Slashdot Mirror


Mitch Kapor Warns Against Firefox Gloating

An anonymous reader writes "Mitch Kapor, Lotus co-founder and president and chair of the Open Source Applications Foundation, says open-source advocates should be relatively cautious and avoid making claims and predictions despite the huge success of Firefox. He also briefly touches on Chandler in a ZDNet interview. Chandler is OSAF's personal information manager which will offer e-mail, calendaring, address and task management. The goal for Chandler, Kapor says, is to make it as successful and popular as Firefox."

183 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. No Gloating?!? by drsmack1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What, they want to take the joy out of life? What about all past gloating; surely there is enough of that - enough to more than make up for any future gloating deficit.

    1. Re:No Gloating?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I doubt Firefox is going to "fizzle" out. I think the only thing that the developers need to keep an eye on is security.

      As Firefox becomes more popular it is going to become a bigger target for exploits. I think it has really yet to be seen how secure Firefox is and how quickly fixes will be released.

      I know of several "exploits" that at the very least crash FF 1.0, so it isn't the be-all end-all of browsers quite yet. It is however the best browser out there right now, in my opinion.

      Just my 2 cents.

    2. Re:No Gloating?!? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > What, they want to take the joy out of life? What about all past gloating; surely there is enough of that - enough to more than make up for any future gloating deficit.

      Yeah. I mean, if we can't gloat, how are we supposed to talk about Firefox/Thunderbird's UI versus that of Bloatus notes. Unless Mitch Kapor's around.

      There's a joke in there somewhere, and if I could only get goddamn window focus back from this rogue application, I'd type it up and send it to someone. And if they were using the same email client as I was, they could see my witty one-liner buried between several dozen kilobytes of "stationery" attachments in .BMP format.

      Not that I'd want to gloat or anything, Mitch.

    3. Re:No Gloating?!? by Refrozen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firefox will not fizzle out as long as the developers keep on their toes and change. If you do not innovate you lose, we are in the technology world now, innovation is everything, see Google? Look how fast they became successful, and for what? Innovation. Microsoft, same thing: Innovation.

      The FF devs need to balance innovation with security (something, I must say, Google does perfectly and Microsoft fails at) because that is Firefox's strong promotional point: Security, and because innovation is simply key to the tech world.

      All I can say is, keep on promoting Firefox, donate, support them, and most of all, REPORT BUGS... Granted, they get a sh*t load of bug reports, so, only report the good/not already reported ones.

    4. Re:No Gloating?!? by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      Microsoft got to where it is because of shrewd marketing and arguably questionable business tactics, NOT because they innovated anything.

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    5. Re:No Gloating?!? by chriseyre2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They are very innovative in the shrewd marketing and getting away with abusing a monopoly fields.

  2. Thanks for the advice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Mitch Kapor, Lotus co-founder ... says open-source advocates should be relatively cautious and avoid making claims and predictions

    This from the guy who helped bring us Lotus Notes? Perhaps YOU should be more cautious about ignoring the requests of your user base.

    /me hits F9 to refresh

    1. Re:Thanks for the advice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Check your history: Actually, Kapor left Lotus when they failed to realise the full potential of his "Agenda" PIM. Agenda was too powerful and general for the people lotus wanted to sell to (PHBs), and Lotus released "Notes" instead.

      Agenda was personal information management the way it was meant to be (except for clunky DOS textual GUI interface) - GMail's interface is clearly influenced by it, for example.

  3. irony? by comwiz56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh the irony:

    He says not to gloat about firefox's success, then he uses it is a standard he wants to meet.

    1. Re:irony? by Stevyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not necessarily gloating, just being proud of your accomplishments. He also said how there is no guarantee that Firefox will increase in popularity. I think he's just being "cautiously optimistic" as people like to say now.

    2. Re:irony? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Yes, he sounds very Chandler-esque.

      Channeling Stewie..

    3. Re:irony? by X43B · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what that word means.

    4. Re:irony? by X43B · · Score: 2, Informative

      "by limiting the hype over firefox, there may be room left for his own ideas" Uhh...since he is the chairman of the Mozilla Foundation board what makes you think his own ideas aren't in Firefox? Chandler is not another browser.

    5. Re:irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He says not to gloat about firefox's success, then he uses it is a standard he wants to meet.

      Should you gloat about winning the lottery? No.
      Would I like to win the lottery? Yes.

    6. Re:irony? by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As long as this project doesn't settle for a 'new standard,' I say gloat away. Keep firefox worth gloating about by continuing commitment to openness, security and functionality. Make THAT the standard.

    7. Re:irony? by fm6 · · Score: 1
      That's "ironic" only if you insist that Firefox is total failure or a total success. Nothing's like that in the real world.

      In any case, Kapor isn't criticising FireFox. He's just cautioning against the surreal optimism that always seems to surround open source projects.

    8. Re:irony? by smart_ass · · Score: 1
      ... I say gloat away ...


      Gloat away ... Just don't bloat.
      --
      Ouch ... did I just say that.
  4. Re:first post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I like Windows XP Home Edition.

    It is the most powerful operating-system for Pee Cees. It looks not as gay as Mac OS X by Steve B10 Jobs and has 1,0000,0000 times more softwares that the Linus-operating-system.

    Plus, it comes with every Pee Cee for free. People who have grown acusstomt to paying RatHat 699 $$$ or more can hardly beleive this when I consult them with my proffesional Internet- and Network-Service-Center-Bureau.

    Wehn I have a new customer, I take him to the back-room to show him the "alternative" to XP Home, which is Suse Linux 9.0.
    I have set-up an old Pentium 133Hz and a small monochrome monitor to show teh customer what Linux looks and feels like.

    I have it set-up so it runs a fullscreen-Flash-splash-screen on the KDE3.3beta-desktop. It takes 13 min until the mouse cursor responds.

    The customer will them make a sound like: "BAH!"

    Then I tell them: "See, this is how it is if we let the communists make software."
    Then we have a good laugh, wich is psycologicallish valuable for the customer-relatively.

    I always tell them:
    "Windows XP Home Edition is all you can do to embiggen the producationality of your human resourcers and empower to leverage the outcome-bottomlime of your stickholder ... plus even more!"

    My customers usually are like: "OMG!"

    You should really try it one day; it has a very nice light-reddish color theme to hit your tastes.

    Thank you!

  5. Firefox? bleh. by Gherald · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want his opinion on Thunderbird-Sunbird integration.

  6. HOWTO: Free Vaporware Product Ad On Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jeez, and you thought the endless dupes was bad! Now we are getting ads for vaporware products masquerading as news items by simply throwing in some open source flamebait in the title and description.

    1. Re:HOWTO: Free Vaporware Product Ad On Slashdot by starphish · · Score: 1

      Version 0.4 is currently available to download from osafoundation.org. I wouldn't call that vaporware.

      --
      Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
  7. Be careful... by sidepocket · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think the main thing Firefox has to worry about is bloating itself up too big like Opera did. I remember when Opera was nice and streamlined, now it's too bloated for its own good.

    1. Re:Be careful... by Rits · · Score: 1

      I'll bite... Opera has never been bloated bytewise, it is still significantly smaller than Firefox for example. The Opera 7.2 release might be considered to be the culmination of 'feature' bloat. After that, Opera didn't stop adding features, but the interface cleanup in 7.5 and now 8beta show that the package can be streamlined and goodlooking while it still offers lots of features out of the box.

      --
      If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
    2. Re:Be careful... by jp10558 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I keep seeing people claim Opera is bloated, but how are you measuring bloat?

      I generally think of bloated applications based on a few criteria:

      1) Big download/space takes up: Is Opera a big download?

      No, it's 3.5MB, including a flash plugin. FF is 4.7MB at my last check.

      2) Slow to use: Is Opera slow?

      No, it's far faster than IE, and at worst the same speed as FireFox on my machine.

      3) Memory use: Does Opera use a lot of memory?

      Not in the release versions on my machine...

      Opera uses on average 22MB of RAM - not much on modern desktop machines, and I can of course turn off the "Use all available RAM" setting.

      4) Has so many features they get in the way: Does Opera have so many features they get in the way?

      Maybe. The level of customization lets me pare Opera 7.54 down to the way 5.12 looked, just a browser.

      For others however, they might use some of the features I don't, or all.

      The issue here is that the features don't get in the way - you can quickly turn them off, or move them around.

      Frankly, #4 is all I can figure people mean when they refer to Opera as bloated, and it's really a misleading statement. It's at least as easy to remove things from Opera's interface as it is to find, download and install extensions to FireFox.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    3. Re:Be careful... by damnnicks · · Score: 1

      How would you quantify Firefox being faster than IE?

      I use Firefox almost exclusively now*, but it never seemed as fast as IE to me (or as stable for that matter)...

      *Due to fantastic web development tools, built in popup blocking, and invulnerability to the usual malware. It was actually the overwhelming number of popups using IE that finally convinced me to try FF.

    4. Re:Be careful... by jp10558 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I'll be honest, I've only ever used FF for about 5 minutes, so I don't know if this is typical for the program.

      IE for me tends to pause before displaying the page. On broadband, it's an annoying splitsecond wait for no good reason. On dial up, it's an average of 30 seconds staring at a blank screen.

      IE also seems to ALWAYS reload a page when you go back to it, or forward to it.

      Now, comparing to Opera (which I use far more), I have no white screen display with Opera. SOMETHING is displayed immediately, on either connection speed. And Opera will show most or all of the text of a page, even if the images are still downloading.

      Back and forward are instant. I was just there, why would Opera reload the page? It even keeps the dialogue box entries that I've filled in, so if I accidentally click off of the page, I don't lose everything.

      Now, with FF I can only comment on the page loading... It seemed similar to Opera. The rest IDK as I'm happy with Opera.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    5. Re:Be careful... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      IE for me tends to pause before displaying the page. On broadband, it's an annoying splitsecond wait for no good reason.

      I rather like this `feature'. I feel the browser should at least flash when a new page loads. I've spent some time in the past waiting for a Google page to load before realising that it loaded in the past (when performing a new search in an old Google page the amount of change is not huge, especially if you happen to be looking at the top of the screen).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Be careful... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      See, this is served in Opera by the pagebar tab displaying the full favicon, and the text turning blue when it has finished loading in the background.

      Also, in Opera, while a page is loading, a progress bar pops up, but goes away when the page is loaded. So once the bar is gone, the page is loaded.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    7. Re:Be careful... by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1

      No, it's far faster than IE, and at worst the same speed as FireFox on my machine.

      It's immesureably faster than firefox on my K6-II 450 - I think firefox continues to render animations or something - I heavily tab my pages - and Opera behaves quite tolerably with my 50 open tabs(!) Firefox slows to a craaawl at 10.

      --
      toresbe
  8. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Our product (code-named "Chandler" after the great master of Information Retreival, Chandler Bing) is a Personal Information Manager (PIM) intended for use in everyday information and communication tasks

    What's not to like?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  9. If FF--, his product ----! by solafide · · Score: 1

    Tbird will always beat him!

  10. Good Luck by krough · · Score: 5, Funny
    "The goal for Chandler, Kapor says, is to make it as successful and popular as Firefox."

    It's healthy to have goals.

    1. Re:Good Luck by dbc001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Popularity is absolutely the wrong goal. How about Effectiveness and small footprint? How about Easy-to-use without intrusive "value-added" bloat? How about standards compliance and a powerful, open plugin interface? Any of those would make great goals. But popularity? I sincerely hope that popularity isn't the primary goal of most open-source projects.

    2. Re:Good Luck by amerinese · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But um, don't you think that if this is an open-source project that has plenty of proprietary competition, that a sign of being easy to us and all those other metrics you mentioned would be popularity? I mean, easy-to-use is pretty subjective. Easy-to-use such that lots of people would bother downloading and adopting Chandler is real and measurable.

      Let's take a step off that pedestal. Sure, sophisticated minorities may choose better products some of the time, and monopolies can severely limit the choices that most people can make. But all the more, if they slay Outlook/Exchange the way that Firefox has started to really gain more than marginal acceptance against Internet Explorer, isn't that evidence that most people really do find Chandler to be better?

      Mitch Kapor is basically running a charity with the fortune he's made. He wants to help as many people, create a useful product for as many people, as he can. Do you think the American Redcross sits around and says, oh boy, we sure do have really good accounting procedures, our transparency is good, and we have top notch volunteers and says to hell with how many people we're actually helping?

    3. Re:Good Luck by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      How is popularity a bad goal? All the other goals you mentioned are indeed important, but popularity means that you're giving the user what they want. To deal with changing from IE to Firefox, people have to recognize that it's not only better, but that it's so much better that it warrants dealing with learning new software, migrating all your old information from IE, and dealing with things like IE-only sites. Admittedly, Firefox does do a good job in minimizing these hassles, but they certainly still exist.

      Popularity doesn't just mean that you're better than the competition; if you displace a market leader for your position, you are so much better than the competition that using your product is worth dealing with all the hassles involved in switching. Firefox's popularity means it has really succeeded not only in creating a better product than IE but in creating a truly excellent browser.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    4. Re:Good Luck by Christopheles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it is. The primary purpose of open-source programming is most likely to signal potential employers that the programmer has real skill. It looks good on a resume and separates a programmer from other programmers without such skills. As such, popularity is the primary goal of an open source project.

    5. Re:Good Luck by jesser · · Score: 1

      I like your analogy.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    6. Re:Good Luck by multimed · · Score: 1

      How about a bowling analogy? Lousy bowlers aim for the pins. Ok bowlers aim for the arrows a third of the way down the lane. Good bowlers aim for the small dots just a little bit beyond the foul line. I guess there are some semantics--there's nothing wrong with generally wanting wide popularity but if that is what you are aiming for day in and day out, you'll most likely fail. It's just too broad and far out. Using popularity as a short term goal ultimately ends up adding more and more features to grab a smaller and smaller chunk of people. Make a great piece of software & if necessary, market it well. If you build it they will come. As you say, Firefox has done so well because it's better--way better. The focus was on building a fast, stable & (relatively) standard compliant brower. Popularity is a byproduct.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    7. Re:Good Luck by oDelicious · · Score: 1

      How about popularity through Easy-to-use without intrusive "value-added" bloat, standards compliance and a powerful, open plugin interface?

      A very cool and respectable goal that is ! :-P

      --
      .kill b honi soit qui mal y pense
    8. Re:Good Luck by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 1

      I think the discomfort comes from the idea that they've made "Popularity" an explicit goal. Popular people didn't get popular by trying to be popular. People who try to be cool, aren't. (Just look at Steve Ballmer.)

      It sounds ridiculous, but I think the anthropomorphic analogy applies to a lot of things, including software projects. If the Mozilla team focuses on making Firefox lightweight, nimble, secure, sleek and easy to use, it will become popular of its own accord. Numbering "popularity" on that same checklist is unseemly, at best.

    9. Re:Good Luck by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1

      I think the discomfort comes from the idea that theyve made Popularity an explicit goal. Popular people didnt get popular by trying to be popular. People who try to be cool, arent. (Just look at Steve Ballmer.)

      People who yell uncontrollably are not deemed cool. People who try to be cool, will be cool. People who actually want to do something with their life but drink and buy expensive status symbols to maintain their "coolness" usually end up on top of society.

      --
      toresbe
  11. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by Gherald · · Score: 2, Interesting
    > >The goal for Chandler, Kapor says, is to make it as successful and popular as Firefox
    > Didn't read the article, but seriously, how is this worth mentioning? Who wouldn't want to start a project that was as popular as Firefox?
    Perhaps some would rather their product be as "unsuccessful and unpopular" as Internet Explorer? ;)
  12. Re:Firefox? bleh. by marvin2k · · Score: 1

    I think you really want to link to project Lightning. That's the one that brings Sunbird and Thunderbird together.

  13. Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by ashitaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He owned the spreadsheet market and saw it lost to Microsoft through no fault of his own. (He'd left Lotus by then)

    However, he was never able to experience the same success. No matter how much hype and support his subsequent projects had, they never panned out in the long run.

    FireFox could very much be the same thing. It's a long way from 2% market share to 98%.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >It's a long way from 2% market share to 98%.

      I'd say the longest way is from 2% to 10% or 15%. At that point its not "weird software I never heard of" if 1 in 10 people are using it. Right now its still "well, my brother in law recommened it and I installed it, but havent used it much" stage in general, but it is doing a great job of infiltrating MS/IE only shops. The university I work for has it on all their lab computers in the CS departments, I see the laziest professors use it or even recommend it, etc. This was certainly not the case last semester.

      Like the old saying goes - your first million dollars is always the hardest.

      Roght now things are looking up for a healthy IT market. The Mac Mini is predicted to bring a lot of windows users over to the mac side, people understand the concept that the browser is not the "internet" and you can run other browsers, etc.

      Dont get me wrong, the MS monopoly is still incredibly strong, but if they lose enough marketshare then it will be a win for standards and competitors will have a better chance of delivering better and more innovative software. It will also get people thinking that they dont have to use office or outlook and just like IE there are alternatives. Viva competition.

    2. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by Colonel+Angus · · Score: 1

      No one expects 98% market share.

      I would be elated to see it hit 20%. A respectable percentage of marketshare that would force web designers/developers to acknowledge its existence and to code for cross-browser compatibility.

      Anything over whatever that critical mass percentage may be is just gravy.

    3. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want anything to have 98% market share. I'd say a split between four major browsers, hovering around 25% each would do the most good. Hopefully they would all be standards compliant and worth supporting and should a serious vulnerability be discovered, there are three alternatives to use while a patch is made.

    4. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      It's a long way from 2% market share to 98%.

      I don't really want it to have 98% marketshare. It would be better for security and web standards if there was an even split between Gecko, KHTML, and MSHTML.

    5. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by CrackHappy · · Score: 1

      I'm a web developer, and have been forced to use certain Microsoft technologies simply because of our 100% Windows shop.

      ALL of the stuff I code I attempt to standardize to HTML 4.0, XSLT 1.1, XML 1.0, etc. The nice part about it is that I don't have to do much to make it cross-platform, just mess about with the client-side JS that gets sent over, as all the transformation and real crunching happen server side.

      It sucks having to deal with IE sometimes though, as some pretty standard JS stuff breaks in IE. As I use Firefox as my development broswer, I'm always sure it works well there.

      From my experience, it is overall easier to code for FireFox compatibility, as you really don't have to do anything to make it work, as long as you KISS.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
    6. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      Shh. This is Slashdot, remember. 3% market share means no hope at all if you are Apple, but if its an open-source project competing directly with Microsoft, 2% market share is a sure sign of inevitable victory.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    7. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Because firefox has acquired 2% in a matter of months and is increasing all the time, Apple has been gradually slipping down for years and is now around 3%. Tho now it looks like apple will start to climb again.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's pretty misleading to claim that Firefox is only a few months old. The Mozilla project is a lot older, and the Netscape product was around before IE.

      Firefox is just a new version, and a new name, for a product that has continuity going back very far, that used to have 95% market share.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    9. Re:Sour Grapes but with a cautionary note by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      people understand the concept that the browser is not the "internet" and you can run other browsers, etc.

      Tell that to my mom -- please!

      "What's a Mozilla? I want the internet!"

  14. Re:Firefox? bleh. by Gherald · · Score: 1

    Right, but everyone already knows Thunderbird is a killer email client. Sunbird is much more obscure by contrast.

  15. So, basically what he is saying is ... ? by YankeeInExile · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 KJV

    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    1. Re: So, basically what he is saying is ... ? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 KJV

      Yeah, that's why Gates and Rumsfeld are living in the gutter these days.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:So, basically what he is saying is ... ? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Nah, it's more like, "don't let yer britches get too big for ya". Or, "your eyes are bigger than your belly". Sadly, with all this "good to go" and other trendy, pop culture (often coined by marketing types to sell a product) catchphrase overuse, we've largely lost these old pearls of word wisdom. Thanks Dad, RIP.

  16. Re:I agree. by imemyself · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, my M$ keyboard and mouse work great with Firefox.

    --
    Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
  17. Re:I agree. by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
    1) Try CTRL+N. You know, just like every other windows app out there.

    2) I'll give you that one. Live with it. Turn off the bookmarks toolbar, rename the folder, and just pretend it's a normal subfolder of root. If you don't have enough bookmarks to require some sort of organization, I call this a moot point.

    3) True. Also unfortunate. I've learned to cope - I know of a grand total of 2 websites I need to use IE on. And one of them is just for a bit of extra functionality, the brunt of it works fine in Firefox.

    4) Odd... Can you cange the buttons to launch a program instead of a website? If so just have them launch Firefox with the website as an argument.

  18. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by kLaNk · · Score: 1

    The goal for Chandler, Kapor says, is to make it as successful and popular as Firefox

    So this story could make one think.

    Great, somebody modded me a troll. Honestly, another thing to whine about! (And I don't need help finding things to whine about)

  19. Re:I agree. by reverius · · Score: 1

    1) what do you mean? I can open a new window in Firefox at any time by pressing CTRL-N. is that not what you're referring to?

    2) if you're on IE now, that's not a reason not to switch, since they're the same. understandable, though, if you use Opera or something else that isn't so clumsy with it's bookmarks.

    3) not any more oddly than Opera or Safari, in my experience. i'd say it's the best of any non-IE browser. i only come across one site every few months that can't be browsed with firefox, and never anything essential... some look a bit off, but the web was never about presentation, just information. if you like presentation, ask people to design websites in flash (*shudder*) and use the flash plugin on firefox...

    4) I see you do use IE. that makes 2 a moot point. it's not a reason to switch, but like i said, it's not a reason not to.

  20. gloating? unlikely... by jxyama · · Score: 1
    the basis, and the strength, of open source is the fact it's almost a hobby for many involved...

    you may take "pride and joy" in the hobby, but as long as there are passionate developers out there who consider open source development very much his/her hobby, i don't see the open source as a whole "gloating" no matter the success.

  21. Why are users and developers seperate? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even when I speak to people who do development all day long they still talk about users and developers as if they're two different people. Even when they're talking about themselves they do it. I'm guilty of it myself: I use Mozilla, but I work on Boomerang. Fact is, no matter how much I value my freedom to modify Mozilla, I've probably done it once in the whole time I've been using it. (My Mozilla doesn't have "Close All Other Tabs" right below "Close Tab" cause I accidentially clicked it one too many times.) Why is this? It's because it's just too much hard work to go-and-get-the-source-code that it's easier to just put up with bugs and poor ui decisions, and just hope it gets fixed in the next release. This is especially funny for Mozilla and FireFox cause a large part of them is written in Javascript, meaning you already have the source code. Unfortunately, the effort required to get from noticing an annoyance to finding the right file:line to make a change is still too much. Can anyone think of any way to ease this translation? It'd be really cool if I could hold down alt and middle click on a menu to get a javascript editor focused on the bit of code responsible for the thing I want to fix. Then we can add to that editor a button that says 'email patch'. How many millions of developers-as-users would contribute to projects like Mozilla if this was the case?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by CrackHappy · · Score: 1

      AMEN - what a beautiful idea. I just don't know that you would want to make it too easy for end users (my mother) to get a hold of the source and be able to modify it!

      Personally, I would LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. I can't emphasize that enough. I've always wanted to get into the backend of things like browsers, but haven't had the time or drive to go get the source.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
    2. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by sicking · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How many millions of developers-as-users would contribute to projects like Mozilla if this was the case?"

      Yeah, what mozilla needs is more people that work on the UI. That'll really help.

      Seriously though, the problem with UI in most FOSS apps (and certainly in mozilla) is not a lack of people that know how to create patches for the UI. The lack is in people that know how to design good UI. Actually, i'd think this is true in comercial apps too.

      In fact, one of the design-goals for the organisation behind FireFox, have fewer UI designers. This was because the old mozilla suit suffered from the classic too-many-chefs problem when it came to the UI.

      The problem with UI is that it's very easy to have an oppinion about it, but it's much harder to do it right. While FireFox and many other applications are getting better, what the FOSS world desperatly needs is more professional UI designers and more professional level testing of UI. Computers are still desperatly hard to use, mostly because of bad UI.

      --
      Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
    3. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Why does open source have to design a UI the same way proprietary software does? Can't we give control of how this stuff looks to a userbase of tweakers and then do some survival-of-the-fittest collaboration to arrive at the defaults for the next person who downloads the app? I can imagine such a process:
      1. Everyone tweaks their own copy of the app to their liking.
      2. People who think they have done something smart/cool press the 'publish' button after making their change.
      3. They review the change and enter a brief description (for example: "close all" shouldn't be so close to "close").
      4. Satisfied with their patch they press the 'upload' button.
      5. Other users review the change (say in the morning when they start their browser or whatever)
      6. If they like it they accept the change.
      7. Changes that have been accepted by some large amount of people become the default when users download the app.

        It could work.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Well if you're all for non-elitism then why is it you think it is OK for there to be these "Developers" who have a say over what is included and what is not? Are they not the elite? Why can't we all just share patches and include whatever the hell *we* want?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by mewphobia · · Score: 1

      Hi QuantumG - it's ^moo^ here. Not sure if you remember me but cheers for STAOG. :)

      I've been working on a project to do something along these lines for a fair few months now. My problem is everytime i get around to writing a functional spec I think of a new feature.

      It would be great if you could do the middle click thing to get into the source code, and then use webdav to store it so you've got a history of the old code - rather like a revision control system.

      One of the many things that has got in my way has been XUL's immaturity. For example, I wanted an itunes style spreadsheet (treeview) where you can double click on a field to edit it. Well you can't do that in XUL. And the hack I thought of (using a stack or grid and moving a editbox over the position of the tree you click in) doesn't work because of a bug with rendering in two different contexts which makes the cursor disappear - try navigating an edit field with no cursor.

      But I too have been thinking about emailing patches. This would properly leverage the power of open source. you could set up a (or a few) central repositry/s where people vote wfor what patches they like and automagically download them.

      It would really rock if NVU/mozilla composer worked with xhtml so people that just knew that could make extentions to their browser.

      Anyway gotta get back to work.

    6. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by zsau · · Score: 1

      I would love that! If only I could do it now so I could add the feature... ;)

      --
      Look out!
    7. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      The old mozilla suite is thousands of times better than firefox, when it comes to the UI. There are all sorts of little things. A friend who uses firefox was just ranting the other day about the new build having a keyboard shortcut to bring up search. Firefox has, for the last year, done nothing but implement the obvious features from mozilla that it was missing, but overall usability design (as well as the stability and security) as still missing.

    8. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by dooby_Monster · · Score: 1

      Hi There, Great post by the way. Like yourself, i too would love to get more involved in reporting the little bugs i encounter every day but perhaps i'm too lazy to remember my login for mozilla, log in, then try to remember what happened after i did all this. Instead if we could do this on the spot it would be great. If given the chance to openly edit the javascript while working would help increase my knowledge also of the language and thus contributing more to the community. --doobs

    9. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by dooby_Monster · · Score: 1

      But people don't want a hundred million features anymore in there browsers. They just want them to work full stop. Then if we can personalise then to meet our individual needs, great but this is difficult if your not extremely familiar with source code. For example, if i wanted to make the tab size a few pixels smaller i wouldn't have a clue where to begin apart from maybe googling.

    10. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Maybe there should be a genetic optimization subroutine for the UI inserted. So your UI would slowly evolve until it gets perfect (or at least hopefully better).

      You might see some odd things on the way there of course but that's the price to pay... (why are all my menus on the side today ?)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    11. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### Can anyone think of any way to ease this translation?

      Emacs does this quite well. If you find some key combo that doesn't behave the way you want it, you type 'C-h k ' and instantly you will be pointed to the function that is bound to that key and its documentation, from there on you can now either click your way through the documentation to find related function or click the source link and you end up in the exact location in the source where that function is defined. There is also 'M-x apropos' with which you can search for functions by name and a whole lot of other nice things that allow you to browse the source.

      In addition to all that Emacs allows you do heavily customize it without even touching the source itself at all, there are lots of hooks and variables that you can tweak or which you can use to insert your own code.

      Emacs of course has a lot of problems, but when it comes to introspection and modification of the source code its still one of the best apps around there.

    12. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by GregWebb · · Score: 1

      I used to be involved in a long-dead project. One of our key goals was to _completely_ separate UI and application.

      The idea was to make each application a batch of object libraries exposing handles and methods. You then have a UI definition language (frankly, XUL would be as good as any from what I understand) which simply grabs onto these handles and methods and presents them to the users.

      Except that the UI is always user-editable with a tool that's built into the OS, and all its files are absolutely separate from the application code. Think of it as next-generation skinning.

      Let's say you want different menus - OK, load up the UI editor, move the items around, add new ones if you want. Or different button icons - again, just load in your new ones and replace the old icons.

      That's the basic level. There's nothing whatsoever that says the UI always has to point to _one_ application though. Maybe you think your browser has a rubbish spellchecker but your WP has a good one - OK, so link into the WP's spellchecker object and pick it up. Or for another, I periodically send HTML mail when I want funny formatting - except that Outlook has to be one of the worst WYSIWYG HTML editors I've ever seen. So replace its editor instance with Moz Composer, Dreamweaver, vi even...

      Apps are currently way too monolithic (I know I'm using full Moz suite right now, I just prefer its interface) and _really_ fiddly to change. This sort of technology could help hugely with getting computers that work they way _we_ want them to. OK, our grandparents aren't likely to be able to use this feature, but we can and we can help them get their machines set up properly.

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    13. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      sounds great. Really. And with the right tools people like my brother, who can't code to save their lives, but really like to customize everything they can, would be able to make all sorts of cool apps.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    14. Re:Why are users and developers seperate? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Why does open source have to design a UI the same way proprietary software does? Can't we give control of how this stuff looks to a userbase of tweakers and then do some survival-of-the-fittest collaboration to arrive at the defaults for the next person who downloads the app?

      Well, that's pretty much the path emacs took, and as a result it's the most powerful, easiest-to-use editor out there because one can customise it to do exactly what you want, how you want. Unfortunately, it turns out that easy to use and customisable do not equal easy to learn; it also turns out that most users don't want to do meta-using, when they must think about what they do (most folks simply don't care to think; the large number of socialists proves it).

  22. Re:I agree. by MHobbit · · Score: 1

    I use a Logitech Cordless MX Duo set w/keyboard and mouse, and I bounded the iTouch button (I'll soon set it as the "My Home" one) to open FireFox and it works perfectly everytime. However if you're talking about one of the standard keyboards with the small rubber buttons near the top, it should be easy to change by finding the keyboard software that came with your vanilla computer. I agree that we shouldn't gloat about FireFox's success too much for various reason, though I do admit that FireFox is obviously better than its competing products. Don't say I'm insane or stupid just because I'm not saying we should gloat all we want about FireFox.

    --
    Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
  23. Re:I agree. by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    1) Firefox doesn't allow me to open multiple browser windows by using a bound keyboard shortcut (CTRL+ALT+E) (yes I know about CTRL+T..)

    Why not CTRL+T?


    2) Just as MSIE has the annoying, hard-to-get-rid-of "Links" folder in its Favorites menu, Firefox has its own required "Bookmark" directory which it will not let you delete.

    Ok, I've got to ask why you would want to delete that directory. It's the top level. ROOT. You have to have a top level. This is like saying "I don't like having a monitor. I want to read right off the Hard Drive.


    3) Firefox still renders many pages oddly. Yes, I know this is because a lot of web pages have been developed with MSIE's bugs in mind. Regardless, it is still annoying.

    This will be toppled soon...
    - New release based on trunk, will have many improvement to gecko rendering engine.
    - Reporter tool will allow you to report broken/blocked websites to the evangelism team with ease. Were hoping to land it soon.


    4) I've got buttons on my Logitech keyboard that are bound to launch certain websites. However, when I make Firefox my default browser and I try to use these buttons nothing happens. I know this is related to how IE is intertwined with Windows, but still, it is another reason why I am sticking with IE for now.

    There are a dozen hacks to get it working. It's more a Logitech issue. Your friend google will fix it for you.
  24. Re:I agree. by imsabbel · · Score: 1



    1). What du you mean? alt+N opens a new window, or do you mean something else?)
    2) dont understand what you mean... but if its in MSIE,too why does it hinder you from switching?
    3) maybe, but i never noticed it. some pages are badly looking, but that could be by design (either lacking html or estethics skillz)
    4) ask logitech. They surely can fix this bug in their utility. this has nothing to do with firebirg.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  25. Re:I agree. by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to try and persuade you (there are plenty here that will give it a shot, I'm sure) but I'm wondering what you mean by #1... I hit CTRL+N and it opens a new browser window. CTRL+T is a new tab...

    Do you mean that you want to set that action to that specific keyboard shortcut?

  26. He's missing the key element of software success.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...like basic PR. Try picking a name for your software that doesn't suck ass.

    Cool: Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla
    Gay: Chandler, Bob, Opera

  27. Firefox too famous need some way to get some fame by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

    Yeah the best way to promote a product is to reduce the clout of the product that makes yours worthwhile.

    Good luck.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  28. Re:Firefox? bleh. by Gherald · · Score: 1

    LOL, That is quite funny!

    Most of Technocrat's stories are great, though.

  29. the guy is not dismissing firefox's success... by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 5, Insightful
    He is on Mozilla's board for crying out loud. He is simply saying that the battle is far from over. A valid observation.

    Kapor's put a lot of time, money, and probably other resources into open source. They are many who just talk a good game, and then there are others like Kapor who put millions into open source.

    But hey, don't let that get in the way of a perfectly good lynching.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
    1. Re:the guy is not dismissing firefox's success... by IInventedTheInternet · · Score: 1

      I was going to lynch you for that sarcasm about "standing in the way of a perfecly good lynching" comment, but then I looked at your username and I think you've had enough....

  30. Don't be proud, but... by Jameth · · Score: 1

    Don't be proud about your success, but we dream of being as successful as you are.

  31. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by vitamine73 · · Score: 1

    I guess you meant "as successful and unpopular" as IE

  32. Re:Firefox? bleh. by conteXXt · · Score: 1

    and only on the Notes integration plugin. preferably.

    --
    The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
  33. Those in glass houses should throw no stones by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Putting down Firefox fans for gloating, all the while gloating over one's own OSS product that competes with Thunderbird and other email clients like Novell Evolution and Microsoft Outlook.

    You also have to explain to suits why your OSS product will work better for them than the Outlook bundled with MS-Office for free. Don't try to tell them that the security is better, because they have developers exploiting those security flaws to automate email processes and also spy on what their users are doing to make sure they are productive. ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  34. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by syrinje · · Score: 1
    Now, thats a half-way decent troll ; luckily I pretty much know the Friends seasons backwards and couln't think of a single instance involving Chandler and Information retrieval.

    The Chandler PIM is named after one of the all-time great detective novelists - Raymond Chandler. Check out the OSAF site .

    --
    See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
  35. Firefox and Ofoto... by BTWR · · Score: 1

    It's really annoying that there's no drag-and-drop uploading for ofoto now that I'm using Firefox (which I love) and I now have to upload the pics in IE (and get 15 popups for my trouble)

    1. Re:Firefox and Ofoto... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      You know, I'd say that's an ofoto problem, not FF.

      I use a service called streamload to store files, but like to use Opera with it.

      I still have full menus, full functionality, full batch uploads via drag to the window (granted they always had more than one upload styles, so batch was a different page than one up).

      How does it work? It's a Java app. That is one of the things Java is good for IMO - the whole thing is even more professional looking IMO than IE's because you have a java box that pops up with a nice clean gradually moving bar (upload status) vs a pop-up window that is periodically reloading and has one of those bunches of boxes bars that jerkily moves up.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  36. Re:I agree. by conteXXt · · Score: 1

    "Ok, I've got to ask why you would want to delete that directory. It's the top level. ROOT. You have to have a top level. This is like saying "I don't like having a monitor. I want to read right off the Hard Drive."

    not accusing but he/she may be a Windows user. the concept and assumtions of / (root,chrooting,etc) may not be second nature.

    It's never really bothered me though.

    --
    The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
  37. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by standsolid · · Score: 1

    For moderators who don't like the TV show, Friends:
    Besides the poorly-written, long-running, overly-syndicated, abomination of a TV show that features a self-serving, insecure, superficial, lazy male lead character who's biggest claim to fame is a simple on-liner of, "Could I be any more [fill in the blank]?"
    Nothing. There is nothing else not to like.

    And for the moderators who do like the TV show, Friends:
    Could "Chandler" be anymore of a rip-off of Outlook?

    --
    WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
    What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
  38. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by Gherald · · Score: 1

    No, I meant what I said. They were both tongue in cheek.

  39. Chandler exists by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

    It's called Evolution

  40. Re:Firefox? bleh. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

    It's a fairly good email client. I still prefer Evolution though.

    What we need is a Windows port, that way more people are going to get a chance to try it.

  41. Re:I agree. by telemnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. As previous posters pointed out, CTRL-N works. It's even listed in the menu with the rest.

    2. The "Bookmarks Toolbar" folder can be removed by manually editing bookmarks.html in your profile directory.

    Someone really should gin up a menu item in the bookmark manager to designate an arbitrary folder as the toolbar, and allow removal of the default.

    That said, I have recently started using the bookmark bar after years of dispassionately ignoring it - and you know what? it's actually very useful for keeping commonly used links (i.e. webmail, ticketing system and admin pages at work) and RSS feeds. Give it a shot, you might even like it.

    3. IE-specific sites are broken, not firefox. complain to the people that spit out the poor markup.

    4. two options- either change your keyboard to launch firefox with the URIs as arguments (firefox.exe -remote "openURL http://foo") or complain at logitech to fix their software to pass the URIs to the OS' default handler. The blame here lies solely with them.

  42. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by Refrozen · · Score: 1

    Opera was a good name in my opinion. Windows has been successful, and has a horrible, and completely irrelevant (other than the fact they call boxes windows) name... same with all other Microsoft products. Windows Calculator is an immensly successful product... err... uhh... never mind.

  43. Chandler: How not to start an open source project. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I respect Mich Kapor and I liked the initial concept, but Chandler is an exercise in how NOT to build an open source project. Most successful open source projects I've seen fall in to two main categories:
    • 1. OSS Developer writes code in spare time to scratch an itch, other developers join in the fun.
    • 2. A Company decides to open source an existing commercial product, open source developers join to build on the existing code.
    While paying developers to work on an EXISTING open source project does work, paying developers to CREATE an open source does not. What happens? Millions of dollars in foundation money and feature creep at an unimaginable scale.

    I hope Chandler overcomes these odds, but the future doesn't look bright unless their is a major turnaround. Firefox 0.1 was 10x more usable than Chandler 0.5.

  44. misleading news again by imr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why? To attract attention on him? The article was interresting in itself, it didnt deserve that kind of tricks.
    He barely talk about cautiousness in ONE sentence in ONE paragraph in a 2 PAGES article!
    Nobody knows what's going to happen. It's certainly not inevitable that Firefox's market share will continue to increase. I think open-source advocates would do well to be relatively cautious and avoid making claims and predictions.
    He isnt even talking about gloating!!!

  45. Not everyone uses Exchange by briantr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and I think there will be sufficient interest in Chandler among people who don't to make the project successful.

    Many people in the organization I work for use a program called Goldmine to help them maintain contact with sizable networks of people. Goldmine is one of a suprisingly small number of programs that provide person-centric organization of information. In one view, you can see a person's contact information plus all the phone calls, appointments and email communication with that person. Once you've used a system like this, a plain-old PIM (in which email, contact info, and appointments are all stored separately) just won't cut it.

    Unfortunately, Goldmine is Windows-only. We've replaced almost all of our other Windows apps with ones that run in Linux, but at the moment there is no viable Goldmine replacement. Consequently, we're watching Chandler with eagerness.

  46. Re:wow, that is saying a lot (Chandler) by one_n_only_wildcat · · Score: 1

    Speaking as in individual who abhors "Friends" and its spinoff, I have heard the name "Chandler" one too many times. (shivers)

    --
    "Something unknown is doing we don't know what." - Sir Arthur Eddington
  47. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by BigGerman · · Score: 1
    >> couln't think of a single instance involving Chandler and Information retrieval.

    Chandler Bing _was_ in Data Processing. As the matter of fact, according to some job placement pro, it was his true calling in life.
    Or so my wife says who is the one watching Friends ;-)

  48. Firefox by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    is seen as the openbsd of browsers, and should be developed that way. There are enough features for it to survive for a while, if the developers just start concentrating on security.

    Security is the main advantage of firefox over IE (to most people anyway), so the devs should focus on security a lot more.

  49. Re:I agree. by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Even windows users have a C:\ prefixing all their directories.

  50. Don't tell me.. by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mitch Kapor warns against gloating?? MITCH KAPOR??? Mitch Kapor telling someone not to gloat is like a crack fiend telling.. Wait, who the hell is Mitch Kapor, and what's this Lotus you speak of?

    1. Re:Don't tell me.. by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

      This is insightful? I realize it's sarcastic, but Lotus 1-2-3 is one of the reasons personal computers are so popular today. So, unless you have some achievment that can match that with you might want to take it down a notch.

  51. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    Maybe that should be respelled as, "ghey". Or maybe be re-written as "uncool". As a het (or maybe "breeder") I dunno why "gay" is associated with "undesireable". Surely it's a teenage thing that develops during puberty and eventually they'll grow up and understand.

    I suppose I should add a, "not that there's anything wrong with that" reference here.

  52. Start Gloating by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok i'm going to gloat... I have had this install of windows going for about 4-5 months. I have used Firefox for nearly everything web page related. I did load up IE once or twice to check a few things out. I haven't ran a spyware removal app since I installed windows... today my computer was running slow (something about the large 350mb tv shows i'm downloading i think) ... so i decided to run adaware.. it found 18 "files" all data mining and IE related. That was all the spyware my machine had gotten in 4-5 months use by using firefox.. i think that speaks for itself

    1. Re:Start Gloating by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      That's it? I decided to testrun the MS anti-spyware app the other day. 6 month old install of XP running a slightly older version of Mozilla. Amount of spyware: 0. And i do click every link that passes in front of me...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:Start Gloating by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Odd because I know a lot of people who are switching and they're not computer junkies and they're telling their friends to switch. The computer illiterate are now spreading the goodness. I don't care if IE comes preloaded on 9 out of 10 computers, success isn't measured in number of computers something is on. It's measured by how the fans, or the users, enjoy the product. To me, if it makes the lives of 100 people better then it's successful. And Firefox is successful for the millions who use it. Sure it's a minority, but it's pretty damn successful if you ask me and it will continue to be successful.

  53. Hey Mitch by mnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a question about Lotus. Why is there no Linux version? Do you know our company (~80 boxes) is entirely windows, due only to lotus notes (6.5.3) and ERP system being Windows only. Lotus is even part of IBM now, which spends over $1 billion on Linux annually.

    Domino runs on Linux, great. But we use Notes quite heavily, lots of custom databases, pda apps, custom apps etc, so iNotes is out of the question. We really are paying alotta microsoft tax only because of the ERP system which is 'promising' linux binaries, and lotus, which claims no plans yet. Its mostly java-based anyway, just compile it for Linux for each version minor number, its not too much work.

    I can volunteer time.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Hey Mitch by E-prospero · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why on earth would you want to ask Mitch Kapor this question?

      Mitch Kapor started Lotus in 1982; he was Director until 1987, at which point he ceased to have anything to do with Lotus. Notes was brought to market in 1989. The only connection Kapor has with Notes is the relationship between Notes and Agenda, a stillborn product that Kapor was involved with.

      Lotus was sold to IBM in 1995. Nowadays, Lotus is little more than a brand name of the IBM software group.

      If you have a beef with Lotus or Notes, have the courtesy to complain to the right person. Whinge to IBM, not Mitch Kapor.

      And if you think porting to a new platform "is not too much work", then I can tell you have never written any commercial grade client software. Java or no, cross platform support is NEVER just a matter of a recompile.

      Russ %-)

      --
      ... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
    2. Re:Hey Mitch by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      The Notes client runs very well under Wine, WineX, or any other variant ... even with custom code.

      Give it a shot.

    3. Re:Hey Mitch by af_robot · · Score: 1

      Because Lotus Notes client is dead now.
      Next generation of Lotus Domino/Notes will be running on websphere (J2EE application server) and intergrated with all different software from IBM. IBM moving all client software to java right now.
      It will be pure Java application, IBM don't trust windows anymore.

  54. More secure? That's opinion. by Nintendork · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "It's a great product, small, fast and more secure. You don't see anybody disputing that."

    Actually, I dispute that. Most people that claim it's more secure say that it's because of the amount of vulnerabilities being found in Internet Explorer compared to Firefox. How many people are looking for unknown vulnerabilities in IE? How many are looking at Mozilla/Firefox? This is determined by the media. When there's a MS vulnerability, it's all over the news and the finder gets a ton of glory and hopeful job offers. I see MS patches making it into mainstream news such as the Associated Press. As Firefox gets a spotlight because of a good amount of security professionals (Which happen to be coders with a personal agenda) recommending people switch, I've seen an increase in the amount of vulnerabilities reported. Don't believe me? Look at the stats and compare IE with Firefox. Yes, IEs numbers are higher, but think in proportion to how many skilled people are looking for vulnerabilities in each product. If you look at the different versions of Mozilla over the timeline they give, you can see that not many vulnerabilities were found early last year or before that compared to when Firefox really started to get attention. Imagine how many vulnerabilities would be found if they got the amount of media attention that IE vulns get. Until both products get the same amount of hacker attention, it's premature to say which is more secure.

    As a security professional, I believe that as long as you keep your software patched up (computers, routers, switches, etc.), your only fear is a zero day. Hopefully you have other layers of security such as a border firewall, IPSec Transport mode with packet filtering at every host, multiple antivirus vendors software (with at least one of them configured to block password protected archives, known dangerous file types and dangerous content), ongoing training, locked down servers with all the fat trimmed, middle tier servers, etc. These things are not vendor specific. You can run Windows, Linux, OSX, BSD, Solaris and still be able to do these things. Assuming you have all that set up, one zero day most likely wouldn't be enough. If someone really wants in and you've done all these things, do you really think you're going to get "pwned" because you chose a specific vendor or software package? No. You're going to get pwned because someone will be social engineered or some aspect of physical security will be bypassed. It's a hell of a lot easier to get into a company by phishing than it is to hunt down a couple silver bullet zero days as you get through each layer of security. My point is that if someone wants to get in, they can do it. It only takes a few holes at most and enough patience to find them to get to a target. It's up to the admin to ensure that it's as difficult as possible to find them and to ensure that the damage is minimized. Auditing (logging), backups, intrusion detection, policies, procedures, security assessments, a good data structure with granular permissions, etc can help minimize impact.

    My professional opinion is that it just doesn't matter what you use as long as it's well administered, but if you want to force me to pick one side and guess which code has less vulnerabilities, I'm going to pick MS. Security through obscurity isn't a magic elixir, but it's definitely another layer of protection. And with all the attention MS gets, they've had an opportunity to patch up a lot of their vulnerabilities. At this point, new vulns are probably easier to find on other vendors that aren't as popular.

    -Lucas

  55. Firefox and seg faults by wytcld · · Score: 1

    I'm one of a number of people - obviously not most but enough - who have been reporting problems with seg faults on the Firefox bugzilla for months. So far the only response - after none at all for months and the reports piling up - has been a suggestion from one of the main developers that we go and learn how to debug their code ourselves, along with unconcealed contempt that we haven't already developed the skills to do that. This was from someone closely involved with the NY Times add buy, at that. They've got droids who would rather win through advertising than by quality-control on their coding. What other organizations does this remind you of?

    Mind you, I'm running it anyway. But crashing several times a week in a 1.0 release of anything (this on Linux), especially when built on the venerable Mozilla base, and when they consider it Times-add ready.... Kinda sad.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:Firefox and seg faults by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      Switch to Mozilla. It's better and better. And it has a future unless every abandons it for Firefox, which is looking pretty likely.

  56. Marginally faster than NS7.2, but that's it by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Ok OK it's a little bit faster than NS7.2. But it's harder to use multiple profiles, it's still a little bit unstable and it has a hard time with certain types of Webpages with objects that the plugins can't handle. But since NS7.2 handles popups, etc. as well as Firefox there isn't a lot to really distinguish it.

    And I found that Thunderbird, an NS7.2 mail lookalike, did not handle embedded URLS in mail as well as NS.

    Sure it's better than IE but I imagine so are all sorts of other browsers as well.

    Now here's the good part. Browsers are a strategic business application. And any strategic business application needs source code down to the level that any customer can customize the application to make it work. Oracle is like that, Tivoli and hundreds of other applications. So keeping that source away from customers and stopping them from exercizing that kind of control over development is a horrible thing that you've all been conned into accepting.

    But keep in mind that like putting an alarm system in your house, a browser like Firefox can't stop someone from breaking in. What it can do at best is make it a little bit harder to break in than the guy next to you. So the criminal will move on to the next house. But sooner or later someone will paste up a gigantic bag of tools that can be used to easily crush Firefox and as soon as it reaches an arbitrary level of market penetration it will get hit.

    And guess what wrangler dudes and dudettes - you'll have to patch manage two different browsers or three or however many you have now plus one.

  57. It's not "gloating", it's "marketing". by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Predict massive gains by extrapolating from a very recent improvement in a very small segment of your market.

    Keep boasting about the features your product has that your competitor doesn't. Remind everyone that they need those specific features.

    Keep telling the "journalists" out there about how your product handles the same tasks better than the competition. Faster. Smaller footprint. Better security. Easier administration.

    If someone hasn't heard of your product, they aren't going to try your product.

    Get out there and GLOAT.

  58. Re:Chandler: How not to start an open source proje by jalefkowit · · Score: 1
    While paying developers to work on an EXISTING open source project does work, paying developers to CREATE an open source does not. What happens? Millions of dollars in... money and feature creep at an unimaginable scale.

    That's funny, what you wrote sounds pretty much like what everybody was saying about Mozilla circa 2000 or so.

    Now, of course, we all can see what Mozilla.org hath wrought. But it took a loooooong time to get there, and a lot of missteps. So Chandler in this respect is not terribly different from Mozilla.

    Firefox 0.1 was 10x more usable than Chandler 0.5.

    That's because when Firefox 0.1 was released (as Phoenix 0.1) on Sep. 23, 2002, there had already been nearly five years of work plowed into the Mozilla codebase.

    OSAF organized in 2002 or so, so if you want to see where Mozilla was at an equivalent point in its lifecycle, go dig up a copy of Mozilla Milestone 18 or so (bring your crash helmet, you'll need it).

  59. where's the beef? by hb253 · · Score: 1

    I've been reading about Chandler for a few years now. The progress in developing it, if any at all, has been glacial. This is very unlike Firefox which was developed quite quickly.

    For years, I've been waiting for a worthy successor to Lotus Agenda. Can Chandler be the one?

    --
    Self awareness - try it!
    1. Re:where's the beef? by RichardtheSmith · · Score: 1

      Agreed, yes, that is the question... And it's been the question since Chandler was first announced in 2002...

    2. Re:where's the beef? by kwijebo · · Score: 1

      "Firefox ... developed quite quickly" is true from a very narrow point of view. In the larger context of Mozilla's growth, it was a long time coming. Writing Gecko took a long time.

      Chandler's vision is fairly difficult because it's trying to invent a new architecture, allowing email, tasks, notes, and calendar items to merge fluidly. On the surface, this looks like Chandler's just going to be an Outlook or Evolution clone. If you think that's what's being attempted, the progress certainly hasn't been exciting.

      At this point, Chandler's main "new" feature is its repository. It's there, it works. Admittedly it's somewhat slow because OSAF hasn't invested a lot of effort into optimization yet.

      Of course, having a very general repository isn't very exciting until you start building actual interesting functionality on top of it. That functionality should be coming along fairly soon (3-6 months). It won't be polished for quite a while yet, though.

  60. Parts Greater Than Sum by chromozone · · Score: 1

    Firefox chokes-up like a baby on hot sauce. It has some great features and advantages but it still seems more heat than light to me.

  61. the Opera Download manager!! by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

    Is a fine thing(tm).
    The one thing I miss going to FF. Opera, nice-as-pie, continues a download when you next get around to dialing up again.
    FF just goes, if you close me now, I'm going to cancel these downloads.

  62. Thundercougarfalconbird! by khasim · · Score: 3, Funny

    Salesman: "Nothing makes you feel more like a man than a Thundercougarfalconbird."

  63. Re:I agree. by chromozone · · Score: 1

    I frequent some large forums and Firefox chokes-up like a baby on hot sauce. It's been the worst of four browsers I use and is more heat than light. It reminds me of one of those old MG sports cars - a great toy when it was working but prone to breakdowns.

  64. Goal for Chandler by Kadmium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I always thought the goal for Chandler was to have sex with Phoebe?

  65. What's up with Chandler ? by Feign+Ram · · Score: 1

    Seriously,Mitch Kapor should worry more about Chandler.

    The project started in 2001 and they haven't been able to show even a barely useable version of the software till date. They have had an unbelievable amount of time, goodwill, and friendly press and the results are zero. Compare the progresss evolution made in its first three year period - you got to hand it to the Ximian monkeys - they are coding machines. Evolution has it's own indexer and plug-in framework and the real point that clinches it for evolution in most corporate environments is the excellent integration using Exchange Connector. I work for a company where we use Linux extensively and many windows folks are able to use evolution without any problem , and are in fact highly appreciative of it. Evolution 2.0 has even shed it's outlook look and feel - evolution is an example of what you get when you mix pragmatic product management with some awesome coding talent. The Chandler vision, on the other hand has been over-arching and massively confused from the beginning - initially they threw in whatever sounded cool - jabber, rdf etc, instead of deciding the technology based on the product requirements.

    Claiming that they are breaking new ground just doesn't cut it - not even one innovative feature is on display after three years. As someone pointed out in a earlier post evolution 0.1 was more useable than chandler 0.4 - Heck I used it for day to day work , in spite of the warts.

    When you have a bunch of talented programmers and still have nothing to show, it is really time to ask, 'What's up with Chandler ?' .

    1. Re:What's up with Chandler ? by kwijebo · · Score: 2, Informative

      From a distant perspective, Chandler looks like it's trying to be an Outlook or Evolution clone. If you think that's what's being attempted, the progress certainly hasn't been exciting.

      Innovation is very much in the eye of the beholder, but Chandler's main "new" feature is its repository. It's there, it works.

      Fundamentally, Chandler isn't trying to copy Outlook. It's a lot easier to copy than to create something really new. No disrespect intended towards the Ximian folks, they've done great work. But developing new standards and new architectures is really, really hard work, no one appreciates it until it's too late to change anything.

      It would be interesting to compare the first 3 years' budgets of Ximian and OSAF. I expect that while OSAF started with more money in the bank, it wasn't paying that many coders until the last year or two.

      While I agree with you that the Chandler team's initial vision didn't start as focused as it needed to get, your examples are really odd.

      A once sentence description of Chandler might be, "A PIM that shares data between users with very low barrier to entry and allows data to be any combination of notes, tasks, events, and messages".

      My memory is that RDF got thrown out pretty much right away, which is why it seems like an odd example to me. Besides, RDF still makes sense as an export target for a lot of Chandler's data, Chandler and RDF both allow for arbitrarily linked trees of information.

      Jabber (XMPP) was (and still is) on the table because it's an IETF standard for instant messaging. XMPP's a very appealing way to do application level message passing.

      Full disclosure: I do work for OSAF

    2. Re:What's up with Chandler ? by Feign+Ram · · Score: 1

      Thanks for all the info. I wish you guys well and didn't mean to spite Chandler or Mitch, or anything of that sort. I have enormous respect for the hackers and Mitch's ideas in general. But it has been just frustrating waiting for so long for something that started out with so many innovative ideas.

      Adding a page to the Chandler wiki that contrasts it with Evolution and such might not be a bad idea.

      Good luck.

  66. Get a frickin clue man by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
    You can get a popup blocker for Internet Explorer. Even one that's unobtrusive.

    I hate IE, but I sure as hell am tired of people complaining about yesterday's problems.

    1. Re:Get a frickin clue man by BTWR · · Score: 1

      not all popups are blocked by popup blockers. I already have google taskbar installed, and popups are lowered about 75% (but 75 != 0)

    2. Re:Get a frickin clue man by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1

      Well time to switch toolbars then. The point is that you can get a popup blocker for IE that works just as well as the ones for firefox.

  67. Ways Firefox is like the Second Coming by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    1) Those who don't see the light will be left behind in a world devoured by plagues.
    2) Represents the beginning of the final battle between good and evil.
    3) The object of worship has gone through several name changes and major reworkings, with many unaware of its history.
    4) Nobody knew/knows when it was/is coming, and there are always false alarms.
    5) Lots of people don't believe anything will ever come of it.
    6) Even the ones who do believe argue over it an awful lot.
    7) No matter how nice it looks, the representative of the Dark Side will try -- and often succeed -- in convincing people they're better off with him, even though everyone knows he's out to screw them.
    8) You'll know the shit has really hit the fan when a giant seven-headed beast rises from the ocean and declares itself ruler of the world. That happens later, though. Maybe around 2.0.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Ways Firefox is like the Second Coming by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Get a sense of humor and stop projecting your homosexual fantasies.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  68. For Chandler by Hugonz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but what about the goal for Joey...?

  69. Even more important by Hugonz · · Score: 1

    Once enough people have Chandler installed, they will have Python and wxWindows running in their computers...

  70. Re:first post? by dhakbar · · Score: 1

    Every other time this post has appeared, it's been modded as a troll.

    Why the change of heart today, mods? +5, funny? Well, that's cool. It's not really a troll anyway.

  71. who would gloat? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone gloat about a piece o crap software that doesn't support common standard tag parameters, and that breaks the document object model, making many simple css tricks and javascript functions useless?

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:who would gloat? by The+One+KEA · · Score: 2, Informative

      *AHEM*?

      If you are referring to Gecko (which I believe you are), AFAIK it most certainly does _not_ break the DOM; rather, it is the stupid and poorly written JS and CSS tricks you describe which use proprietary DOM features available from a certain rendering engine...

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    2. Re:who would gloat? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      You're right, we shouldn't gloat about IE.

    3. Re:who would gloat? by cozziewozzie · · Score: 1

      Why don't you learn proper XHTML and CSS instead?

    4. Re:who would gloat? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      sensitive dumbass.

      talking about firefox

      colspan tag does not work.

      accessing css through the document object model to flip an object's visibility (style=block or none) not only doesnt work, but creates a new copy of the object each time the function runs. hmmm creating a new object when no command was given to create a new object! sounds like a typical severe security flaw found in other softwares!

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    5. Re:who would gloat? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      First of all, do you really think anyone should use a browser that can only render perfect code that follows only one of the last 5 or 10 'standards'?

      Cozziewozzie enjoying a night of surfing: "yipee! I run firefox! I get to enjoy mis-rendered websites 90% of the time because firefox only accepts XHTML!"

      what's the point of learning proper anything when firefox doesn't follow it?

      css style=block/none creates a new copy of the object rather than making the named object visible or hidden ... who would like to jump on this and make a nice severe security exploit out of it? come on, I know you bastard hackers wanna!

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    6. Re:who would gloat? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      No, we shouldnt.

      We also shouldnt be blind to all the glaring failures in Firefox.

      Firefox is not the new messiah of browsing! It is riddled with problems that you must just blindly put up with

      And no doubt once firefox really hits critical mass, displacing IE, the bastard hackers will simply switch to exploiting these problems.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  72. wow... by pavera · · Score: 1

    Ok, so I know this is beta software, but I just went and installed the latest chandler release, and wow... I hope they have a strategy to trim this thing down, it doesn't even work and it uses more than 300MB of ram and about 2 minutes to load... I don't know how this thing is gonna be an outlook killer. If they actually add functionality to it it's gonna be using like 500MB of ram and won't run on anything but an 8 way opteron cluster...
    Anyway, I guess that's what happens when you use an interpreted language. (its all written in python) not to bash python, I think its a great language and has its uses, but this might not be one of them...

  73. Reasons not to gloat? by neochronist · · Score: 1

    Hmm.. Let's see here.. Been running Firefox exclusively (with a minor exception of Windows updates, via "Help and Support" only on Windows XP for about 8 months now. Let's run a quick malware/virus scan and see what's infected. (No real-time malware/virus scanners installed.)

    Hmm.. Virus scan? Nil. Malware? Nada. Problomatic sites? Zip. Damn.. I can't play a few free game sites that require IE and ActiveX. My loss. Oh wait.. I never played those anyway. Bummer for me.

    Can't think of a reason not to gloat.

  74. lets gloat! by amemily · · Score: 1

    You want a gloat about FireFox?

    I now work for a public agency in the State of Washington, the home of Microsoft and friends. This agency's website is most defiently not a destination for geeks and computer-savvy folks.

    Looking at the stats for my employer's homepage for the year of 2004...while 94.8% of our visitors run MS Windows, the FireFox percentage is currently at 26.1%

  75. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    He also forgot one other part of basic PR: the need to change the name of your product slightly enough to confuse everyone for at least three weeks (a la Firebird). I would suggest changing 'Chandler' to 'Chandlar' around release candidate 2.

  76. Re:You a marketing authority? by smokebomb2 · · Score: 1

    Naming a program after its function is a good idea IMO. It helps n00bs/morons to find the software they want when they are new to a system (without too much searching). I guess you also think OOo "Writer" is a dumb name too? If you had never heard of "Thunderbird" what would you assume the program does?

  77. Improvement by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Besides, which is more likely to lead to improvements? A sense of quiet pride tempered by some humility, or a superiorist attitude that Firefox is "da shiznat."

    Projects that play catch-up (as happened for the first while) tend to go faster up to the point where they are more secure in themselves. Firefox is past the point of catch-up in many ways, but hopefully it will continue to show new features/improvements so that it can continue to become even greater, rather than maintaining a short lead.

    1. Re:Improvement by Zorikin · · Score: 1

      Firefox is past the point of catch-up in many ways, but hopefully it will continue to show new features/improvements so that it can continue to become even greater

      MSIE is way behind the leaders, but there are still browsers which FF/Gecko can catch up to in certain ways, especially Opera and also perhaps Konqueror/KHTML. A friend of mine gave a feature of Opera which is listed among "parity-opera" bugs on bugzilla given as the reason why he won't use FF. There are about 30 of these right now.

      (it was #237119 that was named, if you're into that sort of thing)

  78. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by smokebomb2 · · Score: 1

    I prefer Courtney Cox (no pun intended). And yeah Chandler is a lame name. Why didnt they name it Bing? At least thats kind of catchy.

  79. Re:Firefox? bleh. by kaustik · · Score: 1

    Just an impulse post... most people can't decipher between offtopic and funny, though.

  80. chandler: Is it dead in the water? by goon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The promise
    I remember when Chandler was first mooted. Finally an open souce project that has a vision of how to store and communicate small bits of information. Traditionally these types of applications have been lumped together with *ugly* (but accurate) acronymn, PIM.

    Free the data
    This is an important step in applications. Historically data is trapped or obfusticated into applications. Once you enter the data in it you can only get at it by jumping through the fire breathing coding hoops. Ocassionally its open souce (mozilla mork) but commercial applications take this to a new level - (think MS Outlook Express).

    Updated Agenda?
    For the younger /.'s this is not the first crack Mitch has had at this market. In '88 Mitch Kapor (father of Lotus 123, Notes) Agenda was released into the PIM market to some success. The runs are on the board. Could Chandler be the answer?

    • ... A major lesson learnt from the last two years, is that we took on too much, and had too high an ambition level for the near-term. This "great leap forward" strategy didn't pan out. Instead, we have primarily switched to a "dog food" strategy to quickly develop a first release that is minimally usable, on a day-to-day basis, for us within OSAF and for our info-intensive, techno-savvy early adopters. ...

    Release early and often
    Well after 0.4 release I dont see anything compelling. It has trouble working on Windows, it's monolithic and appears to be *weighed* down in specifications of how to do things rather than results. Chandler looks good on paper but in clumping email, calandering, PIM and other messaging it has lost for me its original appeal. I want it usable now. Even if it is a little bit at a time. For me like its name sake (Raymond) I'm still searching for a usable application.

    Alternative
    So there you have it I've trashed a computer industry veteran who has runs on the board but has failed to deliver. Whats an alternative. Well one example is a Gnome app called Tomboy. Its a simple mono, GTK based note taking applet that is searchable. It allows you to click on links according to mime types and load an application. It has spell checking (along with references to various IBM patents). But the single kicker that has moved Tomboy into my sights is the integration of Tomboy with Evolution (unix version that mirrors crappy Outlook in too may ways) and Beagle The Gnome desktop is now using Tomboy as the *PIM* input and building a plugin to Evolution (email, calander), Beagle (searching). So bit by bit it's making Chandler less attractive to me.

    lessons
    It helps to have access to an open souce platform. Release often and early. Build an application (especially a first version) to do one thing and do it well. Get a result. Dont bloat a product with features if it is not vital and work out how can you work with other applications. Tomboy may only have a short shelf life or morph into something else in as it develops but it works right now and does the job.

    --
    peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
  81. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by maxpublic · · Score: 1

    Anyone who uses "gay" as an insult just isn't worth listening to. And, of course, that their penis is almost certainly undersized and laughed at by any women who chances to see it.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  82. Re:Firefox? bleh. by Gherald · · Score: 1

    Well it was kinda both ;)

  83. Re:first post? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Why the hell do people post REPEATED off topic trolls anyways? like that baboons-face one. Do people really have that sad of a life? (or is it some kind of bot....)

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  84. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 1

    You've got a point, but I don't know that Firefox, Thunderbird or Mozilla are particularly good names either. For example, what's "Firefox" supposed to convey? I guess it might just be me, but I don't see the relation to a web browser, or anything Internet-related at all. Could be a car, could be a toaster oven. Could be a database. For its alliteration and daring imagery, "Firefox" is a fairly bland and generic name.

    Contrast a name like Apple's "Safari," which just intuitively fits the concept of web browsing (it's a jungle out there, you know?) and alludes to "surfing." Genius. :)

    </fanboy>

  85. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by ine8181 · · Score: 1

    I would like to mod you troll, since I'm an Opera fan (both music and the web browser), but sadly I you have a point.

    'Opera' is just a matter of personal taste, I guess.

  86. Chandler by IainMH · · Score: 1

    "Chandler is OSAF's personal information manager which will offer e-mail, calendaring, address and task management."

    Could it be any more like Outlook?

  87. Don't gloat... by rdean400 · · Score: 1

    One way to get Microsoft off its butt is to make it angry or threaten its core business. Firefox is in the process of doing that. Firefox has a head start. Mozilla Foundation should be looking at ways to stay ahead of the curve.

  88. Re:He's missing the key element of software succes by morie · · Score: 1

    Opera has been pretty popular for a long time.

    People seem to enjoy the combination of singing and acting (same goes for musical of course). It seems there is even a browser with the same name, which of course is a rediculous name for something that neither acts nor sings.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  89. He said gloat, not bloat by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    Notice he didn't say anything about avoiding bloating.

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  90. Long way to go by Mr.+McD · · Score: 1

    I figured I'd give "Chandler 0.4" a spin on my 800Mhz, 1GB TiBook. First of all, it's a 36MB download. Once you get it unpakced and start it up, you see a start-up screen stating:

    Now, sit back and relax for a minute

    And yes, it really takes a full minute before you're greeted with one of the ugliest UI's I've seen in a while. Chandler has a awful long way to go before it can even begin to compete with the like of ThunderBird or Evolution. Both of which load quickly and look great. Not to mention work amazingly well. Just my 2 cents.

  91. Re:More secure? That's opinion. by mcsmurf · · Score: 1

    I would say more skilled people look at Firefox and Mozilla actually. With IE everyone knows "ah, it's rather easy to find a security hole in it", but with Firefox and Mozilla it might be rather more a challenge to find one.

  92. The hardest step by beakburke · · Score: 1

    Actually, it makes sense if you think of gains in market share as an exponential process. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.... once you manage to get 10% of the market you are only a couple doublings from having a majority of the market share.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  93. Gloating? by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

    Who's gloating? Firefox has done well, but there's nothing to gloat about yet. Once use of FireFox get's over over 50%, then we'll be gloating :-)

    If viruses and spyware keep popping up at their current rate and if Microsof sticks to it's guns about not applying the SP2 Internet Explorer fixes to platforms other than Windows XP, than I believe that Firefox may get there a lot quicker than you might expect. Longhorn keeps getting pushed back further and futher and I doubt we'll be seeing a whole lot of innovation in IE until Longhorn is released. Meanwhile Firefox keeps getting better and better and won't require that you upgrade your operating system to upgrade the browser.

    For me it's all a moot point anyway, I've got a Mac Mini on the way and if I like it as much as I think I'm going to, then I'll have a dual processor G5 Powermac in 6 months and my Windows box will be for games only.

  94. I agree by suezz · · Score: 1

    Talk softly and carry a big stick - Let the idiot Ballmer do all the talking.

  95. Re:More secure? That's opinion. by Benanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Problem is, Lucas, is that you have more to fear than a zero day when you have a lot of bugs in a certain product...that go months before they are patched or even ACKNOWLEDGED by the vendor.

  96. Re:More secure? That's opinion. by ramone1234 · · Score: 1

    I get a bit of a feeding-the-troll feeling here, but you are modded way up...

    A couple of counter points:
    You seem to take the "it's your own fault if you don't keep your patches up-to-date" argument. What about the vulnerabilities that haven't been patched?
    ( http://secunia.com/advisories/12889/ ). Keep in mind too that this is a product for end-users on home computers (ie your Grandma). Are you going to say "Hopefully you have other layers of security such as a border firewall, IPSec Transport mode with packet filtering at every host, multiple antivirus vendors software (with at least one of them configured to block password protected archives, known dangerous file types and dangerous content), ongoing training, locked down servers with all the fat trimmed, middle tier servers, etc", or are you going to say "Here, try this other browser instead." I'm not saying Firefox is the solution to end-user security issues, but I am saying a step in the right direction might be to stop using IE, one of the most exploited virus vectors ever.

    You also give that old argument that IE has had so many vulnerabilities found because it's so popular, and to that I have to provide the standard slashdot counter-example of apache. It has got a greater marketshare than IIS by far, and enjoys a reputation of less exploits. In addition... let's assume Firefox will one day have the same number of vulnerabilities. The key issue for me is my security right now though. I certainly hope the Firefox developers stay on top of things security-wise, but if not, I'll probably hop to some other browser. Choice is good.

    Maybe security-through-obscurity is "another layer of protection", but I really don't see it working for MS in its products. I see Outlook, IE, and Word being exploited more frequently than any other closed or open source apps. It seems to me that MS has been talking about security initiatives for a few years while relying on this security-through-obscurity, and leaving just a skeleton crew to work on IE. In this case I think I prefer the many-eyes approach, even if some aren't the eyes we want.

  97. I think the submitter got the story wrong... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    It should be "Mitch Kapor has a new product he wants to pitch that's going to compete against Firefox, so lets bring on the Firefox poopooing..."

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  98. Re:Chandler: How not to start an open source proje by jalefkowit · · Score: 1
    Mozilla evolved from an existing commercial project, Netscape.

    The Mozilla people promptly threw away all the old Netscape code and started fresh, and worked on the project for several years on a corporate payroll (AOL/Time Warner's). So the example is better than you think.

    Yes, firefox was originally called phoenix, then firebird, then firefox, that doesn't change the validity of the statement.

    It does if it indicates that the poster doesn't understand where Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox came from. When you add in the time spent developing Mozilla to the time spent from Phoenix 0.1 to Firefox 1.0, Chandler's development cycle starts to look positively snappy.

  99. Why would Microsoft want to gain back marketshare? by manno · · Score: 1

    Internet Explorer has been a black eye on Microsoft's face for a long time. It's full of security holes, and costs them big time in both manpower+time="lots of money", and in the public conscience. I think letting Firefox gain as much of the browser market as possible would, and is a very viable strategy for them. It allows them to move programmers to areas where their needed, like longhorn for instance, which has slipped repeatedly over the last year or two, and saves them the cost, and trouble of updating, and the ongoing process of patching all the holes. It also saves them the bother of handling the help calls, instead people are told to go to mozilla.org. If I was in MS's shoes I would gladly surrender the market share. Something like Open Office however is a different story, and after looking at the latest pre-release of 2.0 (while still very buggy) it looks like Microsoft is going to have fight on its hands. You start taking away $200-500 per seat licenses from Microsoft, and they're going to notice. If you put software on your computer that replaces software that you've already purchased from them, I doubt they'll care. -manno

  100. Pocket Pc sync by KristoferP · · Score: 1

    What I would like to see is someone adding the ability to sync Thunderbird and Sunbird with Pocket Pc. If you want to sync now, you'r stuck with Outlook.

  101. Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft by julesh · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    Totally unacceptable. I see your point. You should fire your lawyers immediately and hire some that know what they're talking about.

  102. Re:wow, that is saying a lot by kLaNk · · Score: 1

    Evidently I was good enough to get you to reply.

  103. bucket loads of time and cash by goon · · Score: 1
    '... would be interesting to compare the first 3 years' budgets of Ximian and OSAF. ...'

    origally evolution was the result of 17 full time coders, 150K+ KLOC (I see refereces to 750K but I'm pretty sure evolution pre release was about 1/4 of this) and a year and a half in development. The sad story is that Ximian had trouble making money out of Evolution and hence the exchange connector.

    --
    peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
  104. It ain't about the viability by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

    >> I think letting Firefox gain as much of the browser market as possible would, and is a very viable strategy for them.
    It ain't about how viable it is, how much money it would save, or about how good it would be for the public. It's about power and control. The same motivations for rape I might add...
    Regards,
    BubbaJon