Slashdot Mirror


AOL Releases Netscape Beta, Based on Firefox

An anonymous reader writes "Netscape has released their new prototype browser for Windows based on Firefox 0.9.3. The prototype's development was outsourced to Mercurial Communications and includes several Netscape specific extensions. The biggest difference from Firefox, however, is the ability to switch to the Internet Explorer rendering engine from within the browser using an IE ActiveX control. The browser is currently available for a limited download."

43 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are screenshots and comments over at Planet Mozilla.

    1. Re:Also by pcmanjon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why in the sam hill would I want to 'switch to internet explorer rendering'?

      Isn't that the whole reason we go to firefox? For safer browsing?

      If I want to browse with IE's engine, I'll use IE, which won't take time to load since it's resident in the systems memory already.

      Duh. Why would anyone download a browser to browse in IE?

    2. Re:Also by RevAaron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why in the sam hill would I want to 'switch to internet explorer rendering'?

      These days it is very rare that I'd need to view a page in IE, but it happens once in a while for me. For that, I use an extension for FF that lets me right click and say "open in IE." *shrug* Some folks may run into this problem more, and if this is done well, you could just pop into IE and view that page, then move on, keeping your tabs in the same window, etc.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    3. Re:Also by ptlis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Say i'm developing a webpage, it validates with the W3C validator and I want to make sure it renders correctly in IE as well as gecko based browsers; this would mean I could load the page up in Netscape, view it with the gecko rendering engine, followed by IE. I'd then modify the CSS so that it renders reasonably in IE then switch back to gecko to ensure it still works correctly with it. This would mean less clutter for me when testing on Windows as it means I don't need Firefox & multiple instances of IE on my taskbar; instead there'd just be Netscape containing a bunch of tabs.

      I hate any form of excess clutter in my desktop environment/window manager.

      --
      There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
    4. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just install the Tab Browser Extension for Firefox. It supports moveable tabs, saving tabs when you close, multiple rows of tabs, etc. Firefox lacks them because not everyone wants them, and they're available with a simple extension download for those that do.

    5. Re:Also by tvadakia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try the Tabbrowser Extensions (http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_tabextensions.html. en) extension for Firefox. Beats anything even Avant can fassion. Enjoy IE free browsing.

      --
      Unique.
    6. Re:Also by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4

      Yippie-skippie! Thanks.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    7. Re:Also by whmac33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since you know about this, anyone know of something similar for the Windows Taskbar?

      I hate the grouping in XP and always wish I could just move the tasks around on the bar.

    8. Re:Also by wfmcwalter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It doesn't make much, if any, difference to slashdotters like you and I. But to AOL it's potentially a very big deal indeed. It'd be foolish to infer too much about AOL's internal thinking from one technology offering (particularly about a company so prone to factionalism as AOL) but this might imply that at least some part of the company is maneuvering for a firefox-based AOL client to be the standard.

      I think it's likely AOL would like to move to a Firefox client, as there are several real business advantages for them, including

      • They bear the brunt of the support-call cost for a subscriber's entire PC (particularly for viruses, spyware, pagejacking, and increasingly fraud). Moving their userbase away from IE would surely save them a fair amount of this, and that's real dollars and cents.
      • No-one wants their business to be dependant on Microsoft, particularly folks like AOL who are locked in competition with MS on a variety of fronts. The more they can extricate themselves from said dependency the safer they'll feel, and even a partial extrication today is better than none, and can be a stepping stone to dumping MS altogether. That's no wide-eyed open-source idealism, it's cold hard corporate survivalism.
      • For a vertically-integrated provider like AOL, firefoxes UI framework and ease of extension makes for an attractive platform.

      The fly in the ointment for them is website compatibility. Sure, most sites do indeed work fine, but there's a sufficiently large number that don't to make AOL switching untenable. A number of the folks I've successfully switched to firefox have migrated back, particularly because either their bank, airline, or corporate portal have been IE only.

      Now, AOL has a full list of the sites their customers visit, and can easily compile a list of the major ones that need IE. They can build this list into an integrated firefox-IE browser, so that it switches to IE for those "legacy mode" sites seemlessly. That may well be what this netscape is - a test version of a "smart-switching" AOL client.

      If they wanted to (although I can't see as much business case for them to want to) AOL could then put pressure on those sites that don't work with firefox to fix their issues. THey can threaten to start popping up little windows saying "legacy mode support", "backward-compatibility mode", or "old-style technology mode", a mark of Cain the site in question would rather avoid.

      But most of all it's an option. In business, an option is an advantage even if you don't take it - in this case it's a great stick with which to beat Microsoft in future negociations. So it's a smart move to make, and a scary (for MS) technology for them to have - it's what MS fears the most, a smooth migration path away from MS.

      --
      ## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
    9. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.....my life is my own.
      Duly noted, slashdot user #772434
  2. Perfect Name for a Ripoff Artist by mfh · · Score: 4, Funny

    The prototype's development was outsourced to Mercurial Communications and includes...

    That's the perfect name for a company hired to knock-off the Firefox browser:

    Mercurial:
    Having the characteristics of eloquence, shrewdness, swiftness, and thievishness attributed to the god Mercury.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Perfect Name for a Ripoff Artist by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey hey, lets not be too hateful to AOL. They did support the Mozilla development environment for a good many years for like 0 profit. Lets not jump on their a$$es for doing something completely legal and in my eyes, ethical & moral.

      If ANYTHING is used to offset the IE juggernaut, then so be it. I don't have a problem with the dual HTML engine technique since many people DO need activex support, at least once and a while.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:Perfect Name for a Ripoff Artist by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " ALLOWS YOU TO EXECUTE CODE FROM THE BROWSER YOU ARE COMPETITING WITH?"

      This is how Microsoft has won basically every battle it faced in the 90's anyways. IE supported NS extensions, Windows supports Novell, UNIX. Word supports Corel, etc..

      Don't you get the game yet? If given the option of Netscape X and IE, you'd choose Netscape X because it can do everything IE does, PLUS Firefox built-in features. If you want to start weaning ppl off IE, its better to attack with a good migration plan.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Perfect Name for a Ripoff Artist by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      They did support the Mozilla development environment for a good many years for like 0 profit

      Actually did far more than that...

      They donated $2 million to the Mozilla Foundation to get them going and willingly donated the mozilla.org domain name, the Mozilla-related trademarks, and related equipment such as the mozilla.org servers, to Mozilla Foundation. They was obliged to do none of this, just having purchased Netscape and got all this along with them.

      See also this story.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Perfect Name for a Ripoff Artist by MC+Negro · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is how Microsoft has won basically every battle it faced in the 90's anyways. IE supported NS extensions, Windows supports Novell, UNIX. Word supports Corel, etc..

      Don't you get the game yet? If given the option of Netscape X and IE, you'd choose Netscape X because it can do everything IE does, PLUS Firefox built-in features. If you want to start weaning ppl off IE, its better to attack with a good migration plan.
      Preach it, brother! Just look at emacs - recent iterations have included not only vi, but Internet Explorer, FireFox, Mosaic and the complete AmigaOS, just to ensure extra compatbility.

      *ducks*
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    5. Re:Perfect Name for a Ripoff Artist by joshuaobrien · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except they never made any move to Mozilla.

      Hang on, the article title is "AOL Releases Netscape Beta, Based on Firefox". Companies like AOL don't donate money, they make bets. Maybe this one's about to pay off.
  3. Yet at the same time... by the_mighty_$ · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...they are beta testing a new IE based browser.

    --
    VI VI VI - the editor of the beast!
  4. IE rendering engine by iJed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Surely including an IE rendering engine negates one of the biggest advantages of moving to Firefox: fewer security exploits.

    1. Re:IE rendering engine by say · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the rendering engine. It is responsible for rendering the pages correctly on your screen and should not impose a security risk.

      That is -4, completely insightless. Although everyone agrees that a rendering engine should not impose a security risk, the entire point of security flaws in IE is that its rendering engine imposes risks. Its rendering engine (pipeline) includes ActiveX objects, VBScript and all the other atrocities causing all the bad stuff.

      The Netscape browser offers you to render stuff by using MSHTML.DLL, which includes a small IE within another program. Many programs does so nowadays. And all the other browsers out there (Neowin etc.) are really just shells around an IE ActiveX object.

      So, all problems with IEs security will be accurately reproduced when activating IE rendering in this Netscape browser. (And all flaws of Gecko will be produced when you use Gecko).

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  5. Switch to IE rendering? by dextroz · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's like saying: it's got the ability to piss it's pants when it lacks a toilet!

    --
    Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
  6. Coral Cache of Beta Download by BobPaul · · Score: 3, Informative

    Downloading much faster via the Coral Cache Link, so I thought I'd post it.

  7. Bored at Work by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
    Forgive me, first thing that popped into my head. I'm bored.

    Morpheus: Microsoft is our enemy, Firefox, but when you're on the internet, you look around. What do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still IE users. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to switch to a browser that doesn't come included on their desktop when they bring their computers home from Best Buy and pop in the "2000 Free Hours!" AOL CD. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on Microsoft that they will fight to protect it. Were you listening to me Firefox, or were you looking at the woman surfing the hot lesbo porn?
    Firefox: I was...
    Morpheus: Look again.
    Woman has turned into Bill Gates, introducing new "standard" to break non-IE browsers.
    Morpheus: Freeze it!
    Firefox: What is it?
    Morpheus: IE-only standards. That means that anyone we haven't converted over is potential audience for crappy sites who only QA against IE. On the internet, you see this everywhere. We have survived by being standards-based, by working to be compatible. But these false "standards" are the gatekeepers.
    Firefox: Whoa.
    Morpheus: I won't lie to you, Firefox. Every single company or product that has stood their ground, everyone who was fought Microsoft has been crushed or aquired. But where they have failed, you will succeed.
    Firefox: Why?
    Morpheus: I saw Microsoft crush Netscape's market share. Men have come up with fantastic innovations only to find them incompatible or MS copies already included in the next version of Windows. Yet their programs are still based on factory-style programming and decisions made by pointy-hairs. Because of that, they will never be as secure or as functional as you can be.
    Firefox: What are you trying to tell me, that I can block pop-ups?
    Morpheus: I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Bored at Work by crashnbur · · Score: 4, Funny

      Am I the only one wondering why a budding young web browser with huge potential is talking to a peer-to-peer file-sharing client?

  8. ActiveX? by ematic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How is it that Firefox can support ActiveX plugins? My thought was that not supporting ActiveX was a feature of Firefox. Besides, what's the point in supporting IE rendering, when Mozilla's is more robust and compliant to current standards?

    --

    idm owns me
  9. Good thinking guys! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest difference from Firefox, however, is the ability to switch to the Internet Explorer rendering engine from within the browser using an IE ActiveX control.

    That is without exception, the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

    Let's take Firefox - known for it's security - and have you enable ActiveX, the mack-daddy of all virus vectors. And then for an encore, have it run the mother-of-all virus vectors, IE - inside it!

    What do you do for an encore? Take a shower with your toaster???

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Good thinking guys! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree. In theory this is only mirroring what a number of users already do. Many users surf with Firefox until they get to a site that only works with IE, then switch to IE. That is not to say that this is not a security issue... actually a potential security disaster. Now all they need to do is make it mirror a more clueful user's behavior and automatically e-mail a complaint to the web master about their site's noncompliance with standards. Seriously though, this is still probably better from a safety standpoint than IE, and is workable as a default install for the clueless masses.

  10. Re:IE renduring engine feature by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 3, Informative

    No. It's an ActiveX that works only on Windows, so it's not multi platform and can not be included in the base FF code.

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
  11. switch to the Internet Explorer rendering engine by blanks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "A source close to the company said AOL opted to include IE engine support in order to offer users more choice, as some sites are optimized for certain browsers. But to avoid security vulnerabilities found in IE, Netscape "gives the user the choice through Site Controls of what sites they trust and don't trust by allowing them to turn off Web functionalities that expose security holes on a per site basis," " Does this mean that while the IE engine is running it will be just as open to IE attacks? Or that people will have the ability to use built in IE features, or are those seperate to the IE engine...

  12. Netscape is ruining the purpose of FireFox. by garcia · · Score: 4, Informative

    I always thought that Firefox was meant to streamline the webbrowsing experience? The first thing that I noticed when installing the browser is that it asked for my zipcode for weather reports. Ugh, no thanks, 90210 here I come. It also asks for a reboot after install. For what? What do I need to reboot after an install of a webbrowser for? What are they installing?

    It defaults to ONE ugly screen with a tab opened, a headlines ticker going, a "money" ticker going, and the menu bar on the opposite side of the window than I am used to. There's a "new tab" option on the left side of the browsing area instead of leaving the main tab open there. You think new users are going to like this? I don't.

    At least I don't see any AOL icons installed to my desktop or my favorites (yet). They might come after a restart though.

    It's nice to see the backing of AOL/Netscape on Firefox. People might recognize those two names before Firefox and they might switch. Especially if it can render the IE-only pages 100%.

    1. Re:Netscape is ruining the purpose of FireFox. by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder what people in Beverly Hills use for their fake zip code...

  13. Two Words: Name Recognition by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the non geek, there are only two web browsers, Microsoft and Netscape. One comes with Windows and is easy... the other has grown to suck more and more over the years. No matter how good Firefox, Opera or any others may be, they don't have the name recognition that Netscape still has.

    I would expect that a major Netscape release like this with a Firefox backend will do a lot to draw the non tech folks who continue to use IE because they think it is their only option.

    1. Re:Two Words: Name Recognition by mkro · · Score: 4, Funny
      For the non geek, there are only two web browsers, Microsoft and Netscape.
      I work at a helpdesk. Among the non-geek, there are two web browsers: "Internet" and "Internet Explorer". Both groups recognise it by the blue "e" icon.
      --
      I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
  14. Talk about having your priorities wrong by OlivierB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "ability to switch to the IE engine"..
    or how to ruin the efforts of a community to develop a more secure browsing platform with only one mouse click.
    They should have concentrated on developing many extensions for the thing.
    Stuff like aim chat extension, save bookmarks, listen to netscape radio (i.e a a small taskbar control). I can think of way too many things before even considering running IE in Firefox.
    Why didn't they instead spend the $$$ improving rendering in FireFox so that all these IE only sites render properly?

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  15. From the AOL point of view... by Thunderstruck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many ask why aol/netscape bother with maintaining a browser. Perhaps the answer can be found by looking at AOL as a whole rather than just at the browsers themselves.

    Sure, this version of Netscape will probably go the way of others. It will also create, for a short while at least, greater diversity in the browser arena. This would, it seems, tend to force all browsers toward a unified standard of interoperability.

    AOL does not sell browsers, it sells content. If unified standards are used, it is better able to deliver that content. With a diverse browser environment, AOL also stands a better chance of not being "shut out" when a single, dominant, browser is "innovated" such that it can no longer reach AOL services. (Not that Microsoft would ever do that sort of thing.)

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  16. sign me up! by OffTheLip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Woohoo, that is the deal clincher. Sign me up for AOL today.

  17. Windows Update by prandal · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the new Netscape Browser, select the option to render in Netscape mode, and then type windowsupdate.microsoft.com in the url barl. Lo, Windows Update appears and works!

  18. Sabotage by poohsuntzu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone thought about it? Tinfoil hats on, it would explain why such a bizarr move was pulled in the first place.

    1. Take the firefox build of one of the worst milestones possible.

    2. Allow it to use the IE Rendering Engine

    3. When it breaks, runs slow, has the same bugs as IE, blame it on the firefox base code.

    4. The users of the new netscape browser will think that firefox (that browser everyone keeps talking about) is just as bad as IE.

    5. IE users stay IE users, even netscape users because now they don't feel there is any reason to use firefox if it breaks all the time.

    6. ????

    7. Profit!!!

    --
    "We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
    "Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
  19. User interface disaster by jkujawa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Screen Shot"

    That is undoubtedly one of the worst UI disasters I've ever seen. Just looking at it makes my eyes hurt. The horrible choice in colors, the business, the unreadability of text due to gradients and poor color and font choices, and that's just looking at a static image. From the looks of it, I wouldn't be surprised if half the widgets were animated.

    It's like ... perfect awfulness. If a skilled and pissed-off user interface designer sat down to purposely design something as user-hostile as possible, I don't think he'd come up with something this bad.

    Ye gods.

  20. OK... Gonna make myself majorly unpopular by fozzmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but the Moz/FF stronghold is geeks, we need to get it on non-geek platforms. I've told my dad, my friends, everyone to switch to FF, but I always say "if you have problems on such and such a site go back to IE for that one alone". not being able to use the site which is your bank, or do your weekly competition with the Times (this is my Dad) is not acceptable to the end user. Get them on FF as much as possible, but if its all or nothing with them, you'll prob get nothing.

    For this reason I do broadly support the IE switching option, providing its like a button "Switch To IE" that would always render that (page/domain) in IE. Similar to the way "Allow Poppups works. This would solve the major problem of "I use IE because I often visit XYZ and FF doesn't support it".

    Saying that a universal "Switch to IE rendering" option is going to be more damaging than helpful to FF.

  21. Full circle? by sgant · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't this kinda go around in a sort of weird Karma circle?

    The new Netscape, based on Firefox...which itself is based on Mozilla...which is the off-shoot of Netscape.

    Wow...just blew out me mind...

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  22. Plan? by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If you want to start weaning ppl off IE, its better to attack with a good migration plan.

    All I did was install Firefox on every computer in my office, set it as the default browser, and removed the IE icon from anywhere possible.

    Finally, I renamed the little foxy world thingy to 'Internet Explorer' and voila - everyone migrated. Guess how many people noticed?

    Any incompatibilities come with very few sites that IMO most people don't use anyway. The people, that would understand what was wrong would know how to launch IE as a backup.

  23. Re:I think you've forgotten something too by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As far as I can tell, they're not using the name Firefox.

    And if you're worried about brand dilution because someone's using your code, open source is not right for you.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  24. Screenshot, with notes by Devil · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've put up a screenshot, with notes on Flickr. Bash away.