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.
Microsoft is probably getting nervous
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
"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.
Never underestimate the power of the "word of mouth."
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!
"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.
When is the 100% cpu bug going to be fixed?
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
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.
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."
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?
Firefox would really take off nicely if it offered
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."
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.
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.
EricAnd 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.
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.
Free Firefox news reader.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.