Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Reports on Firefox
Soldrinero writes "Just three days after running a community-sponsored two-page ad, the New York Times is now running a news story on Mozilla Firefox. Our favorite browser is presented in a very favorable light, and there's a good discussion on both Firefox's useability-enhancing features and its security merits. Being fair, they also present Microsoft's solution to security problems: 'Microsoft does have one suggestion for those who cannot use the latest patches in Service Pack 2: buy a new personal computer'"
...microsoft wasn't fair with themselves.
Being fair, they also present Microsoft's solution to security problems: 'Microsoft does have one suggestion for those who cannot use the latest patches in Service Pack 2: buy a new personal computer'"
They're shooting themselves in the foot here. Open source does not require you to 'buy a new personal computer'. Oh, the market does tho, and Microsoft is there for the market, not for the consumer. That's sad.
That said, the article itself is a brilliant advert for FireFox and gives an excellent overview of the circumstances in which Internet Explorer overtook Netscape and how that compares to what is happening in the browser market right now.
And assuming NYTimes is not a technical journal (which I don't think it is) it doesn't have the problem of "preaching to the choir" as so many articles have had in the past.
Long live Firefox.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Firefox is getting alot of well deserved hype these days. Everything revolves around Firefox being new which gives it a great marketing advantage (the small non-profit organization against the goliath, microsoft). But for how long will the hype last? Although I personally belive a large milestone was reached with the release of Firefox 1.0 we must be careful not to enter the "comfort zone" and expect that this is how things will continue to be.
This was the first step, now it's time to plan for the next.
Thanks for browsing at -1
Please vistit my blog: www.framtiden.nu
It's called "appropriate context". A feminist magazine (I forget which one) stopped taking ads because the advertisers wanted to influence the editorial content. In this case, the NYT is rewarding the free software community as both a signal "we reward our advertisers" and an inducement for the community to advertise further.
We may still have a good article, but it wouldn't be excellent, and it wouldn't be now. Oddball minorities need a lot of "balance" to make an article appear neutral. Mainstream entities (and this ad. makes Firefox mainstream) can have more positive reviews without so much appearance of bias, and NYT readers having seen the ad. will see Firefox as mainstream.
The need for reward, and entering the mainstream both make this kind of coverage possible.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Well I thank the author for addressing that quote which we've seen in other articles regarding Microsoft's comments towards Firefox. The reply was exactly what I (and many more) thought of the original quote.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Well, you're not wrong, BUT, an article following a 2-page add that comes about by a community pulling resources together is also a comment regarding a grassroots movement going mainstream.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
It is nice to see FireFox getting some well deserved press. It needs as much as it can get because it has a huge hurdle to overcome. It isn't pre-installed on computers. This means that it requires people to do something. /. readers enjoy improving their computers with great software, where as your average computer user wants to point and click with as little extra effort as possible. Some how the average pperson needs to be convinced that there is a greater benefit in installing FireFox than in taking no action at all.
Along with this hurdle, sit down with an IE user and install FireFox.....then watch them use it. They have no idea how to use tabbed browsing and will open browser window after browser window, because they don't know any better. And the extensions are great, but well beyond 90% of users ability to understand.
So....Remember....Don't just tell your family and friends about FireFox. Istall it for them(along with Flash, Shockwave and Java} and show them how to open multiple tabs. Install a couple extensions for them. This will take maybe 30 minutes, but it will create a FireFox user. Don't just spread the word...Show people first hand!
"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ok, point by point.
Ive heard from others it has fewer features and options,
resulting in smaller memory footprint, less overhead and generally faster and "lighter" code - shorter load times, shorter page rendering times etc.
and a more dumbed down UI. Dumbed down UI != ease of use.
That's what you got wrong. The UI is task-oriented, not feature-oriented. In this way it's "dumbed down" - the user doesn't have to care X is a component of Y and Y belongs to Z. "Advanced"? "Security&Privacy"? "Tools"? Where is it? User cares only that X does task of type A and so it can be found in the "A". Associating downloaded file type - "downloads". Easy and simple. The navigation routes don't correspond to the program internal structure but to user requirements. The options are all there, only the less used ones are dug in deeper to expose the frequently used ones.
I think the less customisability software has the harder it becomes to use, for newbies and experienced users alike.
Another thing you get wrong. While Mozilla is a combine with kitchen sink and hardly anything to add, Firefox is meant to be "bare bones to be extended". Plugins for Firefox may change its face totally and they aren't meant as "some extra fancy" but as an essential component. You build your browser to be what you want it to be by adding what you need, not by switching off what you don't want. In this respect Firefox is way more customizable than Mozilla - just not "out of the box".
It becomes more difficult for the user to customise the software for their preferences and usage pattern, and more difficult to accomplish certian tasks.
Straight opposite. First - "reasonable defaults" so there's no thing like in MSIE prefs where I run a line of checkboxes and toggle all, on to off, off to on, because -all- of them are against my preference. And then flexiblity to add any extras you desire.
The trick with useability is not to remove customisbility, but rather make software as customisable as possible but simply design a good configuration user interface that places more commonly used options more prominantly than advanced one, such as through placing the more advanced options on advanced options screens or other such techniques, thus keeping the more advanced options from confusing newbies but allowing people to gradually begin using them and discover them (and making it easy to discover them by making them all avialable through a good UI) as they become familiar with software. People often start out using software by using a subset of its features and then gradually add to their knowledge of the software and use a more complete set of its features, and different users have different needs and will use different features sets. This is why software should be as customisable as possible and not try to restrict features and functionality, but rather allow the user to customise the software to their tastes. One feature that seems useless to one person is likely essential to someone else.
You just summed up an essential part of Firefox philosophy.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Best line from the article:
Beg your pardon. Choose? Doesn't I.E. come bundled with Windows?
Ah, so refreshing to see a mainstream journalist hit the nail on the head in a single line.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As far as I can see the only thing that is stopping a mass migration to Linux is a lack of software, especially games and business software. Joe User can't upgrade his graphics card under Linux, true; but he can't upgrade his graphics card under Windows either. What Joe User *can* do under Windows is go to the store, buy a prepackaged piece of software, pop in the disk and click "next" until its installed.
Also, we have to admit that some of the critical software for Linux isn't as good as the software for Windows. Last night I discovered that KOffice's KSpread program won't let me make a non-contiguous selection. KWord doesn't feature paragraph grouping or widow and orphan control. I *want* to use the free software programs, but I find myself using Crossover Office to run MS Office because MS Office works. Its expensive, but it does the job.
Linux is ready for the desktop, we just need software to run there.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
You're confusing "works" with "always works." Microsoft's major advantage is that, at least at first, the interface is fairly intuitive for basic tasks, the software install process is idiot proof, and the applications "just work"
Sure, if it breaks you still need a fairly sophisticated idea of how everything works to fix it, but the computer is fast becoming a home applicance. Like any other appliance, it goes to a specialist for repair.
Linux needs the following
1 - An installation standard that is every bit as idiot proof as installing a self executing binary with microsoft.
2 - An out of the box user interface that has the polished look and feel users have come to expect form Apple and MS.
3 - Application suites competitive with pay products like Office.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I don't mind using 3rd-party technology to "enhance" your site, but I'd better be able to navigate and perform all the basic functions on your site without flash, shockwave, javascript, and ActveX enabled. You want to add cool effects with flash? Great!, but don't do your menus in flash without having a fall-back method for basic navigation! The same goes for any such technology.
What needs to happen, is for the browser market to get so diverse that ALL browsers must be conscientious about accurately following standards and by the same token all web-sites/designers would be forced to actually USE those standards.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution