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.
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
Nice article. Too bad there isn't one link to the Mozilla website.
Microsoft used Firefox in a press image they sent out promoting their MSN Search.
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.
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?
"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.
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...
The fox is on FIRE! Haven't you seen the icon? That poor flaming canine is running around the world, setting it ablaze.
What the fsck is this page?
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Yes, three things:
Firefox is good.
Microsoft is bad.
Linux is really cool.
"Microsoft is probably getting nervous"
Nervous about what? The web browser was the battle from 1997. Today it's web services, connecting new front-ends with really old databases, and the like. The web browser is simply a window on money-making backends, and the money is what Microsoft worries about.
"I think Microsoft is getting a little nervous," Ross said. "They aren't sleeping anymore. They're talking about us on their Weblog and have started to contact the press about us."
Before you doubt you should at least read the article. There's been a lot more work done on IE in time of FF than before. Read M$ 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
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
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.
EricHow to detect Internet Explorer (pretty relevant)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
r ch/
to read more about this feature: http://mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/sea
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.
*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?