Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Says it's a 2-Browser World
prostoalex writes "In its advisory to the IT managers Gartner says that even though the factors that drive the current Firefox growth are not sustainable, IT departments better get used to a two-browser world. "Concerns about security currently favor Mozilla Foundation's Firefox, but the market tide can shift if security breaches result from increased usage of Firefox", says Gartner and ZDNet adds that "Microsoft must deliver an improved version of its browser in Longhorn if it is to "determine the outcome" of the browser war.""
Foo.
Improved is such a generalization, and it will be interpreted and realized in that manner. Microsoft will undoubtably continue to bundle more crap into it, tie proprietary formats to it, ignore generally accepted practices of composition (delivering their own, which break pages on rival browsers, a la the Opera Bork-Bork-Bork fiasco), uselessly incorporate it into all their product lines (regarless if it makes any sense, i.e. XBox 3, all games played through a browser) and continue with the practice of patenting and copyrighting everything they can think of to fend off competition.
We've seen all this before.
"isn't that another tentacle around your throat?"
"yes, but it's an improved tentacle and i'm certain i feel better about it than the last one."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is that the same Longhorn that was supposed to have such high level requirements for operation that no current system can run it. I would guess that it is going to cost a fortune so it better have a better browser!
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
So which one is country and which is western?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I don't think this article said anything useful. Clearly MS has to offer at least something if they want to remain in the browser market. It's taking time, but Firefox is gaining more and more ground.
It's not a bad thing if Microsoft wants to innovate with their web browser - more competition is a good thing. It will make everyone's internet experience better. Having two competing browsers is definitely a better playing field than just one monopolistic browser.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
The first 10% share of the browser market is easy. To get any more than that will be very difficult. Difficulty further enhanced by actions Microsoft may take.
No need to read article now.
I'm a big tall mofo.
What, so if Longhorn has a super cool browser the browser wars are "over" and MS won?
This is a "war" that isn't going away. Ever. (Well... until something supercedes browsers)
consider ways to manage browser coexistence because that is the most likely long-term outcome:
Maybe 2 browser engines world.. But with AOL Browser coming out (who has its own userbase already) And Netscape 8, and continued development on firefox, and IE, and continued development on opera, two browsers seems like a bit of a stretch, two major browsers even seems like a stretch in the not so distant future..
not that I use it but know that quite a few do. Wouldn't
the more sensible approach be to avoid all browser specific
hacks? You would think that would make every IT depts life
a heck of a lot easier.
As the de facto sysadmin of my family it's a one browser world (regardless of platform). There are only so many spyware/adware/malware removal sessions on Windows that I can do in my life.
Speak truth to power.
If you want the hare-brained opinions of the analysts doing magic 8-ball predictions at Gartner you gotta buy their document. Wonderful. Who listens go Gartner anyway? It's opinion is no better than Slasdot's. I bet if you dressed up the average trolling Slashdotter in a suit and have him work for Gartner selling comments, PHB's would still believe it because it came from a guy in a suit.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Competition in the browser market is always good. Firefox is gaining momentum because it's better than the main competitor (IE). When (and if) Microsoft will improve IE to a Firefox-like level, the Mozilla community will be forced to release an even better browser. And so on.
In reality though, as long as people continue to open those "Here is teh document" emails written in bad engrish, clicking "OK" in the "WOULD U LIKE TO INSTALLA THIS SUPER-HELFUL SEARCHING ASSITANTE" ActiveX prompts because they just have to see this "cool" web page and installing crapware like seedy P2P apps, spyware is not going away any time soon. With FF's increased install base and XPI malware beginning to appear in some websites, it's only a matter of time until it's a two-browser and much spyware world anyway.
Well Microsoft probably had some reason to turn you away.
...is no outcome at all. I hope IE, Firefox, and all other browsers have a long lifetime ahead of them.
If I had mod points I would mod the parent funny.
It's almost as good as "All our base are belong to us".
Web Design Tips
Has anyone ever noticed that in Windows XP, a normal user can create/write new files/dirs to the root of C:\? It's things like this that will need to be corrected if MS really wants to meet their goals of maintaining a secure, stable OS solution. ActiveX controls need to be revisited. Default NTFS ACLs as well
Sure, there have been improvements. And for all of our sakes, it would be best not to rest on the laurels, but to continue the improvements.
Competition is good. Especially in this case. Granted, if I was forced to choose, I may not choose MS for the majority of software I use (if any at all), but I refuse to close the book on them (perhaps I'm just optmistic)-- I think they could someday arrive and live down their bad reputation.
Sociologists have proven it takes a minimum of 3 generations for social change. How long will it take for security to be cultured into MS?
there are so many PHBs, so-called "Security Engineers" and other FUD gobblers that it might just take Gartner proclaiming the existence of Firefox, before anyone in Corporate America listens.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
if IE would follow the fricking W3C standards. It's retarded this debate still goes on simply because MS doesn't give a crap.
They could fix a few bugs too, it's getting old that you still have to jump through hoops to make PDFs open correctly in every version of IE from 4.0 to 6.
I don't think this is an issue. Lets face facts. IE is basiclly unchanged since oh... version 5... and MS wont ditch the ActiveX bull. So there will be no major spyware for Firefox. I look it it like this. Firefox is designed to hold its own with a secure base. The whitelist and the lack of Atice X...whos worrying? Anyho... I don't think you will see anything come out of MS other than FUD.
As soon as I read Gartner says I was done.
I remember working for a software firm that used Gartner's projections in their justification for the development of projects. "It's going to be a billion dollar industry..."
Years later, the market still isn't a 10th of what Gartner projected.
Who are these "gartner" people, how do they make money by stating the obvious, and how do I get in on that action?
IT people should have gotten used to a multi-browser (i.e. more than 2) world 10 years ago. And by "getting used to a multi-browser world," I mean, "welcoming the benefits of a heterogeneous software environment by writing standards compliant code, validating that code, and testing it against multiple browsers".
... now that it is fairly obvious to be likely.
Tell me, what do we need these consultants for? Do we have a pressing need to fill their pockets with cash?
War metaphors don't work. If anything, IE will have to coexist peacefully with Mozilla, for trying to fight it makes no more sense than a single man trying to fight a mountain by climbing it. That's not the world's most beautiful metaphor either, but it works much better than those related to battle.
What are the growth factors that are unsustainable?
Does that mean that Firefox will never take over IE's dominant share of the market? Would anyone really want to see that happen?
More importantly, what's to prevent Microsoft from releasing a new and improved IE as a service pack, instead of waiting for Longhorn, as a way to blunt the threat?
"For every right, an equal responsibility..."
The way to survive, for both browser makers and users (and the IT departments that "love" them), is to stick to standards. GUI techniques will diverge, so help-desk paths through them will never be truly unified. But the actual use of data formats, network protocols, and even plugin APIs are most manageable when they interact according to the published rules, meeting explicit expectations of function and form. To take advantage of that consistency, browser makers can endear themselves to users and IT departments by fully documenting their compliance with those standards. Maybe even publish "use case" walkthrus of their apps, so everyone's on the same page.
--
make install -not war
I want a copy of whatever program made that...
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Isn't it revealing that people instantly start to talk about a browser war once there is some kind of competition for a dominant MS product?
So we are heading for a world in which there are two competeing products and I've got news for all those analysts out there. That's normal in every other industry and normaly considered beneficial for consumers.
These so called analyst should finally start to realize, that an industry totaly dominated by one company is the unnormal situation, not the other way around.
Microsoft has for all intents and purposes conceded the non-Microsoft operating systems to the competition (Safari, Firefox, etc). Microsoft can't win a war they are not willing (able?) to fight outside of Windows.
And day by day (country by country), that space is getting bigger as countries adopt opensource or recognize the risk of supporting a US-based corporation exclusively. Will Firefox continue to make inroads into Windows? Most likely. Will it be necessary for competition to be restored? I don't believe so.
In the end Microsoft's own policy of a Windows-only world will limit their ability to fight the battle let alone win the war.
Didn't someone say years ago IE won the browser war? Now they say IE needs to improve to win the war? And why the hell must we call this a war and why are americans so damn obsessed with calling things wars? (disclaimer: I am a US american).
This is business not war. Microsoft has the top "selling" (for lack of a better word) product that everyone just uses. However, someone else is making inroads in this capitalistic society and is giving them competition. Hopefully Firefox, Safari, Mozilla, Opera and the like will give enough competition to break the monopoly and then all the browsers will improve with good healthy competition.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
factors that drive the current Firefox growth are not sustainable
At its current rate, every elementary particle in the Universe will be using Firefox by 2010. Clearly, that's not sustainable.
I'm guessing that it will be skinned. Like Windows Media Player. And it will be really slow, but no one will notice because they will have appallingly good hardware to run it on.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
What browser war? Some of us have taken our guns and gone elsewhere.
I didn't read the article because it is from Gartner and to me they just don't hold any credibility with me. Gartner will say whatever you want them to say if the price is right. But why is it that when microsoft comes out with a new and improved browser (of course it is going to be new and improved) it will be the end of all the other browsers. I don't care how good their browser is I still will not use any of Microsoft's crap if it was the last os in the world - Puried
I bet if you dressed up the average trolling Slashdotter in a suit and have him work for Gartner selling comments, PHB's would still believe it because it came from a guy in a suit.
PHB: I just read in the latest Gartner report that in Korea, only old people use Internet Explorer.
Johnson, get everyone in the office on Forefox now!
Highlander! There can be only one!
It's a very Gartner "quadrant" thing to say, to be so deterministic. It's as if Gartner can only see a world in which one company drives the web.
No mention of W3C or standards or the state of plugin specifications, or anything about frameworks for interoperability.
These three analysts are Ray Valdes, David Mitchell Smith and Whit Andrews. I question the assertion that the growth of Firefox is based on unsustainable market conditions? Like what? That IE is insecure? If IE becomes "secure" will that immediately revert to the IT paradigm these guys are familiar with, where one technology emerges and drives standards?
Could it POSSIBLY be that Gartner analysts just don't see a larger force at work, that when open source products compete on quality and stability and unify their distribution methods, they are INHERENTLY more desireable, even on closed operating systems, than proprietary browsers? Because the standards can't be wrested into corporate control and the IT industry is waking up to the benefits of open source?
This is why I prefer Burton to Gartner. Burton papers tend to see things more how I see them. I have no axe to grind, nor do I work for Burton. I just encourage you, as the reading IT professional or hobbyist, not to revere the Gartner name blindly.
I pulled some very old Gartner papers out the other day, and they were laughably wrong about web standards 5 years ago. I don't trust them anymore now.
Firefox is getting to be a force to be reckoned with, but for some reason, even the Slashdot editors, supposed OpenSource proponents, continue to lump it with Netscape in their topic pool.
How about a little legitimacy for Firefox/Mozilla with its own topic icon? It's the #2 browser in the world, something BILLIONS of people use everyday (a browser, not ff itself). How does "Apple" get a handful of topics, but Firefox, used by more people then Apple computers all together, get relegated to a 4 year old dead browser?
C'mon editors! How about giving Firefox some props?
Browser wars will heat up to the extent that Microsoft permits this to happen, intentionally or unintentionally. Microsoft is the major force that determines the outcome, despite other vendors' agendas for the near term. If it does not respond, then a critical threshold eventually will be breached in market share.
The fact that Gartner is saying this has more to do with business and the stock market than it does about technology.
Geeks pay attention to Torvalds and other techies about the technical merits. Suits pay attention to Wall Street and other business oracles about the financial merits.
Microsoft is more about business than it is about technology. I care about technology, they care about money. When you understand that, you learn to tune out 80% of the crap that's out there.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Didn't we collectively have this conversation about 6 years ago, Netscape being the Firefox of the 90s and IE being the IE of the 90's?
I'm a firefox man now, but being a dev, I need to look at all browsers and sadly, though there is an official standard, no one but IT professionals and computer geeks pay any attention to it. God knows we aint the majority folks.
Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows?
Wow! I need to get out more. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Firefox, like any browser, will have exploits. The question is, are the exploits worthwhile? For IE, the answer is almost always yes, because IE is a web-ready app built into the shell with root permissions. Not so with Firefox. You won't see viruses and malware spreading through the Gecko engine. It won't happen, because FF is built upon a reasonable security model. Microsoft threw away IE's security model when it tried to use it to win an antitrust suit. It's not insecure because everyone uses it, it's because it was flawed to begin with.
Why do people insist on there being a war between two browsers? I'd hate to be stuck with only 2 options. Here are my most common browsers in order of use...
Safari
Firefox
Camino
IE
Opera
Reply, then on-topic post at bottom ...
Now back on-topic:
Who gives a fuck what Gartner Group says? It's not a two-browser world. It's a "if I want I can make my own browser using readily-available components in a few days" world.
I could use java. Or I could start with firefox, or mozilla, or any other gecko-based browser. Hell, I could do it in Delphi.
If you really wanted, you could steal the #3 position from Opera by making a browser that specialized in sniffing out pr0n.
my journal: scripts for leaching porn baked fresh daily
Or just googled Firefox news where this story has been covered 1600 time
Friefox news
Help fight continental drift.
You sure use a lot of exclamation marks! Perhaps you are Australian and really speak like that?! Have you considered tranqualisers?! Maybe you could put some energy into configuring your DHCP client to ignore DHCP offers from your neighbours MAC address!
I'm confused. See I keep hearing that all these government guys get paid to promote and ensure that the there is plenty of competition in the market. Then I hear about 2 HUGE companies merging so that they can compete against the the only remaining competitor in the market. So now instead of 3 competing in the market it's just 2. And I hear the same government guys saying "Yeah, that's okay, we understand needing to compete, go right ahead".
Then we hear all these analysts talk about how competition drives innovation, competition is good, it keeps companies agile, blah blah blah.
Then we have groups like Gartner floating articles which in essence say Microsoft needs to win the "browser war" so that companies only have to deal with ONE browser. It's sounds an awful lot like winning the browser war means completely wiping out the competition instead of just holding a commanding lead. Why is it that there's a war anyway? I wish corporations would stop running campaigns against each other as if they were trying to channel G.W. Bush.
Why isn't Gartner promoting companies focusing on a standard vs. a product. While I understand their profit model is based of of referring people to specific products that they review and track shouldn't part of their advice be to not rely on a specific product because of the potential for competing products to take the lead. Isn't part of the analysis they do predicting what might come in the future and how to leverage current products and allow for flexibility when markets change.
Or are they really saying "There's no need or room for competition within the browser market. Just use IE if you can, until it becomes too unsafe. Firefox can't hold out forever, it will fail. Just keep waiting for Longhorn."
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Has any analyst considered that there can be no winner to the "browser war?" Good gravy, war is certainly an easy metaphor to understand but its applicability to emerging and evolving technologies is tenuous. Better to call the competition by browser makers for the hearts of consumers a Red Queen's race. Do species stop competing for resources? Only the "stable" ones (i.e. thost that have become extinct) do.
As for bracing for the horrors of a two-platform web world, that call is many years too late. Apple's Safari is likely to be the dark horse that IT folks will have to adapt to. I think Steve Jobs means to make a big play for the PC pie. The Mac mini is as reasonable desktop as any from Dell, Gateway or Newegg (at least for corporate use).
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter one jot what web client software is used. Browsers ought to be a whole lot stupider than they are. Just follow the meticulously defined W3C specs and lets all stop caring about "owning the platform." It's the applications that are far more interesting and carefully contrieved browser inoperabilities only stall the inevitable demotion of the underlying operating system to something akin to a really bloated BIOS.
Two browser world? Lunacy...
For all its advantages, Firefox growth is driven mainly by the way Microsoft keeps tripping over its own feet when responding to security issues. It's not so much that they were careless in designing the browser to begin with. What hurts them is that they can't seem to keep up with the problem. Patches take forever, and often introduce new problems. And many people can't even install the patches! IT people are looking at Firefox simply because they can't continue to live with Internet Explorer.
I just had a thought. I've long suspected that the IE codebase is a real mess, and may have already reached "critical mass", where every bug fix creates, on average, more than one new bug. If Firefox's challenge to IE's supremacy ever becomes an issue, MS will have to consider a scorched-earth strategy: abandon the IE codebase and build a new browser from scratch. A horribly expensive strategy, but then MS can afford it.
Not an actual exploit based on the reported vulnerability.
If Gartner says it's a 2-browser world then either Gartner lies or I am living in my own world. Or both. I mean there is a place for every browser. I regularly use Mozilla, Firefox and Galeon. I often use Lynx. I also use Dildo. I may have slightly different needs than most of people but come on, it cannot be that unusual.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Whatever microsoft comes up with in longhorn, it will more than likely be superficial, ie (pun) interface changes, probably tabbed browsing, and some cute animated graphics (like a 3d home button that turns into a puppy or something). any security implemented will more than likely be broken and we'll face the same critical update crap as before.
Why would MS need to upgrade their browser? They just embed the engine in whatever apps they have that they want to use it and let FF take over as the most popular actual browser. What does MS have to gain by having the most popular browser besides the most attention when there are security flaws?
"Microsoft should deliver a new broswer in longhorn ..."
How about a new version now! Why should we have to wait?
The biggest mistake is this activeX crap. The only reason why I can think they came up with it was to allow windows updates, and office updates, MS should have thought of another way to solve this problem because it now allows others to keep finding flaws in it and misuse it. And now MS trys to solve the problem with a little band-aid. And now that that band-aid is not working they keep giving us more band-aids to cover the other ones.
Remeber back in 1996, when they kept releasing updates to internet explorer, version 3, 3.5, 4.0 and so on. What happened to that motivation?
late
It seems like over the past few days attacks have begun on the Mozilla browser... I'm confused why these are happening. Cause the numbers slowed down on spreadfirefox.com? So now that gives people the right to attack Firefox's security and other things. It seems odd to me that people are already attacking Firefox when this stuff hasn't happened. I hate forcasters who predict negative things. What are they bringing this world? Why can't they just sit and see if Firefox has a spyware problem or see if it can't be distributed using word of mouth. You know before we had this great mediasphere, we had communication through physical interaction and thats how messages were passed. Do people truly believe we need to have tons of money and 200 TV ads just to get people to use something? Apparently this isn't working for George Foreman because people still don't buy his grill in large numbers.
It should be Dillo! Oh God, what a stupid typo... Please mod parent down.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Firefox on any standard Linux environment is 100% secure. The only situation where Firefox can be affected is if someone is running it on the deprecated "windows" operating system. There is no reason for all the FUD.
Yeah, because there must be a winner. It's not like we can have more than one browser or anything. There can only be one.
This is crap. The media fuels this idea of one player as much as anyone does.
What was reported as the "minimum requirements" were actually the "expected average new system". It shouldn't be the least surprising that the average new system in 2006 is rather better than a top-end system today.
I don't actually know the minimum requirements for Longhorn. I do know that it will require a lot of horsepower and a high-end video card, because they're playing catchup with OS X (both in terms of eye candy and in terms of useful features such as Expose').
So I expect that Longhorn will run perfectly well on today's mid- to high-end systems, since they're trying to take advantage of video power currently going unused. Today's bottom-range systems may not run it at all, or will do so pokily.
It's time for Microsoft to admit that ActiveX is a bad idea, and needs to be done away with. Even with their new secure way of handling content in the browswer with XP SP2, it's still a problem. In IE 5 you could turn it off, in IE6 you can't.
It's time to dump ActiveX.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
mbhvjkv
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Uh, that's accomplished, and then some, by instead getting used to a one-standard world.
I officially proclaim us at (or beyond) the point where we can say "screw people with Netscape 4.0 or IE 3 or whatever".
The existing differences between the rendering on the current versions of the main browsers (and most minor browsers too) are so trivial that a completely standards-compliant page can be made to look good in any of them, even if they might look slightly different in each.
IE misinterprets the box model? So what? With reasonably chosen values, things look fine in each. That fancy bevelled border that you want shows up as a plain old border in IE? Who cares? There are worse things than a plain border. And so forth.
The point of the report, I think, is that the steady rise in the number of IE-only web sites must stop since not providing Firefox/Mozilla/Opera/etc compatibility is going to piss off an increasing number of customers.
For example, a large number of the features of janus.com are not mozilla-compatible. This only further convices me that the folks at Janus are morons.
His question is that since Firefox came out he is able to get significantly less sex due to their computers having less spyware and viruses. Firefox also has tabbed browsing. He is worried that if the Mac Minis catch on then he will be completely celibate. Do you have any advice for my friend?
Of course, most of that Internet Explorer market share is because it's the default browser installed on new computers. "A computer in every home" is close to reality in the developed world, and most of those computers don't have technically literate users. The huge majority of people on the Internet find it intimidating and scary to download and install new software. Attempting to grab THAT chunk of the market would require a qualitative change (i.e. Dell, Gateway, or HP installing a FOSS browser on new machines), not just continued progress in the same direction.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Having a browser with enough market share to make sites pay attention is all that's really needed to make it usable. And if that market share is small enough, and tech-savvy enough, to have the spyware authors turn up their noses at it, so much the better. I would be happy if Firefox hits about 15% and just sits there.
Acius the unfamous
Gartner declares water is wet, but only Gartner subscribers get to read the full report.
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
As long as it takes people to get fed up with it, that's how long.
Yes, Slashdot waxes on about Microsoft's security problems...various sources publish the more serious of the vulnerabilities. Is it stopping people from using Windows as a desktop OS? Well, not really.
I personally know of at least three people who dead out refuse to use anything other than Windows, even in -spite- of the flaws that it has. It's their belief that security problems that pop up will be fixed, and that they're perfectly safe in the intermission between them. They don't believe that Microsoft's security model is fundamentally flawed -- in fact many of them, smart though they may be, aren't even aware of Microsoft's security model (or even what a security model entails). I doubt they're the only ones in the world with that opinion.
Similarly, there's people who flat out refuse to use anything other than Internet Explorer as their browser, despite problems such as spyware and viruses being spread by it (directly or indirectly). Some of them, amazingly, just put up with spyware as being a regular part of the Internet that they can't avoid -- the slightly more savvy will download some sort of spyware or virus scanner, but a great deal don't even invest in that amount of protection. Why? Because it doesn't matter to them. Internet Explorer will view all of their favourite sites, and since it came with Windows, they don't have any incentive to go through the inconvenience of installing something else. Same goes for default administrator user accounts, firewall configuration, all of the things that can potentially cause security problems. If the people running the operating system simply don't care all that much, then there's not much incentive for the company to do so either.
I wish I had their jobs I could say with some vague certainty that what you see in front of your own two eyes is more or less what is really there.
I remember interviewing there more than 10 years ago and they tried to impress me with their onsite valet service because their people work 1400 hrs a day and are too busy to go home.
To do what? Tell me that the #1 and #2 browsers will indeed remain the #1 and #2 browsers for the near and yet indistinct future of some given and arbitrary timeline? And that since no one, NO ONE ever wants to say MS might not in fact be Budda, God and James Dean rolled into one, we have to say that BOTH browsers will remain.
all the dumbass programmers who were just thrilled when IE won the browser war because it meant only coding one website. Hello nitwits, you just cut your work load in half. That's fine until your boss notices and fires half the web dev team. I guess the thought never crossed their minds as the coded their IE only sites. I suppose it's also the market at work ("Hey, this guy says he'll code our page for half the price, but it'll only work 80% of the time, well, good enough"), but I don't think there's any industry more short sighted than IT when it comes to job security.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The main reason Nutscrape died so horribly at the end (only the end part) was due to the "evil" things Aol forced onto the browser. I still remember in version 7, you couldn't do anything without running into some stupid link back to the netscape portal page. It was installed on your desktop, start menu, quick launch, tons of bookmarks, on the browser itself, in the toolbars, buttons, etc etc etc.
It just got so annoying I dumped it for good and went to IE. IE by comparison was lean and mean.
However, when competition died, IE got complacent and we started seeing tons of exploits that led to spyware, trojans, etc. It didn't help that M$ somehow things integrating a browser with explorer was good. I mean when was the last time anyone typed an internet address into their windows explorer?
So now we have another shift. A shift where people who are sick of spyware are dumping IE and running to Firefox.
If Google is somehow able to integrate their offerings and create a streamlined browser, IE will no longer be king. That is, if Google continues with their philosophy of "do no evil".
The people have spoken. Businesses that resort to stupid tactics will lose to businesses that follow this new philosophy. I just hope one day we do away with those evil rebates, coupons, popups, popunders, $9.99 pricing, etc.
eTrade SUCKS
No, LT., your men are already dead."
MSFT will junk it up with DRM, proprietary media formats and way too many people are dependent on that security horror ActiveX for them to just abandon it. ActiveX is bloatware for your browser.
If this is a browser war, then what we're seeing now is FireFox: Son of Mozilla. The browser that ate New York.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The biggest security problem in any computer will always be the person sitting at the keyboard unfortunately. No matter what browser or OS you use , if you click to download something that is a virus or spyware you're going to get it.. Fortunately most of us that use alternatives to Windows or IE tend to know enough not to do such things so of course we dont see so many issues.
Gartner again, are we listening to them or laughing at them this week?
Gartner gets ridiculed when they make comments "the crowd" does not like and gets exhaulted when they make comments that are liked. This is inconsistant, either Gartner is good at analysis or not, just to agree with them when they make predictions "the crowd" likes is not right.
Its just a script which is sampling words off the other posts and reposting them. There is no "Intelligent Design" here. Troll.
Fortunately, by the time that Longhorn is released, everyone will be running Firefox on Google's forthcoming operating system.
The average IT department or web developer shouldn't care if it is a 1, 2, 12, or n browser world.
Ideally, we would all be coding to standards. Is your html compartible with the defined standards? XHTML, CSS, and so on?
After all, my cable company doesn't think of this as a '137 television world'... they are concerned about video standards.
Does the NBC Nightly News start up with a banner ad saying, "This broadcast best viewed on RCA Televisions"? No. That is just absurd.
They're always pontificating from on high, as if they have any clue as to how this industry works. Anyone remember their dire predictions for Y2K? Does anyone actually listen to these pointy-haired nitwits?
Even if IE had less market share it would still have the lion's share of the exploits, just as IIS does, because the design is fundamentally insecure.
Actually, the #2 browser under IE6 is IE5. :P
Also, where does your "BILLIONS of people" stat come from?
Apple gets its own topic because Apple is a major computer manufacturer that started personal computing in the late 70s. Firefox gets "lumped" with Netscape because Mozilla started from Netscape and Firefox derives from Mozilla. It's all the same family.
Also, the editors are lazy. Have they updated the Gnome icon yet?
What was reported was deception bug for the address contained in the URL. My exploit takes advantage of the way firefox handles whitelist lookups. Instead of correctly using the true domain name, it uses the IDF spoof domain name which is incorrectly converted to standard ASCII instead of using the higher character sets.. However firefox does handle cookies and javascript correctly, cookies are correctly pointed to the real domain name. Luckily this was the case otherwise, people could use this exploit to steal cookies.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Actually, the #2 browser under IE6 is IE5. :P
Ha ha. I don't think "IE" can go below "IE" in this game.
Firefox gets "lumped" with Netscape because Mozilla started from Netscape and Firefox derives from Mozilla.
We all know that, but they haven't been the same in literally years - Netscape hasn't been a credible force since Communicator 4.7 (truthfully, barely even then...), and it wasn't until 6 that there was Mozilla code. That was a lifetime ago in open source code years. Born of the same cloth doesn't make you the same today - and they most definitely aren't. If you argue that, I'd ask you to spend a few weeks using that UI disaster that was the Netscape 8 preview based on FF1.0.
Also, the editors are lazy. Have they updated the Gnome icon yet?
But how can they be lazy, I wonder? Most people come to this site for FUN. I'd expect they might enjoy mixing it up with current icons.
Ah, yes, I remember. That was the same Longhorn that was planned to have a Database Filesystem (WinFS), but it had to be removed in order to facillitate a 2006 release schedule of the OS, and a ~2008 release of the Filesystem
Ahh, again Microsoft coming late with ideas! Like this is "innovative". NOT! IBM had this a long time ago... It's called OS/400. (OS of the AS/400). DB2/400 is at the center of the filesystem.
Way to go Idaho!
Again, someone tell me how Microsoft is "Innovative"....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Um, digital TV over cable/satellite won't work with just any TV, you need their smart cards.
Nobody need to support two browsers. Only thing that should do is to stick standards, not some crappy application specific workaround.
At last web developers will learn to use HTML not IEHTML. That's why whatever share FX will have, IT stuff now understood there're standards and that's where those rendering of pages coming from. And that's also why any other browser user (like Opera users) should support FX because it increses the awereness of standards and that will only help their beloved browsers, not harm.
i already know it's a 2-Browser World.... ...since the first time a "e" appeared on my users machines.
Is there even that much money in the browser "industry" since all the major players give the browser away for free? It seems kind of silly to worry about which browser is winning if one is a free browser (bundled with windows or available as a free download for MacOS X). Or a browser that is made by a non-profit organization.
I don't think Netscape makes money off the browser either, I think the money is in licensing special services. Although perhaps there are fools who are willing to give Netscape money to bundle their free browser on a CD.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This would make a good poll question if it was a lot stupider...
Anyhow, I switched back to IE for something today, basically I was downloading and installing new firmware for my mobile phone, it wanted pop-up windows, and while I could have probably gotten it with Firefox, I like to do things by the book when the alternative might be an expensive paperweight!
But besides this, in the last quarter, for example, I think I've used IE only once, when a terminal server was down and I had to fall back to an ActiveX version of the software I was using.
(Gosh, could that be why MS keep activeX around?)
It seems to me these are very specialist circumstances. Hell, I use a TN5250 emulator more than I do IE, and I'm a Windows-only SA with no Linux in my organization (Calm down dear, I'm working on it, I'll have a production FreeBSD box in every office in 2 months). So for me it is a one browser world.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
cant wiat for the IE virus that install firefox as default...
It's called a set-top box...
Micro$oft should seriously think about buying a spyware developer...hopefully they can fund development of some insecurities into Firefox.
Maybe MSN Search people can fund that....they're not going to be catching up with google anyway..
PDFs you can see them deliberately sabotaging.
How about the versions of IE in which opening any Office document gets you an IE window with some of the menu items from the original Office app, but also with a seemingly random set of those features disabled? If you right-click to Save As, you can open that doc in Word or whatever and do your mail merge; opening it with a normal click within IE gets you the right menu items, but they're invariably dimmed. Ack. Pfft. Sputter.
MS has waffled back and forth about how Office documents interact with their browsers just like they do with features within Office. In a way the result is an IE-compliant "standard" of "make it as clunky as the most idiotic IE version needs to be to give our users an out."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
It's the end of the Long Dark. A few rebels try to re-establish the Browser Commonwealth.....
Sure, there's a few: Safari, Opera, and Lynx. There may be others, but I'm not sure.
... because it has been proclaimed by the sage asshats at Gartner. Really, these guys have a problem predicting that the sun will rise in the East. Glad they are stepping out on this limb a good six months after the phenomenon started.
W3C figured this out a long time ago. They don't even refer to them as "standards" anymore. They call them "recommendations". What do they know that you don't? I think it's called reality.
It's not a two browser world, it's a three browser world. And not even THAT statement is correct. It should be more along the lines of "It's a 3 HTML Engine world". IE is the only browser that uses Microsoft's engine, but the othe two are Gecko (Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox/Kmeleon) and KHTML (Konqueror/Safari). It's a pretty safe bet that most Apple users are now using Safari, at least those with hardware that can support it. As long as Apple is pushing it, the KDE folks can justifiably claim their browser engine is one of the big boys. And if you don't like those, there's always Opera.
Ain't choice wonderful?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I hope you mean you get 6.5 down and 1mbps up. Otherwise that would just be silly unless you're running a huge pr0n distribution cluster.
And since most people don't talk about transfer size in bits, I don't think you needed to clearify. Did you move that 400GB up or down, though?
About 40/60 for the xfers, though I expect the upload to increase in about 2 months ... stay tuned.
my journal: scripts for leaching porn baked fresh daily
Makes perfect sense. Firefox is better, but users will happily convert back to Microsoft two years from now, because "The all-new Internet Explorer for Dummies" has such an awesome reputation going for it already. In fact, I'd say Microsoft wins the browser war by default, even if everybody is using Firefox.
Two years is probably too long to wait. Capitalism waits for nobody. A bad product that is available today is better than a good one tomorrow. And when it's the better product I can get now, MS can hang it up.
Aren't they forgetting about Netscape? Opera? Lynx? That thing I copied out of my Visual Basic textbook and compiled? 2 browser world my butt!
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
It works great. Zooming and panning are quick (although buttons for NE, NW, SE, and SW panning would be nice). The map is large. Unfortunately, it currently covers only Canada and US. However, it is still in beta, so this may be rectified by the time it goes live.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Microsoft really does seem profits from IE. It see profits from its technologies (ActiveX,Windows Server, etc) and from people developing websites for IE using FrontPage. Those developers could care less about W3C standards, so as far as MS is concerned they have won the war for now. There is no reason that MS needs to release a new version of IE anytime soon. Those who use it use it becuase they like it, or don't know any better and probably will always use it. Yes, MS will have to convince those on the fence that they can deliver security updates quickly, but that is all they really need to do for now. Firefox/Mozilla needs to keep doing what it is doing - produce a standard compliant browser with some nifty features and it will have its fans.
Everytime I turn around I'm going in a different direction
"Microsoft must deliver an improved version of its browser in Longhorn if it is to "determine the outcome" of the browser war.""
Yes. With PNG support!!!!
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
What really happenned is that years ago a room full of billions of people were all using a particular language. Then one day, a few RICH people, off in the corner, talking in a different language, and complaining that everyone else in the room should be using their language so that they could control commerce. To do this, they forced all the teachers to teach the new kids with the "New Language". Teacher that did not were banished as they were found out.
IOW: DELL, HP and Al. were forced to NOT install Netscape and not to remove IE.
It's called blackmail.
MSIE is the standard just like the Triads are the standard in protection in China.
They said "Deliver" and "Longhorn" in the same sentence.
It just me or does the Gartner thing just state the ovbious very vaguely, but sometimes getting it wrong? I don't even know what Gartner is but there is often stories about it so surely I'm not the only one who has noticed this?
The dominance of MSIE got Microsoft into hot water in the past. Now, they can sit back and just give a bit of market share away as to have ammunition to defend themselves. But there's a limit to what is reasonable for them to give away: If MSIE drops below 75% of market (or some similar figure), I imagine they'll have some defensive action.
Sure, I'd love it if an open-source browser took over. But I don't think it's going to happen.
Opera and Firefox
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Any else out there wondering why /. is so quiet on this very scary vuln. reported on Secunia?
It does seem a bit odd given how much publicity is given to vulnerabilities in IE. I wonder how many people have submitted stories only to have the rejected by the ruler mafia.....
Or am I just paranoid?
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/08/1 749211
You're ratios are a bit off.
Depending on the surveys you pay attention to, about 10% of the population is already speaking this "Alternate" language. That means the number of people speaking this alternate language number in the millions, if the masses are already in the billions.
What's more, others are starting to learn it because they're finding it better facilitates commerce and communication.
The "Standard" of which you speak is, of course, grunts and scratching, while about 10% of the populace is starting to speak Mandarin instead.
Mandarin is catching on, and the people who rely on the ambiguity of the grunts and scratches are getting nervous as it spreads. Fortunately for the masses, Mandarin is proving far easier to learn than the "Grunts and Scratches" crowd would have people believe.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Does the NBC Nightly News start up with a banner ad saying, "This broadcast best viewed on RCA Televisions"?
No, but it may say "Broadcast in HDTV" (and/or Stereo) "where available".
The difference between television standards and web standards is, if your TV doesn't support the top-of-the-line feature set, it will degrade gracefully to something that's mostly the same but not as nice -- analog NTSC if you don't have an HDTV receiver, or monophonic sound if you don't have stereo speakers.
Web browsers don't degrade anywhere near so gracefully, and it's partly the fault of the standards (ever look at a CSS-coded web page with stylesheets disabled?), and partly the fault of browser writers who have determined that it's preferable to implement a standard INCORRECTLY than to omit it altogether.
Moore's observation is that the capacity seems to double every 18 months.
It's not a law, and it's not about speed.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
I've seen alpha.
It will knock your socks off!
When the Netscape threw in the towel that should have been it, but they open sourced their browser and it has arisen like an evil dead zombie. Microsoft can shoot it, knife it, dismember it, and bury it, but as long as someone somewhere wants it to live, it will crawl out of its grave to work its evil once more.
:-)
Not to be overly fanboyish, but shouldn't that be put more like:
"When Netscape threw in the towel that should have been it, but they open sourced their browser and it has arisen from the ashes like the mythical Phoenix of old. Microsoft can continue to burn Firefox at the stake, but as long as someone somewhere wants it to live, it will rise renewed to continue the fight against evil."
I mean, after all - we're not talking about iE here!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
:-)
Perhaps what this is really saying is that when this system is the average system, Longhorn will be released!
Or mnore likely that they will optimize while systems improve until the two trends converge, possible early 2006 I guess.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Internet Explorer does not run on linux.
So as linux market share grows so does FireFox.
Microsoft is losing high end companys this is causing the move. Basicly there is a lot to the linux factor. Servers become linux admins don't want to put up with Internet Explorer because they have to test there code on a windows box so Firefox becomes the standard.
...would it then have a different aroma?
IE on the Mac is not IE as you know it. It's not even really IE5, much less IE6.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's interesting to see a certain denial of reality about the growing popularity of firefox in the media. I've seen quite a few articles (probably based on the same bit of WebSideStory data) claiming that firefox has triumpantly taken 5% of the browser market. I work for a fairly big software company and our numbers are consistently above 20%. I also run a confession site (notproud.com) that is scoring numbers above 35% at present. I haven't really seen any competitive browser stats like that since...well too frickin long. Five percent seems like an entirely unrealistic view of firefox's place in the market. Anybody else care to share some anecdotal browser data?
1) The original team is gone. Therefore there is a lot of code that nobody really understands and it will take a lot of time to catch up on that. Just look at how long Mozilla took. Just look how long Microsoft took to create IE. Of course Microsoft has lots of ressources, nevertheless it will take time, no matter how much money they throw at the problem. They can consider themselves lucky when they have an improved version as soon as Longhorn ships.
2) The other, more serious problem is that the better they make the browser, the more attractive web-based development becomes. More (especially in-house) web-development means less Win32-only development, which means (best case) less money for Microsoft because there are much, much less development tools needed and (worst case) a very easy migration path away from Windows. Actually I think that was the reason why IE-development was stopped in the first place. With Netscape gone, Microsoft had nothing to gain from IE-improvements, but lots of MSDN-subscriptions to lose.
Of course the page layout mindset leads to other issues such as assumed screen size and other issues. These are covered by the standards, but require flexibility in postioning.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What do you mean, not sustainable?
2004 = 1% share ...
Q1 2005 = 5%
Q2 2005 = 10%
Q3 2005 = 25%
Q4 2005 = 50%
2006 = 100%
2007 = 200%
2008 =
What's the problem?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
While I agree that w3c are not completely blameless in this matter...
> ever look at a CSS-coded web page with stylesheets disabled
A well designed website will degrade nicely.
Alas well designed websites are few and fair between.
Finally, the browser war for the Microsoft Windows desktop* is on again! In this corner, we have the reigning champion, Microsoft Internet Explorer; in the other, we have the new favorite Mozilla Firefox. The Mozilla Foundation has packed a punch with Mozilla Firefox 1.0, based on Mozilla's rapidly matured Gecko content rendering technology; but Microsoft is sure to play catchup with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0, coming not so soon in Longhorn. Our other contenders include more Gecko-based browsers (Mozilla "Seamonkey" 1.7.5 and K-Meleon) and more browsers that are simply an improved shell around an Internet Explorer content rendering component. Oh, and Opera, whose developers are crazy enough to charge money or require ads for a browser no better than the free (price and license) competition.
* Microsoft has handed the Macintosh browser market to Apple (Safari) and the Mozilla Foundation (Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla, and Camino). Other desktop systems also run a Gecko- or khtml-based browser, typically.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
Firefox and what?
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
Firefox is big time broken.
The devs need to figure out how to use F*cking
select(), and stop their code from it's stupid freezes before they come to take themselves too seriously.
Who cares about what Gartner has to say? Do they write the code? They've never had a complete anaylsis on one subject either way. They look for trends, spit out some numbers, throw that shit into a report and release.
The problem with "standards" and geeks and all this in between middle man shit is that until you start learning to speak business lingo you are essentially screwed. Many times I've seen excellent technology and ideas get pushed to the side because a person lacked the skill, finese and communication skills to get their point across. Many a time i've seen NT replace *nix because someone was either too afraid to say something or they simply lacked any sort of finese.
I've seen good people, people who know better support proprietary formats/"standards" when there was simply no need for it. Why? Lack of communication, fear of reprisal and general stupidity.
Here are some rules. You're dumbass manager or IT director who knows jack shit got to where he or she is because they possess the skill that you don't. It's nothing special. That skill is communication. Here are some rules you can follow.
1. When you are going to present something technical. EG: Standards, formats, proposal as to why your company should switch to Firefox. Don't become religious. Drop a couple of points, maybe test the waters and try to get a few people to switch. If they don't want to, no problem. You're also going to need to write a report, something better than a Gartner analysis about all of the good and bad involved and don't try to sugarcoat any of it. You'll address all of the good points and assess the bad points for response. You must make sure to research your competition thoroughly and make it a point to know major flaws in your competition.
2. This is business, Firefox is free, this is an easy selling point, but IE is free too. You don't want to say the word "free". You want to say "the cost is going to be lower than what we currently spend in supporting "X" product by "X" percentage allowing my department to save "X" in cost annually while increasing productivity and allowing for resources to be better utilized in other critical areas.
3. Never underestimate your competition. If you have some Microsoft lover salivating at the chance to shoot you down by screaming at the top of their lungs. Let them, you; you keep your composure. Be sophiscated and knowledgable, able to refute point for point why "X" is a better product and why it would fit in your company.
4. Do this infront of people who matter. Your boss, if Microsoft lover will try and impede by shrugging it off or saying there is no time for this etc. Respectfully disagree, and shoot off your report to his/her boss. Make sure you CC him/her and also make sure that you state you discussed this with him/her and respectfully disagreed. However, because you've put effort into this you'd like another opinion. You're doing this because you think it could help your company save money, it's important to you because it will help you to concentrate more on your job and less on things that are permitting your company to waste revenue. You'd like to see things running smoothly and efficiently, lowering costs. As we are all aware, IT hardware/software is extremely expensive. You're looking for the greatest return for what is going to be spent. It's about how IT is valued in this company and you would like to take a serious look at your proposal maybe in a meeting or presentation etc. Even though I've discussed this with my boss it's important for me to give this another chance. etc
5. Have a plan. Fully vetted. Assess your situation and know your enemies, make them your friends and keep them as happy as possible. If they support you then your battle is already won. If you get the go ahead for the presentation or meeting. Have it already prepared, be ready to run with it at a moments notice. You don't want your competition to have any time to get a report/presentation or meeting together in place of yours. If you're asked if yo
Oh, yes. Every couple of weeks, if a page doesn't work in Safari, I try it in Firefox.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
How about 'no'.
Fucking with a web page to make it IE compatible is like putting a handicap ramp on a building. Sure, it's something to consider, but tending to a bunch of retards is second priority.
Web programmers don't have to put up with IE and we're not going to have to put up with Longhorn's stuff either. If IE users don't like it when a webpage isn't dumbed down for for a stone-age browser, then maybe that means it's time for Firefox.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
I think the subtle reference to the "Phoenix of old" is one of the best features, actually... :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Camino also uses the Gecko engine.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Gartner is The Authority when it comes to investment information. A positive note from them can push your stock waaay up. A negative note can dump it.
In the tech world, they just seem to be off. They look at numbers okay, but things that are obvious to any involved industry observer miss them completely.
When they miss things that are obvious to you, it's a good idea to analyze your portfolio and see if there isn't a profitable move to make.
One thing that they can't predict is the adoption of firefox as a default browser for network administrators. When the admins decide it'll be a better option for the network, firefox's market share will increase 10-fold.
Off-topic: What's with the [tt] thingy? I see it every now and then, but what on earth does it mean?
Clever signature text goes here.
"That is, if Google continues with their philosophy of "do no evil"."
Hmmmm... I think they abandoned that philosophy a while back. Look at the way they abuse their position of power by diluting 'meritocratic' searches by skewing results based in favour of advertisers. I think they've become the MS of the Search Engine world, without a doubt. Wish it weren't so, but that's how I see it...
John
...if you can't fight it, contain it. Wall it up with incompatibility. Take over any software which makes migration too easy. Spread FUD to keep people from crossing over. It is not a permanent solution, but they can make billions just by delaying it.
As long as the world has to deal with websites, applications, documents and whatnot "made for Microsoft Windows/IE/Outlook/Office", that will continue to happen.
How do you fight a war when the other side doesn't bother showing up on the battlefield, but takes large tracts of enemy territory anyway?
The same way you fight any other guerilla war. You subvert resistance in the affected areas. Microsoft is doing that by offering rebates to threatened contracts. You deplete their arsenal by purchasing and making products Windows-only. Long-term, you seek to keep the general populace at bay. In this case, by DRM. If Microsoft holds the keys to all mainstream content, the Linux revolution will never come about.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Do you often copy and paste your own responses in order to spread your opinion around more?
I'm calling fanboy now...
I've got a netgear wireless router. Beleive me I tried, but could find no way to get it to filter out the rogue DHCP server. (It doesn't seem to support MAC address filtering.) Recall that the whole point of DHCP is that your client is not supposed to care which server it is getting it's configuration from! DHCP implicitly assumes that there are no rogue DHCP servers...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.