African village then it hasn't suddenly become a novel idea. It might be new to them but it's not a new concept globally.

      If you read the article again you'll find that it suggests that tabbed browsing.is a new concept in Firefox rather than a new concept to many of its newer users. There's a big difference between the two, and it's not as subtle as you might think.

      In the context of browser design and innovation, which the article discusses freely, it would be far better to acknowledge that Firefox has borrowed the best of other browsers rather than pretend that it's somehow revolutionary in comparison to everything else out there, which is definitely the impression the article would give an uninformed reader.

      There's a difference between editing that gives clarity and editing that oversimplifies. You can do the former without falling into the trap of doing the latter. Unfortunately, that's not what's happened in this particular instance.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  36. I can hear MS rep: "Nah, it's just the new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skinnable IE that the boys in the lab are playing with. Everyone else came out with skins years ago, so now we're inventing it. (phew!)"

  37. The word you are looking for is "vulpine" by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    The word you are looking for is vulpine.

    1. Re:The word you are looking for is "vulpine" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vulpix I choose you!

      I'll get my coat.

    2. Re:The word you are looking for is "vulpine" by dancingmad · · Score: 1

      Wrong on both counts. According to the Mozilla store the firefox is a red panda (Ailurus fulgens), not a fox and not a canine of any kind.

      According to the site:
      In case you didn't know, the Chinese name for a red panda is hunho or firefox, due to their color and similar size to a fox.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    3. Re:The word you are looking for is "vulpine" by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Wrong on both counts. According to the Mozilla store the firefox is a red panda (Ailurus fulgens), not a fox and not a canine of any kind.

      However, according to the logo creator the actual inspiration of the logo was not a red panda at all, but a ordinary fox (the designer writes, "A firefox is actually a cute red panda, but it didn't really conjure up the right imagery.")

      If you're not still not convinced, have a look at some images of red pandas and foxes and then compare them to the Firefox logo. No way in a bunch of politically correct Sundays is that thing going to become a red panda! :)

    4. Re:The word you are looking for is "vulpine" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.slapass.com/members/ sera-fox/sera-fox-15.jpg

      That is 3 images across and 4 down on the foxes image search you suggested. She does not look like a Red Panda to me. Probably not work safe. Makes me want to get out my red jacket and my horn.

    5. Re:The word you are looking for is "vulpine" by rowanxmas · · Score: 1

      yeah, I saw that as well. I think that a logo change might be in our future.

  38. Caution is good by gordgekko · · Score: 1
    I likes me a good Firefox browser -- my sig should be proof of that -- but we really all should relax about how well it's doing. For one thing we have absolutely no reliable numbers about how many people are using it (outside of downloads and that doesn't give an entirely accurate picture either). Secondly, I don't think it's an unfair statement to say that the mainstream public is mostly unaware of browser alternatives and does not use Firefox.

    I think that will improve but to start declaring that it's setting the world "ablaze" is a bit premature and silly.

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    1. Re:Caution is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the number of times update.mozilla.org is pinged per day by the majority who've left auto-updating on?

    2. Re:Caution is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you know the mainstream public is starting to be aware of browsers when my 70-year-old barely computer literate father-in-law emails me to ask what I think of Firefox.

  39. Re:Incidentally, if you're compiling FireFox 1.0.. by tcopeland · · Score: 1

    Interesting, and thanks! FWIW, I've got a fresh Fedora Core 3 install and it has freetype 2.1.9 installed...

  40. http://www.google.com/ie by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    Better yet, what is this one?

    http://www.google.com/ie

    1. Re:http://www.google.com/ie by Stavr0 · · Score: 1

      That would be the Google replacement search engine for IE (^E)

  41. Firefox Needs SVG by 4of12 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Firefox would really take off nicely if it offered

    • Updated W3C standard SVG rendering.
    • A corresponding WYSIWYG SVG composer.

    Last I heard, Mozilla's SVG engine was embroiled in licensing confusion. But this development would open up high-quality web-based document production to the world and put it on a non-owned standard.

    And please, Santa, through in a MathML renderer with the years of built-in math quality of TeX.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Firefox Needs SVG by Kizzle · · Score: 1

      Me: Hi grandma! Boy do I have a program for you. A web browser that works like IE but will be much more functional and secure!

      Grandma: Well that's all well and good but do it have W3C standard SVG rendering?

      Me: Well uhh, no.

    2. Re:Firefox Needs SVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think any SVG editor should be required. Check www.inkscape.org if you're looking for a great one. I agree however that Mozilla needs full SVG support. I'd also like to see MNG support brought back. But most importantly, full CSS support! Yeah, Mozilla sucks at CSS. Tried using counters, for example? A great feature, supported only by Opera and perhaps Amaya. Mozilla is good, but by no means a perfect browser. And what about those unfixed years-lasting bugs? The developers should set their priorities better. I wish them good luck and hope they improve.

    3. Re:Firefox Needs SVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Request for SVG/MathML removed

      Well, it's obvious that what you really want is Amaya.

      Have fun!

    4. Re:Firefox Needs SVG by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      Grandma: Well that's all well and good but do it have W3C standard SVG rendering?
      Me: Well uhh, no.

      Grandma: That's no good then! When I try to view my cross-stitch charts it just shows me an empty box. Or did you expect our needlework club site to store everything as giant GIFs?

      --
      >;k
  42. It'll happen when.... by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Insightful



    It'll happen after you describe your specific 100% CPU bug on http://bugzilla.mozilla.org

    If it turns out that your specific bug is affecting a large number of people, it is likely to be fixed quickly.

    Use the system; it's there for YOU.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:It'll happen when.... by rednip · · Score: 1
      Better yet, he should post his IP address to a blackhole list, if it isn't there already.

      Most likely the original poster is running a spam spewing zombie.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  43. Firefox XUL by Phidoux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just recently got into XUL and it's great! There are still a few bugs but I have no doubt that they'll be ironed out in future versions. Apart from being a more secure and faster browser, IMHO XUL is going to be the final nail in IE's coffin.

    1. Re:Firefox XUL by anopres · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear the term XUL, all I can think of is the Stay-puff marshmellow man in Ghostbusters.

      --
      Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
  44. Re:Incidentally, if you're compiling FireFox 1.0.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just go back to Freetype 2.1.7, which also fixes xpdf build problems.

  45. Faisan explained by finnhart · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kevin Christopher, a senior and resident computer consultant for Faisan, said that he has been using browsers other than Internet Explorer for a few years and distrusts Microsoft's products.

    For those wondering just what "Faisan" is, and what it means to be a computer consultant who is both resident and senior, here's the scoop. Faisan is a dorm at Stanford (actually it's a section of a larger dorm, Florence Moore hall, where I spent freshman year about a decade ago). The quoted gentleman is a senior at Stanford, and a "Resident Computer Consultant" which basically means he's the go-to guy for IT questions at that particular dorm.

    Apparently the author believed this particular dorm to be so well-known that no explanation was needed.

    1. Re:Faisan explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apparently the author believed this particular dorm to be so well-known that no explanation was needed.

      As it should be.. there is a little thing at the bottom of the article which gives copyright to the Stanford Daily.
      We should presume they write for people who know about stanford dorms?
  46. Not only that by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not only that, it has already had 1,147,499 downloads through the WIndows Marketplace.

    --

    The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
    --Aristotle
    1. Re:Not only that by Phleg · · Score: 1

      I hate to say it, but I think they may be lying. It's 7:30PM here already, and there evidently hasn't been a single download since your post.

      --
      No comment.
    2. Re:Not only that by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

      OK, after looking into it some more, it seems they use the download counts from download.com, which means a) they probably don't continuously update them, and b) it's not quite as impressive. :/

      --

      The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
      --Aristotle
  47. Enought Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it is just me, but it seems every day there is someone who thinks that every article published on the Internet about Firefox must be posted here on /. so that everyone can rant about the same ole stuff like IE is going down... blah blah blah.
    A few million downloads is nothing compared to the number of computers in use throughout the world. Firefox adds minute features in addition to what IE offers. It is not faster IMO. It remains to be seen how "secure" it is. But basically you all just rant on and on because it is not IE. Didn't work for Kerry, who knows if it will work for FF, but I seriously doubt it. People ranted about how great Opera was until FF came along. Market share for both combined is still minimal.

  48. Readable version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  49. Microsoft has a weblog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where?

    1. Re:Microsoft has a weblog? by ESqVIP · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure he's talking about Channel9 and the IE blog.

  50. How about a tick. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Maybe firefox should display a little tick in the corner of the page if it.
    1: uses a dock-type (other that html4 transitional).
    2: Complies with that doc-type.

    HTML 4 transitional could get nothing, and a error on the page could get a cross.

    I would also suggest a tooltip saying,
    1: This site is using valid html
    2: This site is using old skool html.
    3: This site isn't written very well, expect there servers to have security holes and there staff to steel your credit card numbers and goods to arive late, broken and not fitting the description.

    Maybe the third one could be a modal popup warning box that you can't switch off.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:How about a tick. by srleffler · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an Extension.

    2. Re:How about a tick. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Exeptce the idea is to let my mum see that the site may not work because, 'who needs testing and standards do you doubt my way of managing projects and getting them out on time'.

      Reflecting this lack of care and pointing out that it will probably extent to the rest of there business will embarise site into fixing the problem. The next release will have, 'fix that anoying warning that pops up in firefox telling people we can't be truted.'in the spec.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:How about a tick. by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Like I said, it sounds like an extension.

      Seriously, the whole point of the firefox extensions system is to prevent the situation where everybody's pet feature gets added to the core browser. That way leads inevitably to horrible bloated software. Extensions are dead easy to install. If the feature you want were available as an extension (and maybe it is already), you could simply install it on your mum's computer.

      Not to mention that if the browser displayed a warning (even a subtle one) every time it encountered a noncompliant page, it would rapidly discourage people from using it.

    4. Re:How about a tick. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      You are about to enter a secure site.... you are about to leave a secure site, you are about to post data to....

      or, yo uhave requested an encrypted page, the site has identified it's self.....
      and the site is...
      https://update.mozilla.org/critical/firefox /2004-1 0-01.html

      yipiee, people still use the browser though.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  51. My experience with Firefox by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    After the release of 1.0, I downloaded Firefox for the first time, and then did an install. The installation claimed to import my passwords and cookies from my previous browser (IE6), but didn't. Then I tried using File > Import; this also claimed to import my passwords and cookies, and also didn't. I have a lot of passwords and don't know them all; so I then naturally became reluctant to switch from IE6 to Firefox.

    I'm running Windows 98SE, and I thought that might be the problem. This now seems unlikely, however, because the reviewer at the Washington Post had the same problem--and I doubt he's running Win98Se.

    I played with Firefox anyway, to see what it was like. For me, Ctrl++ doesn't work (although View > Text Size > Increase works fine). Also, there are problems when switching between working offline and online. And on one occasion, Firefox crashed. After the crash, a small application started up and asked me what had gone wrong; I entered a brief description and pressed the Send button, to send the information to Mozilla.org; then the small application crashed.

    I've reported problems like this before, both on Slashdot and on Mozillazine, but people seem reluctant to accept it. One slashdotter even claimed I was a troll. I was glad that at least one problem was reproduced by the Washington Post.

    Here's my conclusion: switching is too problematic for me to switch without strong motivation, and Firefox is actually less reliable than IE6 on my system. So, I'm sticking with IE6. Yes, I know IE6 is supposed to be insecure, but I run without ActiveX controls, and have not encountered problems.

    And to those who want to criticise me for posting this, consider that there are doubtless many others who had similar problems, and didn't report them as I have, and just walked away. And I loathe Microsoft and want free software to win.

    1. Re:My experience with Firefox by Kingpin · · Score: 1

      Don't post it in a forum - post it at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ - that's where the Mozilla Foundation collects bugs for their products.

      --
      Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
      Geocrawler error message.
    2. Re:My experience with Firefox by Denyer · · Score: 2, Informative
      > I have a lot of passwords and don't know them all;

      What you're saying is that you're screwed if the system dies or even if someone clears your stored data.

      Invest a little time with software which can reveal passwords, write everything down and seal that information away in a physically secure location.

      Alternately, consider creating passwords according to a formula.

      --
      Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    3. Re:My experience with Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Request: A method of finding your web passwords.

      If you're only concerned about getting your passwords, you can use a proxy (hint: the Proxomitron works well) to capture and display your passwords.

      (Plug: Proxomitron works with all browsers I've used to date, including hangs head in shame MSIE.)

    4. Re:My experience with Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >For me, Ctrl++ doesn't work (although View > Text Size > Increase works

      maybe that is because you are a dumbass who doesn't realize its ctrl-shift-+ ?
      works fine for me.

    5. Re:My experience with Firefox by Inda · · Score: 1

      The import feature crashed a couple of times for me too. Well, it hanged rather than crashed. I have years worth of cookies, passwords and such; I think this had something to do with it. The 3rd time of trying worked fine.

      v1.0 also had problems overriding Avant Browser fully. I fixed this eventually.

      The funny thing is I'm still using FF. Got to love this spellchecker.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    6. Re:My experience with Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the release of 1.0, I downloaded Firefox for the first time

      I've reported problems like this before, both on Slashdot and on Mozillazine, but people seem reluctant to accept it. One slashdotter even claimed I was a troll.

      Which is it? Are you a new Firefox user or have you reported bugs before? Perhaps you have been called a troll in the past because some things in your story don't add up?

      Yes, I know IE6 is supposed to be insecure, but I run without ActiveX controls, and have not encountered problems.

      In that case, do yourself a favour and switch Active Scripting off too (JScript and VBScript). If previous events are anything to go by, it's far more dangerous than ActiveX.

  52. Even the non-computer savvy know about it by tommasz · · Score: 1

    I've actually had a couple of people, not techies by any means, ask me if they should install Firefox. I said "yes, by all means" of course. But I have to say I'm surprised, I've known about Mozilla/Firefox for a long time, even did some bug work on it at one time, but never had anyone other than other techies even mention it, let alone ask about using it. It's certainly gained a lot of mindshare recently.

    1. Re:Even the non-computer savvy know about it by Infinityis · · Score: 0

      I completely agree. Needless to say I was shocked when my Mom called me just to ask if I had "heard about that new browser called Firefox". That was the moment when I realized how much PR the 1.0 release was getting...

  53. Song. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My browser and your browser were sitting by the fire.
    My browser said to your browser "I'm gonna set the world on fire."

    1. Re:Song. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have only one burning desire
      Let me stand next to your fire

      Oh! Move over, Explorer
      and let Firefox take over.

      -Jimi

  54. Konqueror/Win by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Any news on effort to port Konqueror to Windows? While Firefox is a great browser and all, I'm not particularly relishing yet another monoculture.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  55. ATHF ref.... by th3space · · Score: 1

    [igniknot]This is a good browser.[/igniknot]

    --
    "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
  56. Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by ChrisPee · · Score: 1
    Remind me why I should be using Firefox?

    CSS standards compliance? So what? Every major site already includes workarounds to render properly in IE. Many also rely on IE-specific JS and ActiveX.

    Security? With my IE security settings set to High, and regular Windows Update patches, I have never caught a virus/trojan. Not one.

    Micro$oft sux? Should I "punish" them by using something other than IE? That's just silly.

    1. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      With my IE security settings set to High, and regular Windows Update patches, I have never caught a virus/trojan. Not one.

      Oh okay. Give me a couple minutes ... I'll throw together a website that will turn your computer into a paper weight. Just make sure you hit it with IE. Thanks!

    2. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      How about being able to run down an e-mail with multiple hyperlinks and click each one, having it open into a new tab in a single window?

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    3. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by johndoe7776059 · · Score: 1
      Hope you didn't visit The Register yesterday with your fully patched Win 2k or XP SP1 machine yesterday, or you might just be infected (no, fully patched SP1 machine is not an oxymoron, SP1 is still a supported OS).

      Security is just a side benefit for me, the main reason I use Firefox (instead of Opera) is the extensions. Adblock, FlashBlock, BugMeNot, SpellBound, GmailNotifier, SA Last Read (incredably usefull extension for members of Something Awful), etc. With a little bit of work, Firefox can be made to work exactly the way you would like.

    4. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by neurojab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remind me why I should be using Firefox?

      Tabbed browsing, built in pop-up blocking, Google search, RSS headlines, a download manager, cross-platform compatability.

      With my IE security settings set to High, and regular Windows Update patches, I have never caught a virus/trojan. Not one.

      You're very lucky. Perhaps you have a ton of spyware installed on your system and don't even know it. Try running ad-aware and see what it comes up with.

      Should I "punish" them by using something other than IE? That's just silly.
      Agreed. However, if you've come to the conclusion that MS has achieved dominance despite the quality of their products, it is reasonable to want to try something else. I don't mind i.e. particularly, but don't trust it either given my experience with their office suite and operating system.

    5. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by argent · · Score: 1

      Remind me why I should be using Firefox?

      Tabbed Browsing.
      Flashblock Extension.

      With my IE security settings set to High[...]

      Personally I find the "Some website is doing something suspicious, do you want me to freak out" dialogs much less annoying than the sites that are a little funny-looking because the site designer chose to code for IE only.

      I've yet to find a site that I can't browse in Firefox. Just a few that have CSS DIVs running over the side or bottom of what IE thinks are their containers.

    6. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Fully patched means SP2, not SP1. SP2 was apparently not affected.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    7. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by Rits · · Score: 1
      Remind me why I should be using Firefox?

      Tabbed browsing, built in pop-up blocking, Google search, RSS headlines, a download manager, cross-platform compatability.

      Hey, that's been my line for years!

      --
      Opera
      --
      If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
    8. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by oliveaddict · · Score: 1

      You did not like tabbed browsing?

    9. Re:Tried Firefox but went back to IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could force MS to build a CSS compliant browser then there would be no need for us web developers to continually hack for IE.

  57. Keyword Bookmarking by Starluck · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've read better articles on firefox and Interviews with their creators. I found it sad that they didnt include probably the most powerful feature of the browswer that is leaps and bounds ahead of explorer. That feature that wasn't mentioned was KeyWord bookmarks, basicly the association of a keyword to your bookmarks! Imagine using the address bar on your browser as if it were a customizable search engine unto itself. An example is that you can bookmark FedEx.com then right click on it and attach multiple keywords to the bookmark, now if you need to track packeges via fedex.com there is now no need to actually visit the site; all you have to do is type in your address bar: track: (enter tracking number here) and firefox will plug that tracking number into FedEx and immdiately return the status of your package and all pertinent details. The possibilites of this feature are endless and saves so a lot of time that you would be normally be spending on load times from navigating said site. Like I said this feature is so awesome and unique I fail to see why anyone would leave it out when talking about FireFox.

    to read more about this feature: http://mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/sear ch/

    1. Re:Keyword Bookmarking by itmdb · · Score: 1

      I think there should be a centralized (well at least from the users point of view) way to set keyword searches, in the same way like in the search bar. Point-and-click a search you want, enter letter(s) that launch that, and also a page that shows what searches the user has defined. And those nice little icons of the search panel in that page to add some touch... Finding and setting info from the bookmarks is hard for the not-that-experienced user.

      --
      -- I'm was a sorry bastard with no friends, but now I've got Gmail! leet!
  58. Who is Blake Ross? by Sanity · · Score: 1

    I have seen a number of articles portray Blake Ross as the creator of Firefox. Is this an accurate portrayal or are journalists just doing it for the image of a 19 yr old going up against Microsoft?

    1. Re:Who is Blake Ross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting question. I suspect it's more of the latter. If you do a search on bonsai dot mozilla dot org you'll see other Mozilla developers have checked in a lot more code than Mr Ross.

    2. Re:Who is Blake Ross? by jonasj · · Score: 1

      It's pretty accurate. He was one of the creators of the project now known as Firefox, and he was the lead developer for a long time until Ben Goodger took over.

      Look at the MozillaZine story Phoenix 0.3 Coming Soon: Blake Ross writes in with information on the upcoming Phoenix release: "Please bang on the current Phoenix nightlies and help us shake out any last minute bugs. We hope to release Phoenix 0.3 as soon as Monday and need as many eyes on the builds as possible.

      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  59. I would if the damn thing had autocomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last I used it, Mozilla has no drop-down autocomplete capability for web forms, which IE has had since version 5 and Firefox had since the start. As a result using Mozilla makes me feel like I'm going back six years and using an old, outdated, bloated application--which when using Mozilla, I am.

  60. Another Quote From Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really amazes me:

    Prof. Mendel Rosenblum in the Computer Science Department said he thought that Mozilla presented an interesting challenge for Microsoft. "Browser innovation at Microsoft proceeded very rapidly up to the point they sufficiently crushed Netscape, and then it totally stopped," Rosenblum said.

    Um... sorry for my ignorance (and I'm NOT trying to be trollish here) but what innovation did MS present when they created and integrated IE into Windows? How exactly did they crush Netscape with this 'innovation'???

    - SDB -
    1. Re:Another Quote From Article by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      IE5 is a damn site more stable than NS4 and its rendering engine is considerably better to boot.

  61. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what browser Google employees prefer...

  62. Msie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is probably getting nervous

    Not, Bill is gonna counter-strike with MSIE 7 that's gonna blow the fox's ass.

  63. Reasons people stay with NS4 by jesterzog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've known several people who've used Netscape 4 until at least very recently, and at least one person who still does. The main reason they don't use Firefox, short of not having heard of it, is that it's not a complete replacement for Netscape 4. All it does is browse the web.

    In every case that I've known, the barrier to change hasn't had anything to do with web browsing. It's all been about mail storage, since they've used Netscape for managing their email.

    These people are used to an integrated browser/mail-reader, so switching to Firefox and using a separate email program is unnatural, especially considering that its email-equivalent (Thunderbird) hasn't yet reached version 1.0.

    When I've been able to switch these people to anything, it's been either the branded Netscape 6/7 or the less-branded complete Mozilla suite. Compared with Netscape 4, the complete Mozilla is a resource hog. With decent hardware it's okay, but conisdering that some of these people's systems are relatively limited, Mozilla becomes much less of an option.

    I hope that Thunderbird is completed soon. It'll still be difficult to convert people from a browsing/email application to two separate applications, but at least there will be a viable replacement to the complete Netscape 4 that won't be quite as resource intensive as the current options.

    1. Re:Reasons people stay with NS4 by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      Did you try doing a Custom install & only installing the browser & mail parts of Mozilla?

  64. why can't I find rpms for firefox 1.0 FC2 or FC1? by elwinc · · Score: 1

    None of the rpms I've been able to find work on my redhat fedora core 2 system. Why is that? Maybe I'm just lousy at searching, but I've looked on pbone and dag and rpmseek. I've tried srpms and binaries, but none of them work out of the box.

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  65. Article Author Got One Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet again we see the age old rubbish argument.

    "While Firefox could be hacked in the future, Firefox's open-source feature allows for vulnerabilities to be fixed more quickly. For now, the fact that fewer people use Firefox means that fewer people are actively involved in hacking it."

    Apache = more market share than IIS.
    IIS = hacked more often than Apache.

    If however they meant Hacked in terms of people developing on the project then oh well the comments on the mark.

  66. Obligatory RedVsBlue Quote... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

    "I was a lieutenant in the browser wars..." -Sarge

  67. Reasons people stay with NS3 by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Bah, all too newfangled for me :)

    My primary browser (and email client) of choice is still Netscape 3.04 -- yes, really!! Simple, fast, doesn't annoy me, runs on any piece of crap (and even from a CD if need be) and I've been dragging the same install from system to system for almost 7 years now, mail, cookies, bookmarks, and all. It still does 90% of everything I need.

    I have my alt-mailboxes set up in Mozilla, and I use it as an alt-browser when I have to, but it's just too damned slow (with too many annoyances) for everyday use. The only thing that made it tolerable at all is the Prefbar mod, which no Moz user should be without!! (I gather there is now a Prefbar for Firefox.)

    I did once try to set up Moz on a disabled client's old P50. Moz wouldn't even LOAD, let alone run. So they are still using NS4, which runs acceptably on that antique, and does everything they need, without impacting their limited budget.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:Reasons people stay with NS3 by tmasssey · · Score: 2, Informative
      No such chip as the P50.

      The Pentium started life as a 60, 66 and 90MHz chip. There was later a 75MHz chip (with 50MHz front end: usually with a 486-style chipset), but those are as slow as it goes.

      Reference

      I still use Netscape 4 on a couple of machines (NT4 fileservers). Last time I used Netscape 3.x was on a Windows 3.1 computer dialing in via SLIP! :)

    2. Re:Reasons people stay with NS3 by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The nasty Compaq Presario I mentioned probably had a P60-rated CPU (far as I've ever seen, yes, it's the slowest of the species). But as best I could tell from the jumper block (or rather, the traces where the referenced jumper block didn't exist), it was set to 50MHz, tho there was a 60MHz option (if the jumpers had been there to change). I'd guess Compaq had bought a run of CPUs that didn't even test good at the standard minimum 60MHz, and hardwired them to what they DID test as their max. Quite a piece of crap any way you looked at it.

      'Twas only 3 years ago that I finally retired my Win3.1 setup as the main internet box... it used an updated version of the old Shiva PPP dialer, and originally had NS2.02 -- fast, stable, and completely immune to the Usual Online Malware Tricks. I still have the old setup archived, the least I could do after 7 years of near-100% perfect service. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Reasons people stay with NS3 by tmasssey · · Score: 1
      If it was a Presario, it was almost definitely *not* a P60. The P60 (and 66's and early 90's) were early Pentiums that were devoted to high-end computers. There were no "value" P60's. In fact, those chips were quite different from later Pentium chips. They were socket 3 chips, and weren't (hardware) compatible with much else moving forward.

      To start the value market, Intel released the P75. This was a Pentium processor with a 1.5x multiplier, but a 50MHz front side bus. That's exactly what you're describing: a 50MHz setting on the motherboard (as well as the 60 and 66MHz speeds). I'd bet dollars to donuts that that's what you've got.

      Fortunately for me, I only used Windows 3.1 personally for about 2 weeks before I reloaded the machine with OS/2 2.0! The only time I was subjected to Windows 3.1 was on an old 386SX I had (the client in my 2-computer client-server world!) and clients that had a few Windows 3.1 boxes. But OS/2 has the same spyware-prevention features as Windows 3.1: obscurity! :)

  68. FireFox NOT ready for prime-time by fzammett · · Score: 1

    It is my understanding that there is a bug report for Firefox that has been open for some time ("some time" being over a year as I recall) that states that FireFox continues to leak memory whenever a tab is opened or closed.

    Let me make this as clear as can be: if this is in fact true, then FireFox is in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ready for prime-time and the developers have all but committed fraud by bumping it to 1.0.

    Go ahead, mod me troll. If you do AND this issue exists, you are dead wrong for doing so.

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    1. Re:FireFox NOT ready for prime-time by argent · · Score: 1

      You can check it out in the Bugzilla database if you like. Why don't you do that instead of just posting what you recall from Fudzilla?

    2. Re:FireFox NOT ready for prime-time by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First off, even if it is true, I am sure FireFox is not the only browser with a memory leak. Second, I use FireFox all the time and use tabs constantly. In any given day I might go thru 50-100 tabs, some days stretching into the the hundreds. Through out the course of the week i will hit a thousand tabs easily, no reboots or new browser windows opened mind you. All of this with no noticeable problems or slow downs. I do not have a stellar amount of RAM either. So if there this so called bug (I am not doubting there is) it does not affect me noticeably so I am fine with it, assuming it will get fixed eventually, thus it is not not ready for prime-time. With the boat load of bugs and terrible exploits in IE, I would rather think a memory leak is nothing in comparison.

      Have a good day.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  69. How Google Could Help... by fupeg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA:
    "The biggest weakness is clearly that Web sites design and test their site with the dominant browsers -- different versions of Internet Explorer -- and frequently never get around to making sure it works with Mozilla," Rosenblum explained. "This isn't super common, but there are Web sites that don't work with Mozilla"
    Imagine if one of the things that Google determined when it crawled a site was if the HTML of the site was standards compliant (or even just Gecko compliant.) This could be included as metadata on search results, with some kind of small, nasty looking icon indicating that a site was "irregular" or something like that. Talk about a simple way to pressure sites into becoming more cross-platform friendly... Alternatively, it could list icons representing the plugins needed for a site, and just make the ActiveX icon a skull-n-crossbones.
    1. Re:How Google Could Help... by Rits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine if one of the things that Google determined when it crawled a site was if the HTML of the site was standards compliant (or even just Gecko compliant.) This could be included as metadata on search results, with some kind of small, nasty looking icon indicating that a site was "irregular" or something like that.

      Imagine Google itself using valid, clean code. I guess they don't care about their bandwidth costs, they could save a lot.

      --
      If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
    2. Re:How Google Could Help... by prestidigital · · Score: 1
      Then again, Google could just put out their own browser.

      nasty looking icon indicating that a site was "irregular" or something like that

      Maybe like a big Silver "I"? Then us Puritans can publically shun all those non-complaint developers out there living in sin.

  70. No no, it's a simple concept by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    Firefox = Drinking water out of clean glass.

    IE = Drinking water out of glass with holes, patched by duct tape. The glass also comes with viruses and it steals your finger prints while you drink.

  71. casual windows users to - linux via firefox by zogger · · Score: 1

    they *might* if it was as easy as mashing a big glowing "update to linux" button right on the firefox toolbar. And technically there's nothing stopping them AFAIK. It would be a bandwith hog and they'd have to have several pages of "are you sure" disclaimers most likely, but it *could* be done I think. I don't know but I'll throw it out anyway for discussion and razzing purposes, because I ain't shy.

    Saving peoples data though might be the most difficult coding task to overcome. Something like "before you start, move all personal data you want to keep to this directory and name it such and such" whatever scheme.

    I'd like to see it happen though, at least a beta effort.

  72. RAGNAROK! by F'Nok · · Score: 1

    By the Gods, the Vikings were right!
    It's Ragnarok!

    Quick stop it before it swallows the...

    Oh wait... Wrong one... :/

  73. The psychology of the switch by JavaRob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If users become comfortable, in small steps, with open source software, that could be the beginning of a migration.

    Right on -- it's more a psychological thing than anything else. The internet is THE killer app for home users. It's why Grandma and Aunt Bee are getting computers. In the past, the "face" of the internet has been IE.

    Once the Internet looks like a little fox wrapped around a globe, it's psychologically a much smaller step to switch from Windows to an alternative, less expensive operating system next time they're shopping for a new PC.

    "I don't know, that start up screen looks different... but oh, here's my internet. I know this part. It's exactly the same, and not some kind of shady knockoff! So why would I pay more for that other computer? My grandkids keep telling me that one has spam and ads, and it spies on me."

    Also, FUD tactics against OSS will be less effective as more people are very familiar with a piece of high-quality, open source software.

  74. The next browser wars.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are all about DRM.

  75. Adobe Acrobat Locks Up Firefox by kmassare · · Score: 1

    I have been using Firefox for about a month on my Windows XP box and I like it a lot. I have, however, observed a problem when I try to open PDF files through the browser. The browser starts up Adobe Acrobat then freezes. I don't know if this is a problem with Firefox or Acrobat, but it makes the browser useless for PDF files.

    1. Re:Adobe Acrobat Locks Up Firefox by Hellsbells · · Score: 1

      I've had problems with this a few times, and in my case it was because Acrobat Reader was displaying a "Check for Updates" window. The "Check for Updates" window was hidden behind all my other windows, and freezes Firefox until you close that window.

    2. Re:Adobe Acrobat Locks Up Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a similar problem, but found it had to do exclusively with Acrobat reader. Too many extensions (slow startup time) and too many temporary files (lock ups).

      try this for the lockup problem:

      Acrobat reader creates tmp files in c:\temp. These are called acr0000.tmp acrFFFF.tmp (a range of 65535). For some reason it never reuses these so when it hits acrFFFF.tmp it goes into an internal hissy fit trying to create the next file in the range (which cannot exist according to its variable's definition).

      The solution is to open a cmd window, cd to c:\temp and execute del acr*.tmp. After about 4 minutes it will finish and you can use acrobat reader again.

    3. Re:Adobe Acrobat Locks Up Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never experienced this problem but there is a bug with Acrobat that's fixed in 6.0.2.

      http://www.thenorth.com/APBLOG4.nsf/Threaded/2A8 BB DD42BD0327C85256F4B005583BD

    4. Re:Adobe Acrobat Locks Up Firefox by kyhwana · · Score: 1

      Try setting it to not use the pdf plugin. In tools/options/downloads/plugins and untick the PDF option.
      It should then prompt you to either download or open in acrobat as a seperate application instead of using the plugin for the tab.

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
  76. Re:Why I should be using Firefox? by bunratty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To promote an open web where users can choose to use whatever browser they want. All too often these past few years, users have been "forced" to use IE to view some sites. If enough users use any other browser, that puts pressure on web developers to test their sites on some browser other than IE/Win. With IE usage starting to drop below 90% for the first time in years, we're getting close to the critical mass for this to happen.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  77. Security problems affect us all by gidds · · Score: 1
    They are the ones who end up suffering.
    If only that were the case.

    Right now my mailbox is being flooded with examples of the latest virus from people who have chosen (whether from inertia, ignorance, indifference, or outside influence) to use insecure software. They either don't know or don't care* about the effects on everyone else, and we all suffer as a result.

    (* Not sure which case worries me more...)

    If I had a PC, it'd be more than just an inconvenience, of course, but even in the relative safety of a different processor, OS, and software, and reasonable security precautions, it's still jolly annoying.

    So no, in this case they're not the only ones suffering.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    1. Re:Security problems affect us all by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Do you honestly think firefox is 100% secure?

      If all those people used firefox, the same hackers out there exploiting IE flaws would be exploiting firefox flaws, and you would still have viruses flooding your email.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  78. God Bless Firefox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't use anything else, ever.

    I only use IE when I have too; like to Windows update or a site that uses only IE.

    I love firefox and it keeps getting better. I use thunderbird now for my email.

    to **** with microbloat !

    I'm on fire...

  79. IE vs Firefox by ZXIndustries · · Score: 1

    As I type this message, I'm using Firefox. IE is completely useless. It is full of loopholes, has no extra features [or at least ones that work well] (popup blocking, form filling etc). It has a crap download manager (Firefox's isn't awesome either, but it's easier to use) and (I know it's not important) it isn't skinable. Firefox is small, fast and is easier to use, PLUS it's multi-OS compatible (but which Linux user would want to use IE anyway?) Unless Microsoft picks up their act (which isn't going to happen), Firefox is going to take the lead.

    --
    Zed_eX: The original menace to society.
    1. Re:IE vs Firefox by smallguy78 · · Score: 1

      Have a carebear

      firefox downloads: 5 million
      IE users (windows): > 300 million worldwide

      The firefox revolution is happening in every techie bedroom across the states.

      --
      Nothing costs nothing
  80. Mozilla Suite? by ZXIndustries · · Score: 1

    Er... Ive never heard of it. I'll download it now. And yeah. I do use Mozilla Thunderird.

    --
    Zed_eX: The original menace to society.
  81. From NS4 to Opera. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they don't want to switch to Firefox, why not move them over to Opera? It's a tiny download, even smaller than Firefox, and has a complete e-mail client and browser, and it is actively updated, unlike NS4.

    And it works on lower-end systems!

  82. They blocked tabs in Hotmail... by maysonl · · Score: 1

    Microsoft changed the html emitted for hotmail messages, so that now you aren't able to open links from email in a new tab: it forces a new window.

  83. typical microserf... by airdrummer · · Score: 0

    > doesn't even know how to install Firefox on a Macintosh

    if there isn't a clickable insataller, they're clueless...