Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Hits 80,000,000 Downloads
asa writes "It's been nine months since the release of Firefox 1.0 and with tens of millions of users we most certainly are taking back the web. Today our Firefox web browser hit the 80,000,000 downloads mark. You can see the live counter over at SpreadFirefox.com."
Well, we just had been notified of the 75M milestone.
Do we really need to get told about the counter constantly? It's useless anyway, as all Linux/BSD distributions use their own mirror networks.
When Firefox hits the 100m mark, it may be something half-worth of a note.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Almost all GNU/Linux distributions come with Firefox installed. The distribution makers only download the package once and include it in the distribution. There can be thousands of users of that package. My point is that this number is not a number that can be trusted, or am I wrong?
objorkum dot com
My weblogs show that IE is still the dominant browser, even though my two sites are primarily trafficked by those who are tech-savvy (who you think would be using a browser other than IE).
Personally, I know I've contributed to probably 50-60 of those 80m downloads, and I'm only one person. This is partly due to the assinine update mechanism. They really need a better way to deliver patches.
What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
Yes, the number of downloads from one place is a horrible metric to determine accurately how many people are using the browser. Some download it 10 times on one computer, others download it from their distro's package manager 10 times. Others copy it to a flash drive and pass it along to 10 other computers.
So before everyone tries to get a +5 insightful for pointing this out, let's just be happy that a good open source browser that does it's best to stick to standards is doing so well.
The long and the short of it is that nobody knows for sure. The point isn't exactly what the number means (80 000 000 unique downloads vs. 80 000 000 downloads by a crazed fan), but that the number is increasing, and therefore so much Firefox use to some extent.
Personally I've been installing it on customer's systems for a few weeks now as a way to beat spyware. Some of them adopt it, some of them don't. But those who do adopt constitute an increase in Firefox use.
That has to be total downloads, right? Now unique downloads.
:-)
I talked my boss at work into installing Firefox on every machine, and he's thrilled with the results so far. If you have any influence at your job, do the same.
But that only counts as ONE download, since we installed that over the network.
So maybe that number is actually LOW.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
80 million? We get it Slashdot. People are using Firefox. Stick to 0, 50, and 100 if you must.
On another point, wheres the discussion here? Are we all supposed to just pat ourselves on the back for a "job well done"? Whats the significance of this?
I am not a statistician by any means and could not hope to come up with a reasonable figure without a bit of study into the subject .. but here are a few thoughts
1:) distributed media (linux CDs , magazine covers) which could make the figure appear smaller
2:) repositories and uncounted download sites (lowering the number again)
3:) ???
4:) profit (sorry couldn't resist)
5:) mass installs from a single download (system administration of companies , installing it for family and friends (again lowering the number)
6:) reinstalls and upgrades( which heighten the figure )
7:)People trying it out (who may or may not continue to use the product after a trial)
So it would probably require a fair bit of study to get an actual factual figure on the size of the user base
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
At least 10,000 was me.
Anyway, the number of downloads is "interesting" but that's about all. What counts is how many people use Firefox as their primary browser. Still around 10%, I think. But that's not bad. I'm just afraid that IE7 may reduce some of the perceived advantages of FF such as tabbed browsing and some of the "appearance" things. Many people don't understand or care about technical issues...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Or office, or lotus notes, or any other proprietary software???
How many of those are because of upgrades, like those due to security problems? Rhetorical question, though, since it's really hard to figure that out. It's easy to count the lines in a log file. :-)
Of course, other vendors play by these rules, too, especially when they count the browser as part of the OS. Fight fire with fire, ya know?
aye. None of my installs would be in that figure as I use Portable Firefox for Windows machines which was not downloaded from the Mozilla site. When putting it on a new computer I just copy my folder from my thumbdrive.
On linux computers I get it through apt-get (which I would say ALOT of Linux users do) so I am assuming that would not be counted as well.
I would take a guess that most of those downloads were the Win32 version. (That's a stat I would like to see... how many of the downloads were Linux/Mac/Win32/etc).
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
This topic has been discussed a good dozen times already on slashdot
And will be discussed a dozen times over and over again because slashdot editors insist in publishing every single download milestone firefox reaches.
No sig
There's also another question: how many people who downloaded FireFox actually use it? I imagine that there's a considerable number of people who do get hooked, but there'll probably also be lots who don't.
I myself am an example. I've downloaded Firefox about half a dozen times in total (different versions), but even though I have it installed (mostly as a convenience for visitors who're used to it), I still use Seamonkey myself - and, for that matter, I consider Seamonkey to be superior to Firefox.
I may not be a typical example, but the raw number of downloads is not really a good metric to assess how widespread a browser is - it's a rather meaningless number, even though it makes for nice headlines of course.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
...on "technical issues" when it only runs (natively) on Windows? "Technically" every whitebox shop out there is full-up with windows boxes that are completely hosed, despite this being the year 2005, despite all the AV and firewall products available, despite all the various patches, updates and industry recommendations to people, despite MS throwing billions at it over the years and who knows how much in terms of man years of coding effort. "Technically" just about every geek out there has to fix friends and relatives windows boxes all the time. "Technically" every iteration of windows and IE was supposed to "fix" this. And somehow automagically this new effort will be "the fix"?
Let's run that by some vegas and london oddsmakers, shall we?
You could have a new 42 inch laserplasmaquantum HDTV with surround sound but if you try to use it with two pieces of twisted coat hanger and some tinfoil for your input the total results will most likely not be "technically" all that great.
I'm just not that good at paying attention to the "please don't feed the trolls" signs.
It's not about the supposed weaknesses of Firefox, it's about its strengths. 80,000,000 downloads (even if not unique) is a good sign. You point out the inherent positive of Firefox (and Opera too): it is better than IE. IE is, currently, the de facto web browser for the majority of internet users. And it also helps to propagate spyware/viruses. By making a better product, and having that product do well, benefits everyone... in theory, it even benefits users of IE. Hopefully, the popularity and features of third party browsers (such as Opera, Firefox/Mozilla, Safari, etc) will cause Microsoft to implement these features in to future versions of IE as well. I'm not just talking about things like tabed browsing (which is in pretty much every browser by default now except IE), but increased security (like not allowing applications to automatically execute after downloading [Safari under 10.4.2]).
I am a proud Firefox user. It has its faults, granted, but I use it on every OS I run (Win XP, OS X, and Linux) because it gives me the same experience cross-platform, and it very seldom ever crashes. I use a g4 optimized version of Firefox on my OS X machine, and it launches about 1 second faster than Safari, and about 2x as fast as IE for Mac (there's some bloatware for ya).
So, Troll, I have fed you. If you're going to troll, at least do it well.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
This is why I always save my installers. :)
Also, does the new Deer Park Alpha count in this total?
Eh, decent troll, but it fails the believability (and possibility, in my case) test. I know what my computer is doing, and I assure you it's not sending any information of any sort to Mozilla beyond those required for the protocol.
Excuse me?
So when I choose to download (and I just checked, its just a download link, not a form), Mozilla.org is pulling information about my system before beginning the download. And they do this without letting me know? And they do it silently and inline with the download? And they somehow differentiate between my notebook and the guy in the next cube with the same notebook?And they somehow compare my system information generated with todays download and cross check against the other 80 million unique entries?
Wow. Keep on taking back that web, keep on making shit up, and keep on (somehow) being moderated informative by someone who actually believed you.
I personally don't care if its technically a meaningless statistic. Its the perception of internet users, the press, and the competition that is the important metric. The perception of competition is sometimes enough to spark innovation and creativity on the product line. Which means better products for me.
Stop spoiling the fun. >:)
I want this account deleted.
idiots. its your http user agent that they count. https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2 most web browsers out there send information. and if you really care sbout what it sends you can change it using about:config
>similarly to XP activation, Firefox sends us a code generated according to the computer's hardware
Oh come on, this is just trolling.
The secret code if it exists is called USER_AGENT. Firefox downloads don't get counted. Nor do downloads from the update mechanism. Surely, if this secret code exists you can sniff the http session and post it here.
Exactly. I run it for testing purposes only on 3 PCs. For each I downloaded it probably 4 times (different versions).
That makes 12 downloads for one person who's not even using it as his main browser yet this site somehow alludes that those are 12 people "switching" to FireFox.
Cheap marketing stunt...
What abt those guys who are downloading the browser again to patch existing vulnerabilities. I think around 20% would be downloading again.
You have a strange idea of Joe Public if you think VBA is simple enough for the average user. It isn't, it's a programming language. How many ordinary people do you know who can program even simple things?
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Seamonkey (the Mozilla Suite), however useful, isn't exactly "well designed" in that it's too monolithical. If you want the web browser, you get the e-mail client, calendar, Usenet client and fries on the side with it, whether you want to or not. For those of us using other programs for mailing/Usenet posting/calendaring/whatever-else, that's just a waste of resources.
The same thing goes for the plug-in architecture of Firefox. Those who don't want/need mouse gestures don't have to waste resources on them, for example. The plug-ins also allow for a more distributed development model, since people can contribute Firefox functionality as a plug-in, without having to contribute the code to the Mozilla Foundation.
As for Firefox going submarine, that's not going to happen. The Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird suite is the official replacement of Seamonkey, which will stop being developed after a certain point (I don't remember when, however). And then there's the issue if why they'd actaully want to do that...
and how many users downloaded firefox from their distro mirror and not from mozilla foundation mirror???
Just a quick rebuttal. The plain fact is that IE intrinsically is, and always will be more of a security problem than Firefox. As you might know, IE is part of the operating system, and can therefore cause greater damage than a stand-alone application. Yes, they put out patches all the time (like last week, they put out a patch for several critical IE exploits), but the exploits keep coming. So IE is still a security risk, and it will likely stay that way for a long time. Judging IE7 is hard, but from MS' track record concerning security, I see no reason why it should be much better. Especially if they keep it integrated with the system, they are already far behind. But I do agree with you that if you protect yourself enough (firewall, patches, antispyware and antivirus), you can probably get by using IE.
The speed issue I find a little puzzling. IE is quicker to start up, because it is preloaded on windows, but all tests I have seen show that FF is quicker at rendering pages than IE, and that Opera is quicker than FF.
Personally I use FF all the time, and are really happy with it. Most (~80%) of the people I show it to also stick with it. It does have some problems (memory leak, crashes), but I find it way better than IE. Hopefully the first point release after the big 1.0 will iron out most problems.
-TN