Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Continues Gains against IE
kurtz_tan writes "News.com reports that the popularity of alternative Web browser Firefox continues to rise at the expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a new study by WestSideStory.
The study measured market share by embedding sensors on major web sites such as those of Walt Disney, Best Buy, Sony and Liz Claiborne. WebSideStory retrieves data from 30 million internet users a day passing through its monitored sites. The company then takes a snapshot of two days and compares the growth.
Since beginning its measurements last summer, WebSideStory has been cautious to draw any broad conclusions about Firefox's popularity. This time around, the company said many people are not only downloading Firefox, they're sticking with it and using it."
according to a new study by WestSideStory.
It's WEBSideStory , not WestSideStory
I feel pretty, oh so pretty...
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
granted you see this in every article...
A Microsoft spokesman did not immediately comment for this story
but i love that.
Runnin' On Empty
I am an Opera fan, you insensitive clod! :)
Not much, could probably be explained away by pure error.
Also, the websites they use probably skew the results as well; Disney, Best Buy, Sony, and Liz Claiborne?
If they want accuracy they should try throwing a few porn sites in, or maybe popular search engines.
I imagine if you had a more accurate sample that Firefox's share might be a little higher.
What?
Figures I have seen on w3cshools show a falling usage rate for opera, from 2.3% to 1.9% - almost a 20% drop. If this is a trend is across the entire userbase, then might firefox end up killing opera rather than (as well as?) IE?
Do not know why MS discontinued IE for Unix. I can see thay can expand there.
http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/default.asp/
Without any info given on the margin of error, this 0.88% increase is hard to put in perspective. If the margin of error was 0.7%, then we're not talking about much here. Nonetheless, it's very interesting to see FireFox taking hold, even if very slowly. (I suppose that really shows just how entrenched MSIE is.) -- Paul
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
The more marketshare Firefox gets, the less likely lazy web designers are to design "IE only" websites.
Of course, it also becomes more and more likely that advertisers will spend more and more resources trying to figure out new and exciting ways to get past Firefox's popup blocker and the Adblock extension, so it's a bit of a double edged sword.
If people going on to Liz Claiborne or whatever are using FF, then you can assume that is someone's mom. Either that, or the IT guy trying to look at women's underwear pics through his work's web filtering. :)
Good analysis, though. Let's hope this continues...
Baby steps, right?
Can anyone actualy find the article at WebSideStory? There is a link on the main site about firefox gaining share if you click Read More it takes you to a page with nothing about firefox.
websidestory
...I reckon much of the increase is due to IE users spoofing their user-agent and pretending to be Firefox
I guess you're a fan of spyware. Opera's Google text ads aren't harmless, you know.
You might want to pay for it. Not all software has to be free, you know. And Opera is IMHO the best browser available bar none - well worth it's price.
but the company said its Windows-only numbers are more accurate because new configurations in Apple Computer's Safari browser inadvertently skewed results. I'm speechless. We (linux/mac users) don't use Windows, so our traffic doesn't count?
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
Ads? What ads? A few euros gave me the best browser/mail program there is.
it's in my head
The study measured market share by embedding sensors on major web sites
.... wow!
Embedding sensors? You mean it checked the user agent. Probably logs (I don't run a webserver, so I dont know if all webservers log that). I knew media tended to sensationalize things but
FireFox is actually a good browser.
This would have happened a long time ago if such a good browser had come along sooner.
Firefox is fast, secure, easy to use, skinable, free, and compatible.
For once, IE isn't more popular based on it's merit. It's actually at a technical disadvantage again and it's decline in popularity is a result of that.
I was skeptical about converting most of my less tech savvy associates over to Firefox at first, but when a few actually actively asked me to help them and their feedback was all positive afterwards, I suggested it to a few more and then even more.
Now anyone I don't feel is capable of keeping their system clean while using IE I recommend convert and I've yet to hear one single complaint.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I think Firefox will continue to be popular if Microsoft makes new additions to IE mainly because I don't see them removing any of the insecurities (ActiveX) or bloat or integration into the OS that made people switch to Firefox in the first place. Since when was the last time Microsoft removed a so called "useful" and "major" feature despite its obvious downsides?
i recently posted an image on fark.com hosted on my own box. 10,000 hits later i was surprised at the results. 45% firefox, 40% ie.
Agreed!
And perhaps those lazy Web developers who use simplistic crappy Javascript to determine your browser name/version will be forced to use something more professional that determines your browser's current capabilities (you have: Flash plug-in, Javascript, no Java, ask about cookies, no ActiveX etc.etc.etc.). The site will then work depending on your settings, never mind the name/version.
Did he inhale?
1. Some non-zero number of people aren't running windows.
2. More that 5% of these are runnning firefox.
Then these figures are an underestimate for the entire web population.
Of course accepting (1) but not (2) suggests an over-estimate, so in either case be wary of considering these figures as accurate.
Since when is Liz Claiborne a major site?
I think that's a buzzword for "we analyzed the logs" :P
Joseph?
...the best choice that Microsoft could make right now would be to completely take apart IE and redesign it from the ground up as a Firefox/Netscape variant with the Microsoft logo stuck on the cover. Better yet, Microsoft could package Firefox with new versions of Windows right out of the box, thereby eliminating all complaints of IE being too slow or too vulnerable. Of course, this new Microsoft browser would still probably include ActiveX support, Microsoft-only features and all that other proprietary jazz, but it would be a vast improvement on what Microsoft has going for them now.
September 2004 - 2% Mozilla
October 2004 - 2% Mozilla
November 2004 - 3% Mozilla
December 2004 - 3% Mozilla
January 2005 - 5% Mozilla???
Power to the Peaceful
I think this is my problem with Opera.
Price.
Not that I mind paying for software. Hell, I've even bought boxed Linux distros. But, and it is a big but, most people pay for perceived value. For these people, which includes me, Opera does not provide $39 more value than Firefox.
Maybe I'm just cheap...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
The recent discovery of a potentially damaging software flaw suggested the potential for FireFox attacks. Did that get fixed? Cuz if not, that'll be a problem in the future for firefox. One of the reasons people like firefox so much is the thought that "OOOH, now I don't have to worry about nasty viruses and hackers and evil things." Once there's a virus written for firefox, that little golden halo is gonna come crashing down.
theres no place like 127.0.0.1
I agree that Firefox is much the better browser.
Some people are, however, locked into IE because of the ActiveX component support (typically intranet business applications).
A bad idea to incorporate in-browser ActiveX objects into your app of course, but I'll bet there are still plenty of in-house apps around that do just that.
So, Firefox (great though it is) is not an option for everyone while the ActiveX legacy continues to bite us.
Say, that's a nice, clear-headed comment, and sure is insightful! Most people don't appreciate how much more insightful something is when it's also insulting. Also, I like how you've taken into account that some projects were kicked off years ago by VB-oriented programmers using early versions of that framework, and thus ActiveX ... way before other tools were even viable for some development teams. You may not like inertia, but it's there, and calling people who probably had an IT budget of one hour to throw together an interactive form for use on an private portal site that eventually became public, etc., is, well, assholish. I know... how about not using web sites you don't like? Nah... that's just good advice, and doesn't give me a good way to call someone an asshole. I'll have to think of another suggestion.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I don't care what my school uses, I've intalled Portable Firefox to a flash drive that I use as well as to my student directory on the school's network. So now, no matter which computer I'm on I can use Firefox (I have the OSX version on my flash drive as well). It's really the only way, the school administration will never listen.
Admittedly, I am not a typical user. I visit numerous porn sites and am addicted to looking at gorgeous, naked women who would never spend time with me. Unfortunately, those sites are also boobytrapped with pop ups, viruses, and malware. If you do not believe me, then use IE on Windows and surf 1000 sites over the course of a month. At the end of the month, your computer will be unusable, and you will be forced to reinstall Windows.
With FireFox, I am relatively safe when I visit those sites. So far, none of the boobytraps have infected my computer. The only negative is that downloading the pictures takes a while with FireFox since it is not as tightly integrated into the OS as IE. Nonetheless, I am no longer reinstalling Windows on a monthly basis.
Now, where's that can of vaseline.... Just kidding.
Well, for me it does, mainly because the single user license now covers installations for all the (home) systems you might have, on all supported OSs. Great deal.
IE kills Netscape.
Firefox kills IE.
0.88% may not sound like a large figure, but this gain is over one and a half months (early Dec to mid Jan), especially when IE declined by 0.7%. IE has lost 4% since June last year.
A little bit more of this, and a considerable amoutn of momentum is going to be generated. And consider the opposition: a browser that is built into the OS it came with. Crikey, the FF team should justifiably be proud of what their work is doing.
Help fight these horrible new statistics... Install IE today!
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
Don't forget to use the www.spreadfirefox.com links every time you refrence someone to download Firefox to increase the counter. Also, never let anyone use IE User-Agent when they are using Firefox, because using counterfeited User-Agent unfairly skews the statistics to the side of Microsoft, and we all know that this is a two-handed sword.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Don't use it? What about when it's my freaking bank?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You might be able to argue that Opera is slightly better than Firefox (you'd be wrong, but at least I wouldn't laugh at you for it) but you can't claim that it's 40-worth better (or whatever the actual price is).
Why is anything anything?
While the parent comment has some truth in it (the ActiveX legacy) I think it's unfair to a lot of good, professional developers who had no choice other than to use ActiveX because a particular component (a grid, graphing tool, whatever) was actully required in the project specification.
I'm thinking of sites/apps for internal, corporate intranets - not the Internet in general.
What were these guys supposed to do exactly? Resign on a point of principle?
Get real!
I wouldn't have guessed that would be a site that would recieve a lot of hits from Firefox users...
"The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
Have you tried using the Firefox ActiveX plugin?
Ace's Hardware recently ran a short article that Firefox passed 50% share at their website in December. They had a nice graph showing IE clearly in the majority, lessening over time, and, finally, passing into the minority.
We'll miss you, IE...not!
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
That's exactly what I'm talking about! Change your freaking bank! That's like when there were some banks that had all-night ATMs, and others didn't (guess how old I am), or later, when only some banks waived fees if you used their own ATMs and others didn't. Or, when some banks had free telephone-based auto-banking, and others didn't. You choose a commidity institution (there are thousands of banks) based on how well they provide you with that commidity. My stupid bank has a great web site for their brokerage area, but the regular banking part sucks. A lot. I've bitched at them, and actually ended up talking to the manager of their web dev team, who was shocked to hear about JVM version problems (what a loser!). They're working on it.
In the meantime, it's just not that big a deal to change banks, or just to fire up IE for minute. Oh... I'm guessing you run on Linux. Alas. Your bank will come around on their own, or they'll get tired of fielding the complaints. Market pressure works - banks are service companies, and believe me, they do listen to compaints - mostly in the cummulative, but they do listen.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
According to this, FF has still got a way to higher share than IE.
The amazing thing is that the more you have the better since you are unlikely to guess everyone on the high or low side. The more variables you have the more accurate.
Fermi himself used this to estimate the power of the first Atom bomb via dropping paper confetti from above his head (2 meters) and look where they landed after the blast arrived. He was within 20% if I recall. There is an intersting book called Fermi Solutions that you can find here I read it like 10 years ago but the publishing date is 2001 on Amazon so maybe it's a different book I read.
Help fight continental drift.
Firefox 1.1 is going to be based on the trunk. So it's got a few rendering fixes.
1.1 also contains some decent enhancements.
IMHO adoption will pick up when 1.1 is released and some of these fixes take place.
1.1 will also have a MSI, which will make it easier for corporations to deploy Firefox to computers within their organization. That will allow for more Firefox gains.
Don't use it? What about when it's my freaking bank?
So, switch banks to one that is more clued in. There's no reason for activex to be involved with online banking other than laziness, and the last thing I want from my bank is laziness when it comes to handling my money.
Firefox costs nothing. I can install it on all the machines where I work and on all the machines at home. The little difference that Opera gives isn't worth it. I'm sorry, but free wins the day here.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Because it cuts YOU and the people you point it at.
Sheesh.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
...Netcraft confirms it. IE is dying.
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
Wow, I wish I could give you +1 pissed off, yet insightful.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
But since Firefox is good and actually has some great features (you can thank the real browser innovator for many of these... Opera) people will stick with it.
I do believe that many, many more websites are designing to correct web standards instead of exclusively for IE.
As long as IE continues to be a security problem then alternate browsers will flourish. As to what % is significant I am undecided, my gut says 20% of the market and there will no longer be any IE only websites, at least any that plan on staying around!
i've only run into 3 websites that *REQUIRE* IE for windows (granded i havn't been looking hard either)
MLS - Multiple Listing Service for Real Estate. this website alone has prevented meny a Windows -> Mac switch for me alone, now multiply this acnticidote by 1000. but this one doesn't count because only realters are locked into the system, not the general public.
Seibol - a stupid, slow, and crapy internal system used at the techshop that i work for dealing assets, and time management. This system is probably the single biggest time waster at our shop. uhg. but this one doesn't count because only techs who work at the same company i work for are locked into the system, not the general public.
Pop Cap Games - some of the newer online games are activeX controls. it ticks me off because i got addicted to one of the activeX games while bored at school (and on windows) and i can't play at home because i refuse to use that pile of horse excreesion that Microsoft calls Internet Explorer.
So in reality, popcap are the only ones holding back the FireFox monopoly.
me on the other hand, i just developed a CSS based website that looks great in FireFox, and in Safari, and in Opera. but when i tried it in IE, i confirmed what everyone theorized - IE's CSS sucks the big one. i had to use PHP to spit out code that uses an entirely different stylesheed, and gifs rather than pngs - not to mention that i still needed IE7.
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Then use Firefox. It's not a pissing contest, *I* happen to like Opera better, for a number of reasons. Firefox is a terrific browser, don't get me wrong, but IMHO lacks the finesse Opera has.
The study measured market share by embedding sensors on major web sites such as those of Walt Disney, Best Buy, Sony and Liz Claiborne.
I've been trying to embed sensors in my website for years but I can't ever bridge the physical to virtual barrier. Maybe someday when they invent that smart dust stuff?
Again you assume that the developer has a choice.
While hobby developers have a choice, and developers designing their own products have a choice, professional developers working on contract often do *not* have a choice about the technologies they use.
They can argue the point (as I have done many times about not embedding ActiveX and Java Applets in intranet apps)
However, if the specification says 'use AMCE's ActiveX 3D-chart control' to implement feature X then what's a guy to do? Pitch a case for developing the same functionality using HTML and Javascript alone?
How much extra would that cost and how much longer would it take? How would you justify it?
I'm a technician for my college's distance learning program. We get many complaints from people who are having problems with cookies on Internet Explorer. I try to help them troubleshoot their problems with IE, but inevitably the only thing I can do is recommend that they download FireFox. I've recommended it to about a dozen people so far, and have never had another call back from anybody about the cookies problem who has been using FireFox.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Often people like you don't realize that Microsoft does provides a huge, extensive, and powerful set of interconnected development tools. Ever pick up a single MSDN binder?
If you don't care about anything non-Microsoft, it makes sense to just use the tools in front of you. Despite your anti-Microsoft frothing, those tools usually work and get the job done, and their use is intended for use on Microsoft's platform.
I don't see anything wrong with that -- if the customer has different needs and the developer cannot provide them, the developer/provider has lost a customer.
The real thing you should be complaining about is when IE breaks or adds things to HTML standards that won't work on Firefox. That's just bad, because it's a web standard, not Microsoft's own platform.
If you say "here goes my karma" I will bite you!!!
Why do I never see usage stats for Mozilla on Slashdot? Is it seldom-used compared to Firefox?
That must be amongst the rudest AC comments ever to reach +5, Insightful on /., and it well and truly deserves the honour.
Congratulations, and I'm sorry that my own mod points timed out a few hours ago.
I guess the fact that this AC didn't get modded -1, Troll like anyone else talking like that shows that we are, almost unanimously, really, really pissed off at the state of the web.
From MSN groups:
MSN Chat is not currently compatible with your Internet browser and/or computer operating system. [...] We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. We hope you'll be joining the fun on MSN Chat soon!
(This is the result of writing things in ActiveX when they would work in Java. IANAL, but isn't breaking websites on competing OSs anticompetitive?)
Ignite the web!
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
How is Firefox supposed to garner market share if many universities (example http://www.iss.soton.ac.uk) insist on making the default web browser IE on their computers? At Southampton/UK the only choice we have is to either use IE which of course boots up quickly or use an outdated version of netscape and have a wrapper install it. A process which can take almost a minute depending on the computer.
I've always been kind of curious as to why MS wouldn't want Firefox to become ubiquitous. How does Firefox hurt them? Right now they've got Avalon rolling along pretty well, they've got their XAML GUI tools, they've got Windows Lognhorn eclipsing the market soon and I'm sure there'll be something bigger and better with it that neatly supplants the need for ActiveX.
As near as I can tell the only thing that could be keeping them embedded in the browser market would have to be Google. If Google successfully comes out with some sort of internet based office suite that doesn't depend on IE (or Windows for that matter) then that might be it for Office (but also for OpenOffice, an odd possibility). If MS can get into that market first though then I'm not sure why they wouldn't want the system to be available to all browsers. Then, without having to pay attention to OS, they can create their software in one single way that can be paid for and used by people on any OS around.
Is MS trying to avoid cross-platform internet technologies or something? Is it their history of using the OS to cripple competitors products that keeps everyone so concerned about their use of IE, the browser that manages to cripple competitors products over the internet?
Direct away from face when opening.
Doesn't the iPod also support USB?
Yeah, and firefox isnt bloated like opera.
It never will support scrollbar colours, thank god.
I hate developers who try to take over the UI of somebody's web browser, it almost as bad as popup windows.
I can tell by that statement that you are obviously an IE fanboy who only codes for that browser.
Just FYI, I'm also a web developer who uses PHP or VB
So, switch banks
What happens when all the ATMs in town are owned by one bank? For the four years when I lived in Terre Haute, First was the only bank in town, and for much of that time, its web site required IE.
I for one don't want a Firefox monopoly. I would like to see the web written in W3C compliant XHTML and CSS, so that any W3C compliant browser works. Then even MSIE can continue to exist, but it will be forced to be standard compliant or people won't use it.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: IE is losing market share One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered IE community when IDC confirmed that IE market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that IE has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. IE is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test. You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict IE's future. The hand writing is on the wall: IE faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for IE because IE is losing market share. Things are looking very bad for IE. As many of us are already aware, IE continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. All major surveys show that IE has steadily declined in market share. IE is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If IE is to survive at all it will be among DVR dilettante dabblers. IE continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, IE is dead. Fact: IE is losing market share
You choose a commidity institution (there are thousands of banks)
How many of those thousands of banks have ATMs in town? There are still a lot of one-bank towns in the United States, and even though some online banks refund reasonable ATM withdrawal fees, many banks' ATMs no longer allow deposits or personal check cashing using any other bank's ATM card.
My sig is simply in reponse to Fermi's quote - "where are they?" - about ETs being MIA in the face of the numbers. It's just my opinion that every intelligent civilization evolves exponentially to the point of self-destruction, or singularity (at which point pre-singularity civilizations are as interesting as slime mold, and ignored, but still respected in a prime-directive kind of way).
Power to the Peaceful
There is an ActiveX plugin for Mozilla browsers.
Really, do you expect firefox can do something if it doesn't start growing faster?
First, "% of browsers used" != "% of boxes". Firefox is having a hit because its users are people who spend a lot of time in internet. There're a *lot* of people who don't use internet a lot, and they don't get eflected in the stadistics just because they don't browse a lot.
Second, If firefox continues growing at this rate, microsoft will have enought time to rewrite their browser. Remember, 100% of windows boxes have IE installed, and as soon as microsoft gives them a update which is "good enought" they could stop using firefox. Don't understimate the power of microsoft, they control the most used software distribution channel for windows boxes - windows update
And let's remember that around 50% of the OS used to browser internet is XP. XP SP2 has a popup killer by default which is one of the biggest reasons to use firefox. And SP2 enables automatic updates, so IE is "safer". It doesn't really matters if IE is secure or not, if microsoft patches it fast enought users won't have problems.
so, what we need is to get *better*, and get better *faster*. Currently, firefox is just "a better IE". Yes, it's more than that, we know, but users only see that "a better explorer". We need to offer something different, innovative. We need to give them more things that are not just "better than the IE equivalent", but cool things that have not equivalent so users will stick with firefox. (don't talk me about extensions, IE has plugins and they could start those to add funcionality!)
And of course we need to have "automatic updates" for firefox. I think those are already there, right? If you don't updae users' browser, they won't do it themselves, automatic update (or at least a window warning about a "fastest, more secure version) is needed if you want that your users continue appreciating all the work you do.
Pop Cap Games - some of the newer online games are activeX controls.
So is CartoonNetwork.com's Kids Next Door: Operation BEST, and my cousin's constant complaints about this are why I decided to unhide IE.
If you need to do that, just install This
Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
You could also try and get your bank prosecuted under disability or misleading-advertising laws in your jurisdiction (as well as checking any local industry codes of conduct for violations).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Does it matter that some copies of firefox/opera are set to be detected as IE, as this was the only way to get certain websites to work without using IE? Would a copy of firefox that is spoofing IE be counted as IE or firefox?
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep
And now that Firefox has proven it's superiority to IE, why doesn't some one finish porting KHTML to windows so we have a second good reason against IE ?
Look what we've done with one single engine (20%).
Now imagine what could be done with another free and open engine like KHTML.
Let's hope : another 20% for KHTML, and IE sinking to a mere 45% against two such great competitors.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Though Mac OS X has a kernel derived from that of FreeBSD, Mac OS X is not a UNIX® system. Rephrasing what rpozz really meant:
Probably because no Linux distribution or vendor of a UNIX brand system whose primary GUI is based on X11 would consider bundling IE.
I may have to counter that. Some people get things because they are the IN THING, the LATEST RAVE, a MUST HAVE. Right now Firefox is probably becoming that.
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Guh, what a bad idea that is. The cure for a disease is not to spread it further.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Thanks.
Yes, I know it's possible, but the sort of spec I'm talking about says that 'thou shalt use IEx and no other browser'.
Generally the application architects don't consider it worth the hassle to get ActiveX running under non-MS browsers - it's an unknown quantity, too many unknowns as far as they see it.
The Opera [the browser] is turning into a bloated mass of buggy features. Opera [the company] has lost its rudder.
Once they started to add in an email client instead of fixing the bugs in the browser feature-set, I knew that they were going to be an also-ran once a real alternative to IE appeared.
From TFA: the company said its Windows-only numbers are more accurate because new configurations in Apple Computer's Safari browser inadvertently skewed results
Can anyone say what this is describing? A change in Safari's UA string? I didn't realize that Safari had made such a change.
--
$tar -xvf
Over Christmas break my father told me that he was concerned about all of the spyware in his computer. He said that his weekly scans with Ad-Aware came up with at least a dozen threats every time. The very first thing I did was ask him what browser he was using.
The predictable answer: IE.
So, I installed Firefox for him, and ever since he has seen spyware cut down by *at least* one-half. He also seems pleased with the faster load times and *gasp* tabbed browsing.
So, there is hope for the IE crowd. We just need to show them the light.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
That's .88% of 30 million users, or over a quarter million people.
If the analysts are remotely competent they'll use standard statistical methods for eliminating noise. E.g., take seven daily snapshots instead of a week of data. Either find the median value or compute the mean of the daily values. The latter approach also gives you a tighter confidence bound than the same value computed as a single weeklong block.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yes, clearly because I use a browser other than what you do, that of course makes me a fanboy of it. Grow up already.
Scrollbar coloring is supported by many browsers, and the fact that the Mozilla line of browsers doesn't is a failing on its part. Opera allows this to be toggled, which is one of the reasons I've always considered it superior to Mozilla/Firefox when it comes to alternative browsers.
I would also be willing to bet that the Mozilla team simply can't support scrollbar coloring in the first place because not all of the OS's it's compilable for even support it, and if they added a Windows-only feature like that (God forbid!), then Mozilla fanboys like you would piss yourselves.
I guess that makes you pretty awesome though that you know PHP and Visual Basic. Maybe you know how to put the square peg into the square hole, too!
Why not change your sig to Fermis's Conjecture? Anyway Best regards
Help fight continental drift.
In what way are its toolbars any less configurable than MSIEs or is it slower anyway? I find it is faster and more configurable...
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
It's very easy to pass through firefox ad blocking, just display not annoiyng ad's.
Rethinking email
I work for a Washington State agency. The majority of the vistors to our main site are K-12 related (teachers, parents, students, etc). Microsoft products are quite popular around this area due to the steep discounts that Microsoft hands out to K-12 schools and their related state agencies. However, the 2004 stats for my employer's main site are quite interesting.
I pirate software, but I paid for Opera.
Why?
Simply because the people who wrote it aren't assholes. They don't have copy-protection to make my life difficult, and they compete on features rather than on marketing.
They offer a student discount, and want a letter from the registrar or a copy of your grades to prove your status. My university is run by trolls, so I wrote them and asked them if I could post a small note on my Uni webspace as proof that I was a student.
Six hours later the response came back: "Sure, that's fine. Greetings from Norway!"
I don't mind paying those guys.
As a mac user who's had compatibility complaints about some sites, the retort that I encountered was that the problematic site in question was designed for "95%" of the browsers going there, and if I wasn't in that 95% it just sucks to be me.
Now that it appears that FireFox is coming really close to squeezing on the 5% margin, my question is: will web designers really consider making their sites compatible with 92% of IE and 5% of FireFox? That could be a lot of work, depending on the site. Or are site designers just more likely to say "as long as we have 90% compatibility, that's good enough"? Turning away 10% of your customers seems like a lot, though, too.
Web designers in the biz care to comment? Are you guys seeing new compatibility standards? If so, that's good news for mac users. The faster ActiveX is obsoleted, the fewer problems Mac users are to face--even if the impetus for the compatibility change came from FireFox.
--
$tar -xvf
Another one is the SBC-Yahoo video news player. They're playing Windows media videos, but using a stupid active-X control to do it. I can think of a dozen sites that are capable of playing windows media shite on my mac without using farking Active-X to achieve it. Morons.
Scrollbar coloring is not part of the W3C standards. Hence, Mozilla won't support it.
That's all you have to say, and you posted it anonymously? You people are so childish. I guess you're pretty cool for hating those scrollbar colors! It's the worst thing ever invented! I sure hope no other browser ever supports it! Oh whoops, they all already do.
If you don't care about anything non-Microsoft, it makes sense to just use the tools in front of you. Despite your anti-Microsoft frothing, those tools usually work and get the job done, and their use is intended for use on Microsoft's platform.
MS Should change the name of their to The Microsoft Open Honeypot Project. Wouldn't it be fun to start blocking IE from your website?"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Many things aren't part of the W3C standards, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. If enough features are used on the internet which people enjoy, then it will force W3C to catch up. That's not to say that alternative methods shouldn't be employed for browsers which don't support these things. I'm all for making a site usable for everyone.
Some of the financial sites I use won't accept FF and some software I use needs IE as well. I may switch to FF if this changes, but right now it's just inconvenient to switch back and forth all the time.
It is actually relatively easy to get around FF's popup/ad blocking capabilities. I have seen sites which already use various pop-up-divs with javascript to close them, and as long as the images are proxied by the web server (to the ad server) so that the user agent doesn't know the difference, then they can't block those images.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I must say that I had an issue with a pretty major credit card company a few years ago. Their site was changed and it broke with Opera (would attempt to disallow me to login with it), even when trying to "fake" Opera as being another browser.
I wrote the website support and they sent me a response, and even fixed the website for me.
I think that most sites would like you to access their services (only idiots design a site for one browser). Sometimes you just need to politely mention it to them.
How are they rude ?
Are you the FCC ?
He's right !
I wonder how you would feel if your boss decided that you were a jerk and therefore he shouldn't have to pay you for your work.
Life in Orange County
Part of what you said makes no sense at all, so I will just ignore it.
I love the fact that Firefox can be altered easily due to the way it uses such an open method of configuration and theme files, but this very thing also makes it slower. Parsing these files takes time. Using XML and such for application settings may make a program much more configurable, but it's just not good for speed.
But whether IE fully supports the standards is irrelevant. People have turned my originally innocent comment into such an opportunity to flame the IE user. It's rediculous.
The fact remains that IE controls the market, and that's not changing anytime soon. I am not an IE "fanboy" just because it's what I choose to use. I often have dislike for various things about it, but I use it because it's what works best with a lot of the web.
Whether people want to accept that or not, that's up to them. They can start flamewars over such a silly topic till they're blue in the face for all I care. It just shows me how arrogant some of the alternative browser users can truly be.
In the meantime, I'll continue using Avant, and develop for the websites I'm hired to develop for, and not think twice about all the crying that people did here over me deciding to use an IE-based browser.
Are you serious? I was talking about Ace's Hardware. No pro-football personality tie-ins or anything like that.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
I think I speak for all of us when I say:
"I HATE STUPID PEOPLE".
We now continue with our regularly scheduled karma whoring. Thank you.
Ugh, forgot the .com: Ace's Hardware
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
This may not be worth much more than the pixels it's printed on, but a Business Week poll that asks what browser you'll be using in six months currently has Firefox at 48% against "Explorer" at 32%. "Mozilla" is listed separately at 10% so if you take Mozilla and Firefox together that's a nice lead. Opera is sitting at 3.5%.
Remember when there was a "browser market"?
Make sure to cast your vote!
That's awesome that they were that accommodating.
Go you for voting with your wallet!
Help I'm a rock.
WRT to my questions about speed &c, I will ignore your numerous ad-hominem counter arguments and concentrate on your only valid counter-argument, namely, XML is slow.
What formats are `faster' than XML then and you are refering to the speed of what exactly?
BTW, in the grandparent, I was parodying your invalid argument. Its called humour.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
We need to finish SVG support. We need to add an xml language to invoke java inside browsers to balance the XAML features IE will provide. We need more innovation in the xml language the browser renders. It needs to render more complex things. The form elements need to be updated to match (or surpass) Macromedia Flex's UI library (menus, toolbars, tab pages, datagrid, tree control, editable combo box, etc). I think there should be an option to enable the swing widgets set to replace the browser built-in one. This way you can upgrade the widgets separately. Browsers should support a fast animation engine similar to Flash. I think we should add a game engine to the browser that allows everyone to build sims or doom like sites much more easily.
Standards are great. I'm not saying get rid of the html 4.0 standard. I'm saying we need to create a 5.0, 6.0, etc that are much better. Standing still will cost you a lot.
If you want more high tech jobs, then create more powerful html standards. Companies will have to hire more developers to update and rewrite their applications. If they don't and their competitors do then the lagging companies will fail; I don't think companies have a choice. All you need to do is give them a compelling reason. The first web browser led to a huge employment boost. The evolution of HTML was a key factor. If you want more money then add power to the browser. We need to make the create a new html standard the makes the current standard look out of date and boring. This is what Microsoft did with MFC over the years. It drives a lot of upgrade revenue for everyone. This could work for you!
We should not use w3c for this; they are much too slow. Debate the features and schema on Slashdot. Build it in FireFox and w3c can standardize it years from now.
You never answered this question:
In what way are its toolbars any less configurable than MSIEs or is it slower anyway? I find it is faster and more configurable...
I'm curious as to why you think that too...
God is imaginary
void rant()
// end rant
{
I think you've just stumbled across the real point here...
features... which people enjoy
I don't know how to make the scrollbars change color, nor do I care to know how. But I do know that I hate sites that have oddly-colored scrollbars. Moronic web designers (usually the artsy-fartsy ones that were too stupid and/or uncool to get a Mac) that think this is "cool" should be bumped off this mortal coil with a quick dose of lead to the cranium. It's annoying, it's childish, and it isn't good design. Ask any real web designer (think artsy-fartsy Mac-type here) what they think of that trash, and you'll likely get bitchslapped.
You speak of making a site usable for everyone. Perhaps you shouldn't exclude IE users just because you think it's "neat-o" to camoflage their scrollbars.
}
What exactly does scroll-bar colouring add to the semantics of a page anyway.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
If you can find a "grid, graphing tool, whatever" in ActiveX, you can find 10 times the selection implemented in Java applets. Considering that Microsoft came out with ActiveX in response to Java applets, there was no reason to use that platform-specific, locked in, insecure tool from day 1. Unless you are talking something very Windows-specific that you absolutely need to do to a workstation over the Intranet . . . OK, that doesn't even make sense - then you use directory services (distributed, if necessary) for most of that.
Then you and your other handful of friends who want WWW designers to randomly change the colour of their window widgets can let this happen, while the rest of us can browse the WWW normally as it was intended.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I'm sorry, but free wins the day here.
Just because that matters to you doesn't mean it matters to everyone. Some people happen to prefer Opera and think it's a better browser than FF. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevent.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Don't use it? What about when it's my freaking bank?
I agree that's hella frustrating, and it may be damned hard to charge banks in a given situation.
While it may be that some of the "interweb developers" who do msie-only sites are card-carrying microsoft careerists whose mission in life to create problems for non-ie users, it is also often the case that they actually didn't intend for it to be ie-only, and just need a gentle heads-up.
My own credit union revamped their website a year or so back, and the result was that neither I (mozilla/Linux) nor my wife (netscape/windows) could access key areas of the site. I wrote the webmaster a little note, mentioning that we could no longer access the site, and providing our platform/browser info.
I got back an email fairly quickly saying that they would look into it immediately, that they simply hadn't tested it on anything other than msie. A few days later, I got another email saying they believed it to be fixed, and asking me to test it. It has been fine ever since.
I guess the moral of the story is, maybe they're not all complete jerks.
but you can't claim that it's 40-worth better (or whatever the actual price is).
Sure I can. Who are you to tell me what I should value or how I should spend my money?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Web designers don't want to design for IE only, we hate it at least as much as you do, but our pointy haired bosses and clients tell us to that there is no budget to make things work for such a small percentage of users. Just for the record, for the last year and 1/2 I've been building my pages to work with Gecko engines first, then hacking backwards to get some reasonably consistant result in the crap Microsoft products known as 5.1, 5.5 and 6.0. (Still the majority browser even on Slashdot) I just want my layouts to look similar across platforms, monitors and browser brands and degrade gracefully without spending 3 days per page massaging for every last glitch. Nobody blames the browser bugs or willful lack of standards support, it's always the site designer.
Six hours later the response came back: "Sure, that's fine. Greetings from Norway!" suckers! i still have my web space on a uni although i got thrown out 2 years ago.
Use a different bank?
Theres plenty out there, not like MS has a monopoly on banks.. The bank i use actually lists firefox as a supported browser, but will allow unlisted browsers to access the site just without any guarantee of functionality... Any bank which forces you to use a piece of software with such a poor security track record as IE is being terribly irresponsible, increasing the risk of fraud etc.. I wouldn't be surprised to see banks explicitely denying IE based on it's poor security in a year or two.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
That isn't the point.
The point I was making is that professional programmers work to specifications and if the spec says "use ACME's ActiveX charting control" then that's exactly what you do kiddo! You don't whine and bitch about it, you get on and do it.
To give a real world example, I have often had to use sophisticated 3D charting contols and frankly, the Java applet ones suck mightily IMHO in terms of features and performance compared to the ActiveX ones.
Ever try free-spinning a large 3D surface plot on any axis by click-and-drag using a Java applet? Yeah, I thought not.
Actually, given that people who like to color the scrollbars (that I have seen at least) also tend to color them something like dark-grey-on-black so I can't even see the arrows...
I think that, in this case, not allowing sites to change scrollbar colors is better. At least I can see the page can be scrolled.
Not sure what's going on with January's "3." useragent, but FWIW here's a few months of their browser stats for just Mozilla:
It's pretty safe to assume that the "3" is their new Firefox entry, just missing its name. Summarizing the data by renderer makes the numbers far more useful to web developers as well:
MSHTML-Modern (Internet Explorer 5/6) : 88.69%
Gecko (Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape 6/7) : 6.67%
Other (Safari, Konqueror, Unknown) : 2.25%
MSHTML-Legacy (Internet Explorer 1-4) : 1.46%
Opera (Kinda obvious which browser it is) : 0.78%
Netscape (Netscape 1-4) : 0.16%
I wish they'd seperate out Konqueror and Opera. It would be nice to have a KHTML line in there...
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Also, as far as image blocking goes, while the stock Firefox build blocks images from specific domains (so you wouldn't want to block the ad if it came from the same server or proxy as the good images) a simple ad-on like AdBlock gives users the power to easily block ads without losing the legitimate page content.
--Asa
I've always wondered how much browser dominance really matters to Microsoft. IE comes bundled w/ their OS, so even if everyone runs Mozilla, they still have IE in their system, and all the other MS apps (and many others) still leverage IE's plugability into other client software. So in terms of lock-in to the platform, there's still all the web enabled client apps out there (like most MS products).
Scrollbar coloring is supported by many browsers, and the fact that the Mozilla line of browsers doesn't is a failing on its part.
Mozilla could support scrollbar coloring. It can draw either natively-colored or -themed scroll bars, or it can draw them in what the current browser theme specifies (the theme either says "draw them like this" or "go native"). It would certainly be possible.
Many things aren't part of the W3C standards, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. If enough features are used on the internet which people enjoy, then it will force W3C to catch up. That's not to say that alternative methods shouldn't be employed for browsers which don't support these things. I'm all for making a site usable for everyone.
Remind me again what usefulness colored scrollbars have? Scrollbars belong to the browser or the operating system, but not to the Web page.
Forget semantics and standards, what's really important is c0lor3d scrollbars?
R.Mo
PayPal.
Three things:
This is rediculous. The parent poster posted a dissenting view and he was modded down. Granted, the majority of /.ers obviously feel that Firefox is better (I'm a Safari user myself), but that's no reason to mod this post TROLL!
I hope this mod pops up in meta-moderation, and somebody wakes up. Firefox could start supporting scrollbar colors, because maybe that means something to somebody.
Sheesh, usually the Slashdot moderation system works, but sometimes it's just a big let down.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Now it appears you're going into offtopic nitpicking for its own sake. It's not polite to nitpick unless you're making a non-nitpick point in the same comment. It appears that you still have not responded to the rephrased comment, which I reproduce here:
Microsoft discontinued Internet Explorer for UNIX probably because no Linux distribution or vendor of a UNIX® system whose primary GUI is based on X11 would consider bundling IE.
dave, try this
( the IE View Firefox extension )
TYS (figure it out) has a new GIS frontend that shows when a plane is scheduled to land and where it is on the map. Fascinatingly, it ain't IE in kiosk mode (does it have that). It's Firefox. The admin restarted the GIS app while I was sitting there staring at the girlfriend's flight from LaGuardia. Lo and behold....
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
This isn't a Firefox issue, it's an application-specific issue - the applications are hard-coded to launch IE for whatever it is they're using the web for. If the apps really *needed* IE they'd stick an IE window within the app itself. This is one of the biggest problems for FF acceptance, in my opinion - as well as MSN Messenger, does anyone else know of some widely used or essential apps that refuse to accept anything but IE as the default browser?
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
You're immoral, a freeloader and a thief!
Freeloader I will grant you, but thief and immoral I don't see substantiated in the mere act of piracy.
Being a thief implies you're depriving someone of something. If you pirate a product that you weren't otherwise going to buy, there is no depriving of anything happening, and as a result, you're not technically being a thief (though I'm sure the pirated will argue differently). Ofcourse, the tricky thing is that you wouldn't have otherwise purchased the product had you not been able to pirate it. Most people who pirate do it with stuff they would pay for if they had to.
Same basic argument for immoral. An act is only immoral if it harms people. Piracy doesn't necessarily harm anyone.
This notion:
I'd wager that a lot of browser users (those who don't switch because they don't know the differences between browsers...very novice users) aren't using FireFox because they wouldn't understand how to switch.
Since windows ships with the browser you get that catch-22. Internet Savvy users are more likely to know how to keep safe when using online e-commerce sites, ergo they might spend the bulk of the money online for day-to-day purchases. These internet savvy users are the ones who switch browser like some users' change shirts. Ergo they are the current leading-edge FireFox switchers.
When calculating the percentages of web site visitors versus web site visitors who make purchases, are the numbers becoming skewed towards FireFox for the latter condition?
Anyone care to take a stab at this?
I only ask because I keep seeing the "IE is still "x"% of the market" argument for keeping certain sites IE-only or IE-biased. It makes less sense when considering that those browser users might be less likely to make a purchase, since we've opened the cusomer-base can-of-worms.
JB
If you look at platform changes, you're not as directly measuring the effect of browser competition, as you now have another significant variable. If you do Windows-only results, then it's more likely that any observed changes are actually due to people liking Firefox more than IE.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, my point was not about the people who solely program and implement, but about the people who make those technological decisions. Some of these are one and the same. In a lot of cases like yours, I am guessing, they were not. IOW, you are right in what you are saying - if you are a paid contractor or employee programmer and you are told to implement something, then the most you can do without losing your job or contract is to make a suggestion, and if the decision-maker doesn't agree with you then you have to go on with whatever decisions he/she already made.
I don't know what your specifications were, so I cannot give you a specific answer to a general question. Even if I tried, then you'd nail me with "Aah... but my specs also said
Having said that, I have never tried spinning anything in 3D in any tool, but I do remember Java has had a very nice 3D graphics support for quite awhile now and so has Flash. There is also VRML, and now most recently - SVG. Also, if it can be done in ActiveX, it can be done in a small easily portable native application - not requiring IE/ActiveX lockdown chain and associated insecurity (or costs of extra security) for the affected users, department, and the organization itself.
Again, none of this is relevant if you are not the decision maker. I wouldn't expect many developers/programmers to quit their jobs over an ActiveX control or some other plugin for that matter.
Happens all the time, it's called getting fired. Of course he'll still have to pay for the days/weeks/months you worked.
A better analogy would be me not buying at Dunkin Donuts because it was 8:05 AM and the lazy bastard who's supposed to open at 8:00 thinks he can tell his customers to wait while he lazily gets the storeready.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
The parent post will be read by Slashdotters. How many of them would do as it said? Next time, post that comment somewhere where it could make a difference. Otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir...
The real answer is to phone/email/write to the banks in question to ask them to fix the bug though. (NB: they are probably also violating your local disability and/or advertising laws.)
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I worked for years in the public school system before I went to the ESD, and one thing I will say is that school teachers and district IT staff are usually not the brightest when it comes to technology. All they see it as a box to babysit their students and to do their grades on. The majority of the teaches I know are too afraid to experiment with their systems unless they hear from somewhere that "such and such app is cool and they have to try it out". The same applies to many building and district level techs that I know.
As an interesting side note, those stats started to climb after WSIPC gave the go ahead that Mozilla/Firefox was supported to run Skyward (Skyward is an online student managment app that the state is migrating towards).
If you are curious as to exactly what kind of discounts Microsoft gives to WSIPC members, you can go to http://www.wsipc.org/ and choose services > purchasing services for the Microsoft contract and price list.
The UA switcher is worthless on sites that rely on ActiveX controls (http://launch.yahoo.com strangely being one of them).
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
There are certainly some projects that are like the one that you mentioned. But the continued prevelance of "if doesn't work on anything but IE, that's probably good enough" extends beyond the limited circumstance that you've listed. I personally worked for a large bioinformatics website where the IT staff actually used mozilla themselves, but programmed for IE just because they wanted this [crappy] dynamic menu system that was ActiveX. I think that's the sort of lazy developer the gp was talking about.
I eventually rewrote the whole thing b/c I refused to use IE even for testing.
It's strange that people try to humiliate firefox and exagrate their all-time browsers. Actually what normal brain should do in such a IE-oriented web to support firefox's trend.
If firefox gains valuable market share, sites can not resist to obey standards. They would know that there are other browsers around. And unlike Netscape vs. IE years now they are easy to implement and test. If all sites obey web standards, every other rival browser of IE can easily adapt those standards without trying to mimic IE behaviour. That would make them even more enjoyable to use. However current situation is, despite opera is quick, or safari is ui sleek they have to face with 'best viewed with IE' pages.
Firefox seems to be only solution for that 'best viewed for IE' plauge. So if you want to use your favourite browser without caring if this page will look good, support firefox, and stick to your browser.
You don't have to buy. You can also use the ad-supported version, that would not make you a freeloader. You deprive Opera of the occasional click on an interesting ad.
It might not be immoral (which, in the end, each has to define for himself), but it certainly is thievery (you do something you are not allowed to do).
If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
Mozilla 1.2? That's better than nothing. At least you have the option do use it (and even boot into into Linux!). I just go to a lowly highschool, so they don't really care about anything there.
Instructions on installing Active X in Firefox.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I am glad to see Firefox recieving this well deserved success and I hope Firefox continues to improve.
I think it would be nice to see Firefox include SVG and MNG support in the standard install. These two standards address many need I believe that web designers have in in being able to produce rich formatting and content, if these needs are not fulfilled by an open standards means developers tend to turn to propriatary solutions such as Flash to do these things. By fulfilling these needs, we can encourage the use of open standards. SVG includes good support for vector graphics while MNG supports image animation and several different encoding schemes which provide much needed capabilities for image creation.
Somewhere in this world, possibly in a basement near you, there is a geek who will not be satisfied until the entire planet uses Opera on an Amiga running BeOS to find Ogg-Theora rips of the original Star Wars: A New Hope where Han shoots first.
then might firefox end up killing opera rather than (as well as?) IE?
Hopefully. I don't see any reason to use a closed source browser any more.
Let's just hope that some other open source alternatives can keep up with Firefox so that we don't end up in a 1 browser market again.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
This is still such a small minority. Less than five percent is less than the number of people that use 800x600 resolution. And nevertheless you will hear web designers saying, "can we stop designing websites for 800x600 already??"
However, a warning to web masters that aren't Firefox-friendly (and there are many), is that the digerati is like 50% or more Firefox. People who are frequent commenters on technology in blogs and in magazines are up-to-date on the trends, and use Firefox. So if you alienate the Firefox users, good luck getting that precious slashdotting or BlogDex coverage. Can you imagine BoingBoing or slashdot ever covering a site that was IE-only?
Philosophistry
That exploit was discovered in october 2004, and XP SP2 users are still vulnerable with all updates (even on 12-1-2005, after microsoft had theoretically closed this hole, but only partially suceeded
John Titor... is that you? Where've you been? When've you been?
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
it doesn't matter what bank you're with, you can always withdraw cash in your town.
True, for $4 per withdrawal ($2 to ATM owner and $2 to bank owner), I can withdraw from just about any ATM in the United States (or I can do it for free at Wal-Mart by asking for cash back with my debit card purchase), but each ATM only accepts deposits for accounts at its own bank.
I dont know why any one would want to stay with IE the tabs in fire fox are a grate invention. My only compliant is that i can not get MSN messenger to use fire fox over IE and usual M$ protecting them selfs.
This *isn't* flame-baiting - just an honest observation.
I've only recently got into usng FireFox, and I have been a bit disappointed with the way it fails to support some stuff which works fine in IE. Here I'm not talking about stuff like ActiveX - I'm talking about some basic HTML/CSS stuff which is in the W3C spec, but FF seems to have a problem with. Certainly not the sort of thing which I'd consider to be branded as "IE-only" content.
I do genuinely want to use this more as a browser, but I'm a bit worried that I might be missing some stuff on websites, because of the inconsistencies.
Lately I've noticed /. isnt rendered correctly when using firefox. The sides seem to overlap the text in the middle. And I've also found that after navigating /. with IE that IE stops responding to all websites until I exit all IE windows and restart it. Is this just buggy /. that we've alll come to know and love?
Can I bum you a
Sweet Zombie Jesus!
The IE Patcher Tool will patch existing apps that call the MSHTML engine to call the Gecko engine instead. It doesn't always work, but in many cases it does, removing the dependence on IE and fixing rendering issues.
You are aware that the majority of users dont give a flying fuck about closed or open source, right?
They just want software that works out of the box, and doesn't take a wizard to operate.
Yes, I use Opera, yes I like the open-source philosophy, but encountering a few broken sites every now and then, still doesnt alter my preferences. To me Opera is superior to Firefox in every signle usability issue I can come up with.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
I switched to Firefox as Firebird just as it changed from Phoenix, on Linux I've found it faster than Opera (could be my implementation??).
... it's so cluttered in the default and it takes a while to switch all those extra sidebars and menus off.
....
Anyway, recently returning to Opera I found that the free version has graphical ads as before but now they are moving images (dynamic). This is very annoying. The one thing I hate on webpages is moving ads taking your eye away from what you're reading. And what about that interface
I tried to stick with it, but it still seems slower than Firefox (which on my system appears to leak memory like a sieve, 2 hours runtime at best before it's so sluggish I have to restart it).
KHTML is a whole mess of IE-like non-standards compatability so far as I see, so I rarely use that.
While I generally refrain from replying to anyone that doesn't see fit to put their name to their comments, I'll make an exception here...
I didn't say I've been doing web development for 15 years. I've been doing that for probably 8-9 years or so. The rest of the time has been typical client-server development, and other things.
That being said, 99% of that web development time has been developing Intranet-based applications. I'm known for creating applications that look, feel and function like fat-clients. They tend to be much richer than the average web site. I admit this work has been IE-only, which frankly puts me in a unique position to know IE's stengths and weaknesses. But I digress...
While I'm not going to claim they are anything special, I'm not one of those incredibly gifted site designers that create true works of art, I am not ashamed of the public sites that are still online that I've done... Here are links:
http://www.omnytex.com/
http://www.zammetti.com/
I did everything on these site, all coding (front and back-end), design, graphics work, etc. Like I said, they aren't going to win any design awards, but I'm comfortable with people seeing them and knowing they are my work.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
You have encountered HTML and/or CSS code (1) that's in the W3C recommendations, (2) works as intended in IE, and (3) doesn't work as intended in Firefox? Care to offer some code examples or an illustrative URL? I would be interested in seeing this. It would be a first for me.
"I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse." -- Groucho Marx
Oh, Opera. Its like someone took a shit in Firefox's code, added tons of "features" nobody uses, and charges for it.
Sure, but it doesn't change the end result for me. I doubt my bank and the app makers are going to spend much time or money to make 5% of their customers browsers work.
Download your copy from here. It's significantly non-trivial to install. Despite the URL, that's with native graphics, not through CygWin's X server, an implementation which also exists.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I appreciate the suggestions, but it's just not worth the hassle at this time. I've alaways been diligent about what sites I go to, what I download and what I allow to run in my browser. Combine that with my AV and firewall and I've never really had any issues. If it comes to the point where it is an issue I'll switch, but I'm not anti-MS (not really pro-MS either) so I see no reason to adopt FF just for the sake of doing it.
Should have read "not like MS has a monopoly on banks yet".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
When I deal with complicated HTML page layouts, they all Just Work in Konqueror and Safari (wish I could say the same about Konq's JavaScript, which still sucks as at 3.3.1).
Gecko (FireFox and friends) will sometimes require a gentle hint or two about stuff like heights.
MSIE requires its damn hand held tightly for every single agonising step of the journey down the page.
I too would be deeply interested in seeing examples of MSIE adhering to W3C standards where Gecko does not.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Yeah. that's what I think.
But just right now Windows has none.
Mac OS X has Safari, but nothing great using KHTML on windows.
If someone could help developping a killer app based on KHTML, this will
- Help FireFox in the battle against closed browsers
- Create more alternate choice for the Windows market. (If one day some complexe worm manage to infect FireFox, you could switch easily to another open-source apps, if you want... or be just happy that firefox is open-source and you're going to get updates faster than with non-open browsers).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
only idiots design a site for one browser
Not only have I had to deal with recently a web application designed for only one browser but it wouldn't work on all versions of Windows either. Had to run on 2k or NT, wouldn't work on XP. I am not even sure how to categorize actions like that. The people who did that one (not going to name the company) should be in the bad software decision hall of fame.
...something along these lines. I have seen more and more sites advocating FF over IE, some of them quite large. I am on staff for http://www.Deviantart.com and they have over the past year been recommending users to switch (as well as having site developement geared for FF taking precedence)with a noticable number of them doing so (which on a site of its size is saying something).
So if the entire world moved to Linux and Mac OS, and only one person, Bill Gates himself, were still running Internet Explorer on Windows, that would be an ideal scenario for Internet Explorer, right? It would then have 100% of the market by your logic.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
I'm familliar with the plugin, but have no desire to infect Firefox w/ActiveX, thank you....
Launch is a site I truet, so I don't have qualms about ActiveX there (other than wondering why they don't dump it). I seem to recall Yahoo! is a BSD shop...
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Exactly, what's the point of monitoring the whole world when you know that people who take informed decisions aren't going to believe your marketing and hype anyway.
/. for their news).
I think they should have picked sites visited by people with sub 100 IQs, maybe TV guides or FOX (since all the geeks supernova their TV anyway and
So in this case we have the worst case scenario, the corporations pander to Joe Sixpack, ignore the moderates and are the rich.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This is true. My bank, CIBC, used to balk when I didn't visit the site in IE or Mozilla. Just a few complaints, and the next revision of their site was much more accessible, and lets me use Konqueror without a complaint!
Be relentless!
I'm in a similar position as you. PS: welcome to my friends list! :)
BTW, have you considered the possibility that interstellar travel is so difficult that no one does it to any significant degree? There could be a billion year old (stable, mortal) civilization 1000 light years away, with no reasonable way to travel here in person.
Meanwhile, they use tight maser communication with a codec so advanced we couldn't distinguish it from random noise, even if stray signals accidentally pointed at us, which they don't.
They're out there, AND we're effectively all alone. That's my theory.
I think much of the people wanting to try Firefox is due to the fact that Firefox has a number of features that Internet Explorer lacks, especially tabbed browsing, RSS support, and pop-up ad blocking.
However, I have this suspicion that Microsoft maybe preparing a counterattack of sorts. If you've played with Maxthon, it's a pretty powerful shell program for Internet Explorer that essentially gives the browser a large fraction of the functionality of Firefox, plus Maxthon has number of interesting features of its own, such as its very nice ad blocking features. I would not be surprised that Microsoft might just buy the rights to Maxthon and incorporate it into IE itself some time later this year.
If Internet Explorer gets the functionality of Maxthon, the incentive to switch to Firefox will go down quite a bit, to say the least.
An ad-off add-on :o)
Hmmm...
Even before I switched away from Windows, I was using plenty of perfectly good Open Source apps that I didn't have to compile, etc.
Mozilla, Firefox, PHP, MySQL (+GUI tools), phpMyAdmin, Perl, Python, Apache, Gaim, xChat, FileZilla, OpenOffice, etc., etc.
And there are numerous Linux distros that you don't have to compile from source yourself - you drop in a CD, pick the options you want, and let 'er rip. I'm using one of them right now, in fact. (There are even some that you don't have to install to use -- look at Knoppix, Gnoppix, BeatrIX, etc.)
The short version is that there is plenty of Open Source stuff out there that "just works", and you, sir, are either woefully ignorant of this fact, or just a troll.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
What expense? Directly using IE doesn't earn Microsoft any cash.
.com domain.
I beg to differ. Everytime you misspell a domain name or something else, you get redirected to MSN Search which shows "ads". It's why Verisign tried to wildcard the entire
In addition, they license the technology for other companies such as AOL or Sharman Networks in order to provide web browsing in the respective guis.
Is the article even really news? For the VAST and GREAT majority, those who do business on the internet don't care about what browser you are using, only the fact you are visiting or buying something...
Of course it's newsworthy, just like when millions of users lose tons of productivity and time when an IE hole wreaks havoc on the internet. People switching to safer browsers is news, because it shows people are taking their security seriously.
I do use both of the mentioned browsers.
Kudos
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Try working for the government. Everyone thinks that everything should be free and that the employees should do it for free and .....
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
Why are you such a coward?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
You obviously don't use windows, because the Microsoft Windows Update site is another one that requires IE.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
They'll still charge for it!
I don't use an ATM any more, and haven't for several years. It's no sweat off my back to stop off at the bank and cash a check- a tiny bit less convenient, yes, but certainly not undoable. The main issue is that I got tired of seeing these ATM transaction fees on my statement each month - they add up. Of course, now the banks have come up with other ways to extort money from their "customers". I've noticed that lately, my monthly service charge is based on a percentage of the overall transaction total. It looks like some banks are positioning themselves to become financial brokers of sorts, charging a commission on each transaction (which really, truly sucks).
Overall, I'd say these kinds of things are happening for two reasons: a) customers allow them to happen, and b) market saturation...they need to invent new ways of extracting money from their "customers" in order to maintain positive growth - or at least the appearance thereof.
but that doesn't count because only Windows users need to use WU, and we all know that Windows users are an endangered species ;)
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
I would say that if you are working as a developer with a company who's main idea of a windowing toolkit is Microsoft Internet Explorer, it is time to bale. Not out of principle, but with an eye on job security.
Firefox is the "in thing", the "latest rave", the "must have"? You don't get out much, do you?
It's a browser. A browser comes shipped with the OS. People are switching because they hate pop-ups and spyware. In-things happen light years away from the browser market.
The people who did that one (not going to name the company) should be in the bad software decision hall of fame.
How do they get into the Hall of Fame if the afflicted users refuse "to name the company"?
"I can honestly say that the total arrogance displayed here today has lessened any will I had to continue developing for Firefox."
Ah yes, punish Firefox users for the behaviour of Slashdot posters, that so makes sense.
"Show some respect to people once in a while, why doncha. I tried to do that to you all."
If you are the sort that likes to changes people's scroll bar colours, you probably do not know the meaning of the word "respect". You spit in the face of all your users, then whine because of a little rough weather on Slashdot.
You're pathetic.
I recommend Filterset.G for use with Adblock. I find it eliminates most advertising.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Okay, when ActiveX came out, java was so hellishly slow on the desktop it wasn't funny.. beyond the ease of creating active-x controls vs. Java applets at the time (late 1996 or so) .. beyond this, the layer model in Netscape sucked, and IE4 + Active-X + scripting was way better than Java and any browser integration... sorry, but you don't seem to remember, or are too young to remember web development back then.
Most of the security issues surfaced around 1999 which was several years later, and even then alternatives weren't great... most good alternatives are from the past two years, in terms of desktop performance with java, and better browsers like firefox.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Yeah, but today != 1997 when a lot of the development around IE surfaced.. there simply weren't better alternatives until much more recently.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
IE's biggest bug imho is when it just gives you a blank screen when you mix div's and tables, then exceed a certain (mystery) size.
try it sometime... div..table..tr..td..div..... it will eventually just not render.. an annoyance that rears its' ugly head even with a large table(s) inside divs.. so having divs for content, and giving report data gets quirky really badly in ie.. and often varies on different versions of windows, because of tweaks in versioning say between win2k and xp.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
the png issue is a pita really.. but you don't need to resort to gif's (reduce the transparency to one color of a pallet of less than 256c, and png plus single transparency works fine.) .. in PSP you can do this via the export to png for web.. and tweak your settings..
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
has anyone considered the fact that the rather sharp increase in ff over the last couple months might be related to other businesses and companies using/porting ff to their own uses? (eg universities etc.). Don't get me wrong -- i totally agree with using ff over ie for ohhhh so many endless reasons -- but i cannot see *ALL* of the increase as due to just the average joe suddenly getting struck by lightning and saying "oh, i'm gonna go back me a fire sponge browser today." i, for one, believe that a large -- if not the larger -- majority of ff adoption is not due to the average home user, but rather due to businesses / organizations using ff and including ff in their packages and plans (whether its indirectly ['the it guy said do this'] or directly [an entire policy is made for it] is irrelevent).
No need to be sorry for me, because it is you that has the timeline confused. In 1996 MS put out IE3 which was not really a complete web browser by any stretch of imagination - i.e. nobody used it seriously and most websites didn't work with it properly. IE4 came out in late 1997 and even when it did, it was "unproven" and Netscape was still a major player in the market. Really, MS gained major market share and started "winning" the browser wars at the end of IE4 and with IE5 - which was around 1998-99. This was also the time when Java applets and flash plugins had gotten significant improvements in their functionalities such as 3D rendering, improved video, sound, etc. They also loaded and ran faster due to improvements in hardware (CPU, memory, etc.) at the time. Besides, the "MS Virtual Machine" never had a problem of loading slowly and Java was a de facto standard for applet-type plugins.
I actually had an option of testing and using an ActiveX control in an organization with IE in late '97 or early '98 for data entry and presentation. It looked pretty with a local app interface and direct database connection - only the application itself served by the web server. But quite frankly, other than the fact that it was new and looked pretty, it had nothing else going for it - it was an IE-only locked in technology, a new browser and a new architecture that nobody knew how long would survive, and how reliable it would be with future upgrades. You can guess that I didn't end up implementing it, even though I did give it a shot successfully in a test environment.
Given the browser and associated software timeline, there was never a point in time when implementing anything in ActiveX actually made sense in any context. There always were better cross-browser, cross-platform alternatives except maybe in early stages of ActiveX when IE didn't matter as much.
Here's an example of what I mean...
Section 5.3.3 of the W3 spec for CSS1 includes:
BODY { background-image: url(marble.gif) }
I use this CSS item in the stylesheet for my own site. When I view this in IE I get a background image, when I view it in FireFox I don't. One small item, but it makes a big difference to the look of the site.
What's your problem? I whipped up that site in a couple of hours, it works with all browsers. Cowards are always losers (and brain dead).
Did he inhale?
I am also not objecting to users being able to change their scroll bars. I am objecting to the idea that all GUI UAs should force users to use the scroll bar colour that the WWW site designer wants them to (and the code to do this should be added to (X)HTML, which is, after all, a semantic language).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Having said that you still need MSW and still need to run the same proprietary Active X code that MSIE uses.
I seem to recall that everything Yahoo! never works and looks like it has been created by a bunch of yahoos anyway.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]