Slashdot Mirror
Explorer Destroyer
slayer99 writes "I came across Explorer Destroyer yesterday, which is a project that aims to increase the market share of Firefox in a slightly more proactive way than is usual. They provide some code which you add to your front page which presents a banner to IE users urging them to switch to using Firefox. As a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program."
Why bother with scripts and such? All you need is IE's own conditional html comments.
Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?
The Web Standards Project (WaSP) ran a similar Browser Update Campaign a few years back.
Is it just me or does annoying the people you're trying to attract sound like a poor idea? I know when I am annoyed by something I'm more likely to resist. For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!
I think if I were an IE user I'd refuse to use Firefox on these grounds. Impress me on technical or philosophical merits, not by being a bully.
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
Nice idea, but a lot of ignorant banks and such do not realize there is more to the world than microsoft and don't excersize compatibility in their coding. Most likely, people will be stuck witht 2 browsers eventually.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
function hasIE_phoneHome(image) {g .php?host='+location.host);
if (document.getElementById)
{
var img = document.getElementById(image);
}
else if (document.all)
{
var img = document.all[image];
}
else if (document.layers)
{
var img = document.layers[image];
}
img.setAttribute('src','http://getunder50.com/pin
}
Ya right, I want to explicitly drag the browser war straight into my commercial web sites. That should help business. What kind of web sites will you see with banners telling the user to switch? This is no better than the old "Designed for x Browser" buttons that were displayed in the past. In fact this is worse.
There's no guarantee that this will cause another monoculture. AS Firefox becomes more popular, people will likely see that they have more choices for browsers (rather than the old IE = internet mentality). Over time, other browsers will be embraced based on how well they compete with Firefox. And unlike with IE, Firefox is actually competing fairly.
As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it. There are already the first trojans aiming for FF, and I'm not sure if I want them to become more.
Also, it's not really a program I can support. Inform those that don't know about their options, but don't get on their nerves. Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?
And how annoying this is?
And how it doesn't want you to make IE your standard browser even MORE?
Why would you think it makes someone use FF instead of IE if you keep bugging him just the same way IE pesters you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, it's not the same behaviour as Microsoft uses. Microsoft are a monopoly with billions behind them.
Anyway, my thought was, wouldn't it be better to just include all the common code in you page that crashes IE? If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough.
Mind you, I have a friend (who used to be a Unix admin), and when I advised his girlfriend to use Firefox, he said, No, no point. Not sure what the motto is there.
Get your own free personal location tracker
There are plenty of banks whose websites conform to W3C standards, and which consequently are usable with Firefox. I don't have any problem with my on-line banking (with Firefox, of course). Maybe you should change to a better bank? If your bank is backward in the way you describe, it probably has other problems which are not yet apparent to you.
this project's goal is not to get people using any better browser but Firefox.
O rly? "Your Mission: Get Under 50" in the article describes a stats page that tracks sites that have fewer than 50% page views from Microsoft Internet Explorer. The end is less IE; the means is more Firefox. If the goal were to advocate Firefox to replace Opera or Safari or Konqueror, the mission would be "Get Over 50".
That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website". Doesn't firefox get enough promo already? So now they resort to spam. Say no to both and use Opera..
Still need Firefox yourself?
Grab it here: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]
1. You need a Google AdSense account to make referral money for each user switched. If you don't already have an account, click this button to sign-up: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]
Then he goes below down to wash his hands clean by explaining that Google won't go bankrupt from this campaign, so it's perfectly ok to be retarded and lock out 80% of your visitors.
Oh and by the way this "script" shows the "you use IE" message on many builds of the original Mozilla Suite. Amateur.
Huh? This is the same type of bull that makes me hate IE only websites. At least most IE-only problems can be attributed to stupidity instead of malice. If someone tried to deliberately hinder my access to their site because I use Firefox, I'd likely never visit the site again.
Worryingly, the wording of this site makes it sound as though Google is affiliated with ExplorerDestroyer, which is very far from the truth. In fact, I imagine that Google would be worried by this page as it detracts from their "do not evil" ethos.
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
When is that scheduled? About two weeks after a cure for cancer is found?
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
I for one expect that the competition between IE and the Google-backed FF is only going to increase in the months to come. I am torn. I can't help but approve of this, simply because it will diminish the market share of IE further. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, being harassed leads to resistance; the project might backfire.
Note: my anti-IE bias is based soley on being a web developer. MS has been fighting the interweb from day one, and IE is all the proof you'll ever need of this.
Related: a few days ago, my XP Home box started acting very strange: whenever I typed anything into a form in FF, it crashed. IE, Opera both remained fine. Malware? ID10T? ...or is Microsoft "fixing" things again?
barack to the future?
Maybe you should change to a better bank?
Do you mean "Maybe you should change to a better town?" I lived in Terre Haute from 1999 to 2003, and the only bank in town was Terre Haute First Financial. And for several years, First Financial's web site worked only in IE and in Netscape 4.x.
What happens when microsoft retaliates? That would be bad.
All the websites made by frontpage, and whatever servers running IIS, suddenly boot firefox..
seriously, this is a terrible idea. Let's not stoop to their level!
Also, Is it possible some users would think it's some kind of spyware? Users that were advised not to install stuff just because a website asks them too?
How about older opera users who identify as internet explorer?
". . . as a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program." . . . unless you're in Canada and ineligible for this referral program. C'mon Google, your regular adsense program works here howza about this one?
It's all history, man. -anon
Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?
I just turn off the "keep bugging me" checkbox. In IE 6, you can go Tools > Internet Options > Programs > Uncheck "Internet Explorer should check...".
Hmmm.....I surprised they don't follow their own rules, I could view the site perfectly in ie without being asked to switch to firefox.
If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough
Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message (unless browser options are set to lie about its identity, which is probably not a smart thing to do anyway). This initiative is not intended to lead to a browser monoculture.
Having said that, I would have preferred to see a script which detects grossly non-standard behavior, rather than a specific browser. I'd have no problem with MSIE being dominant if it respected agreed W3C standards.
What the fuck? You're talking about crippling consumer choice to force your ideas on them and make money for yourself? Are you sure you don't WORK at Microsoft?
Seach engine crawlers will pick up the huge banner and your cached version will look like shit despite that nicfty code that's supposed to limit it to IE. I'm just saying...
Software that allows users to controlled the computer by voice only works fluidly with Internet Explorer. Those users would have difficulty.
Why wouldn't they just switch to a "Firefox = Internet" mentality, especially if they were forcibly switched to Firefox by a geek who "knows what's best for them" without them learning anything or making their own decision?
Check out the Google image link on that page. Looks like someone's turned SafeSearch off... ew!
And not only that, but web site owners can also opt out of this statistics collection. From the "Your Mission: Get Under 50" sidebar in The Article:
But sometimes you do what you have too in order to fight the 500lb gorillas in the world.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'd go along with the site if it was a simple ad like Google's site, but it's not. It's a giant obstructing window preveting the user from acessing your site. The very same thing that makes me dispise IE only sites; "You must use IE 5.5 or greater to view this site." Ugh!
This is annoying for those who cannot switch browsers for one reason or the other. In my opinion, web developers should aim to make their sites usable for as many different browsers as is reasonably possible. Including Internet Explorer, Lynx, mobile phones and old Netscape versions. Usable does not imply that the site needs to look pretty in that browser, but people should be able to access the (text) content.
Your users will have a reason why they use a particular browser, and often it's not because they're too lazy/dumb to install a "better" one.
where's all that Karma?
What a horrible way to introduce people to firefox! As for me, Google's toolbar comes in handy when I'm forced to use IE, But firefox's google toolbar seems...weak.
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
I've been using this at "level 2" for a month now and nobody has complained so far... Nor have I got any money through the referral program that google has but my website doesn't get that much IE traffic to begin with. When you open my website up in IE you get a banner across the top telling you to get firefox. the website itself is still functional but you will always have that banner if you're viewing it in IE. Here are my stats: since the start of this year: 52.3 % firefox 38.7 % IE last year: 45.1 % IE 44.7 % Firefox my website is targeted towards the more techically capable but I'm proud that firefox is now the dominate browser.
This is definately not the way to attract new users to FF. However, if you want to do it, using a IE infobar is way cooler.
Come on people, IE is obsolete (not to mention evil). It needs to be left in the digital dust where it belongs. There is really no good reason to continue developing for that ancient archaic bug infested dll murdering browser.
Sure too many people are still using it. But if 90% of the world were still running Netscape 2.0 just because they didn't know any better, would you REALLY want to continue designing for that or just tell people that they need to get off their lazy butts and upgrade already?
IE is holding back the web and we need to take action!
Until IE falls below 30% and Firefox goes above 30%, your concerns are unwarranted. Until then, there is still a lot of work to do.
I think Score:5 posters comparing it to the tactics of Dr. Microsoft forget that this feature is non-obligatory and you need to spend actual time inserting it into your webpage.
As for idea itself, I agree, it is too aggressive.
It would be better if someone will come up with the idea of how during every IE crash instead of "bug report wizard" (did they hire me for that?) some "buy firefox wizard" would popup.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
As simple as this:
<!--[if IE]>
<![endif]-->
To get a referral just talk to google.
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
I've been using Opera for a long while but lately I've given Firefox a try... It's nice and all, but Opera has some neat details that Firefox lacks. A very simple and frivolous example: I can move my tabs from the top to any other the side! Yeah! Oh, Firefox has an extension for it? Is it the one that breaks with every new Firefox version? You get my drift...
Anyways, I see less and less advantages in Firefox when compared to Opera. So Firefox is opensource... well, I couldn't care less. It's the same if someone said "hey, don't drink Coke, drink Shomke, because we know the recipy and we can all change it!". I don't give a flying rat's ass about code and source code, I, as a end user, just want things to work a certain way. And Opera does work that way, and does let me change things around out of the box. In Firefox, we need a stupid "extensions" just to clip a toenail in the interface.
"Firefox can't do this" "Hey, here's an extension" "Firefox can't do that" "Here's another extension". Prety quickly you will have a handfull of extensions, that might or might not break with the next Firefox version...
Heck, I'll give you another example! There is an extension to (gasp!) minimize Firefox to the system tray, right next to the clock. In one of the last Firefox updates, that extension stoped working at my computer at work. Yes, FF is updated to the latest version and so is that extension, but everytime I use both together, FF just displays a big, empty window, with *nothing* to click or any menus. And guess what! At my home computer, I have the *same* version of both and it runs fine! And don't go blaming it on Windows, because I'm using the same Windows XP in both computers. Oh and in Opera, the hotkey for that specific funtion is Ctrl-H. No extensions, no breakups...
So, about this whole "holy-war" agains IE... I'm just sitting and watching, waiting for the inevitable moment when this will blow on the face of the zealots... remember folks, FUD works both ways, and if you spread FUD to suport your product of choice, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass.
And heres a little site for you to read: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyt hs.html#Security
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
We're not talking about hackers trying to "prove" that ISS is insecure, or some people defacing some homepage. There's no money in that, and that's something done by people who do it for bragging rights, for street (or rather, IRC) credibility and for their ego.
Trojans are a business. The amount of POCs and ego-boosters is dwarfed by the number of commercial trojans and worms. Hacking servers and taking down sites is no business. Trojans is.
Now, to be profitable, trojans need a high penetration. And for this, they have to work on as many machines as possible. That's one of the reasons why there are VERY few trojans/worms for Mac and Linux, and as far as I know, there are actually NO commercial trojans for those systems. It doesn't pay as well as writing one for Windows. And if the browser is an issue, your target for a commercial attack is the IE. Simply for its penetration.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why create an annoying additional campaign. Use an existing one:
http://browsehappy.com/
R.
Firefox is actually competing fairly
Firefox is a browser, it can't compete. But, let's go on the assumption that you meant "Firefox advocates are competing fairly".....By childishly blocking people from their sites? People used to do this years ago when it was still Netscape Navigator. Worked so well then, I'm sure it'll work again this time.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Don't actually detect IE. Use an IE "bug" to display the message. Make sure that no standards-compliant browser would show the message.
I'd much rather be able to use a standard like xhtml, and actually have it work as XHTML. Try to deliver it with the correct Content-Type header and IE will try to download it. Give it the wrong header (pretend it's html) and IE and everything else will interpret it as HTML. Why? Because while IE supports XML+XSLT just fine, it doesn't support XHTML.
Every browser has some annoying lack of web standard support. Note how few browsers actually pass the Acid2 test -- including Firefox.
And the technical and philosophical merits of using the new, official web standards are completely killed by IE itself being a bully.
I agree with you in general, but in this case, yes, I'm going to annoy IE users just as much as IE-only websites annoy Firefox users. Only, instead of shutting them out entirely, I'm just going to annoy them, and hopefully get them to switch to something decent.
Oh, and I don't see many users choose IE by choice, instead of by default. Even those who ridicule me for using Linux and love Microsoft choose Firefox over IE.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Site doesn't render correctly in IE...
but, surely, you've seen people bitching about IE-only sites before. If not, you haven't been around enough, i suspect.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
There are already plenty of web sites that say they only work on IE using Windows and won't let you in. The other day I even saw one that explicitly and snobbishly said the only way they would "support" using a Mac was with Windows and IE loaded in VirtualPC.
This site has been around for ages. The "under 50%"-section said it would "go live next week" a year ago and still does, so why is this news?
I just don't have the time to see if my page looks good on every browser, so I simply code to the standard and if IE can't display it properly, tough nuts. I include a small but helpful link to Firefox on the front page.
[ home ]
He/she should aim to be able to certify his/her site works in ANY browser. http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Those who only develop for IE are almost always working under contract.
Imagine, for example, that you're a retailer called "The Void". Your internal IT department can't do much, as you decided long ago that it is best to outsource all development. You approach your IT services vendor and say:
"I want a retail website where I can sell my goods".
Your vendor says:
"Great! That'll cost you $8 million, and we'll give you a pretty site"
The vendor writes up a contract, you sign, and you get a web site.
Then, once you go live, you get all these complaints from customers. WHAT is going on? You hire an expert to find out. It turns out that no one at "The Void" was smart enough to actually understand the ramifications of the contract. The site, as built, only works with IE.
You open a discussion with the firm you contracted with:
You: "Oh, you guys screwed up. Fix it."
Them: "No, you signed off already. You even paid us. Sorry."
You: "Fix it"
Them: "It'll take another $1 million"
You: "No budget."
Them: "Bye!"
It is easy and inexpensive to design and build for all modern browsers. It's just that many IT contractors like to milk money out of their customers. Building for IE alone is an easy way to milk money.
That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website".
;)
:)
Why not? I have encountered numerous banners stating "We only support windows and internet explorer", or "your operating system/browser is not supported at this time". (i've used seamonkey/mozilla since ~v0.92, never been a fan of firefox, and often am on a linux system). Umm, but oddly enough, if I use prefbar and switch my useragent over to "Windows IE 6" I miraculously enter the site! That is just BS. I've always liked to fight fire with fire - yeah, it's a childish vendetta thing, but oh well, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside
Would I do it on a professional or high traffic site? Not likely. But, doing it on your own low traffics sites is fun
I see no difference to websites that are IE only, Flash only, Windows only, etc. In essence it's just a big FUCK YOU at the hapless visitor who for some reason or other still uses IE.
If you can afford to drive away your target audience, fine. Go for it. But apart from throwing your own frustration at the end user, I see no benefit whatsoever.
Can't imagine any end-user going "Oh, well, I'll download Firefox then, no problem."
I think, therefore I am...I think.
> Why not? I have encountered numerous banners stating "We only support windows and internet explorer", or "your operating system/browser is not supported at this time".
Why not? Because it ends up with people who employ such tactics resorting to the same tactics that they complain about so much.
So it's ok for web sites to require FireFox but the moment they say that about IE it's suddenly wrong? No... It's hypocritical.
Last I checked, FireFox and OSS was about choice and forcing people to change sure seems to disregard choice and adds to the general perception of snobbery on the OSS side.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
2) Get a link to your site posted on /. so you can rake in referral $$ from noob /. readers checking out your hack.
3) Profit!
I finally figured out #2!
There's all this paranoia about IRCing as root, even servers that K-line root@*, but it's all pointless. Most people IRC as root, including me, because they run mIRC in Windows.
I don't see it any different than web browsing as root, and guess what, there has been far more exploits against M$IE than there have against mIRC. Or xchat.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
I know one of the guys involved in the project, and submitted this story about 2 months back. What the hell has happened to the editors recently? If its not perfectly good topics being carelessly turned down, its calling topics "[Popular Product Here] Killer!!"
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Anyone notice the screen shot has "http://www.fema.gov" in the addres bar? I wonder what message they are trying to convey...
Yes, Firefox crashes, hangs and aborts way more often than IE.
It's an unstable bastard.... but I still use it.
Why ?
I'd much prefer an old rust bucket holden I can lock, than a brand new merc someone can steal at a moment's notice.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
The button they advocate putting on your site links to the Google Toolbar page. From there, it is not clear at all how to download Firefox, although they make it very clear how you can download the Google Toolbar.
If I were going to direct people to download Firefox, I would send them directly to getfirefox.com.
Unless you can give a reasoned answer that question, you are just assuming that it isn't necessary to coopt others.
I am a mostly konqi user (but at moment on FF/Windows due to work). I can tell you that konqi will work, but it does not work correctly. With FF, gmail will do some very nice things with FF (and I assume MSIE). In particular, it does pop-up frames with address during the send to/cc/bcc. Gmail is using ajax scripts that work better on browsers that are compliant. I believe the most recent konqi (3.5) does a good job (but I have not upgraded to find out), but the majority are on 3.3.x. Finally, you will note that they allow you to use the site. IOW, it is your choice, but they will notifiy you.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Um, never? Can you point me to a few of these? I use Firefox all the time and have NEVER encountered one. Yes, not once.
I periodically encounter this problem with password protected sites, usually ones built around some sort of proprietary ASP package. For example, our school extranet (which runs on EResadvises: "Our recommended browser is Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher." That said, I've never encountered problems accessing it using Firefox.
I think a good number of sites make users think they won't run in Firefox or other browsers, simply because the site's managers for whatever reason stick those goofy "IE preferred" messages on the home page. For the life of me I can't figure out why as a site manager you would want to make users think they have fewer options than you're actually providing them.
Unfortunately there are some features in certain vertical market web-based tools like LexisNexus and Westlaw that only work with IE. All of the basic features work in Firefox, Safari, et al, but a few of the advanced features do not.
Recently, the US Copyright Office got hammered for creating a website that explicitly supported IE and NS only. The language on the Electronic Copyright Office site says: "The Siebel software, upon which eCO is based, has been successfully tested with Netscape Navigator 7.02 and Internet Explorer 6.0 and may work equally well with other desktop web browsers."
Overall, I think things are trending in the right direction. More and more web developers, even the ones living in their own little bubbles, are starting to grok that building sites around IE (around any single browser, for that matter) is a bad idea.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
They should support a more gradated implementation. and don't recognize that there are always going to be bugs. I doubt that any implementation is bug-free and thus correct, but where do you draw the line?
Furthermore, the standards do nothing for end-user customizations, figuring the content provider rules over all.
Is "legacy CSS" mode a standard? If IE isn't accepting XHTML DOCTYPE how can it be put into "legacy CSS" mode because of it. Not accepting the MIME type means showing a blank page.
Since you're posting Anonymous Coward and thus can't check your comments for responses, I would have ignored it, but somebody marked your post insightful, so for those who lean that way, I'll explain the problem. It's one thing to say you have worked with standards and all they do is slow progress to a snails pace, and another thing to prove it.
There are some that may say that it's obvious that things are moving at a snail's pace, but then you have to prove that the standards are what's doing it.
The other day I even saw one that explicitly and snobbishly said the only way they would "support" using a Mac was with Windows and IE loaded in VirtualPC.
Well, yeah, and I hate seeing stuff like that too. That said, they probably didn't actively block users who were using a different setup. If you block users who don't use your browser of choice, you're worse than these people. It doesn't matter which browser you're talking about; blocking users based on web browser is always annoying and snobby.
I believe web designers should try to accommodate as many users as possible, because the idea of a web page is to share information or build community, not to lock people into using your software of choice. This goes for MS fans just as it goes for Free Software fans. If people can't view a website, that hurts both the webmaster and the viewers. Having to download new software to view a web page or watch a video is a headache to everyone.
Saying that you need Firefox might actually make users think that IE is more open, because pages built for IE "just work." Of course, that's not true - in fact it's the opposite - but by blocking IE users, you're frustrating them, making their lives that much more difficult, and making them that much more annoyed at Firefox. Plus, actively turning away users is not something *any* webmaster who cares about his/her readers would do, IMHO.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
I already did something very similar. If you open my webpage www.pieroland.net using IE, you'll see a silly red banner on top of the page which will encourage you not to use IE. This banner won't prevent you from visiting the website, but remains visible in all the pages. I made it with few PHP lines and a handful of CSS :)
I have a similar browser detection script, but I don't want to antagonize my users. When they're using IE, I show them a text-only Google Firefox referral ad, and a brief note about why IE isn't quite as good.
But I avoid the most common mistake that browser detection creates, that is to lock people out of sites that are perfectly functional. Agreed, some of my interesting CSS magic doesn't show up, but I don't want to annoy my users -- just get them to use Firefox.
I also detect when Opera is faking itself as IE, and ask the user to set the user-agent string back to Opera, so that IE's web stats aren't overly inflated.
This man actually claimed to be the 'son of god'. His miracles weren't very impressive, and it wasn't till after his death that more than the lunatic fringe of society started to buy into the stories.
I'm thinking that we should model this attempt after another man, named after an anti-semite, Martin Luther King Jr. He had the right tactics I think.
Blar.
Opera 9 likes all my fancy javascript/svg/ajax stuff, even though when I started I was only targeting Firefox. Even the weirdest, most complex stuff.
And Konqueror/Safari aren't so bad off either, other than I'm waiting for their SVG support to catch up.
So, with IE gone, there is no need for another monoculture. Stuff written for Firefox doesn't have to be viewed on Firefox, just on something other than IE. But even if it does, I'd rather have any other monoculture than IE. It's simply horrid.
I think this was the site I was thinking of. (I go through a lot of these kinds of sites on the Mozilla Reporter)
If I come across a site that says "only works with IE", I'm far more likely to say "fuck this site, I'll go elsewhere" than "well, I guess I better use IE". I wouldn't expect someone using IE to react any differently to a site telling them they should be using Firefox.
Annoying the people you want to convert doesn't strike me as a particularly good strategy.
Fishermen and a tax collector? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle#Recruitment doesn't exactly depict them as the fringe of society. Sure, the tax collector was villified, but it's much like the RIAA. Is the RIAA paart of the lunatic fringe.
Also he managed to attract crowds that had plenty of other diversions for their time, as prostitution alone was rampant back then. He also managed to either get invited to or gate-crash parties, so at least he knew where they were.
"By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers."
Your argument might hold water if IIS were less secure than Apache, but IIS is more secure than Apache, and it's not even close, as these secunia reports show:
Secunia - Vulnerability Report - Apache 2.0.x
Secunia - Vulnerability Report - Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 6
And your incorrect argument is brought up at least every week on slashdot (Apache is used more, but IIS is attacked more because it has more holes!), it's corrected almost every week by one of the respondents, yet it's *always* moderated as "Insightful". Mods, just because a piece of thought is part of the slashdot groupthink doesn't mean that it's insightful. Like many pieces of docrtring, it just might be totally wrong!
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
It certainly destroys it: Wheee!!!
...Does firefox allow me to easily develop integration points with other well established packages(MS Office among many others)... I will turn this argument inside out and say : IE and MS prevents easy development of platform independent solutions based on standards.
Just like the previous "reason" to use Firefox, you dorks actually think you can tell someone "Hey...you don't like chocolate cake, you like white cake!" Well, YES we belive we can (No, I am not a part of the "Explorer Destroyer" project)... MS has been telling us things like that for the past decade or more so why shouldn't we be able to say it ?
No, and a developer who needs and uses the shortcuts provided by Microsoft are no real developer... he is a code monkey...
a REAL developer vould provide a solution that would be platform independent and compliant to standards.
--
I really don't care if you use Firefox, Opera or Safari... I wil however not allow you to use Inetrnet Explorer.
And tell you what: It works.
My online game has 2 points where it tells people to switch. One is an occasional (once a week or so) friendly reminder to IE users that they should consider upgrading.
The other is a page that simply doesn't work in IE. It's valid HTML 4, CSS 2 and IE breaks it horribly. So I catch IE users, tell them about the problem (i.e. IE doesn't properly support web standards) and then allow them to continue on and see the train wreck with their own eyes.
For the past year or so, Firefox has been the #1 browser in my statistics (currently 51%, IE 37%). It works. It takes time, but it works.
And before you cry - this isn't a personal "me and my dog" homepage, I have around 1500 players and 120,000 visits a month. And it's not a Linux site either, the OS statistics say 93% windows.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You read way too much into a couple of double quote marks.
"...but by blocking IE users, you're frustrating them, making their lives that much more difficult, and making them that much more annoyed at Firefox. Plus, actively turning away users is not something *any* webmaster who cares about his/her readers would do, IMHO."
Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)? IMHO, this is long overdue and it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.
I haven't started up IE this year at all; it simply isn't needed anymore.
With MySpace being one of the most frequently visited websites in the world right now, they need some MySpace code. Just imagine a nice anti-ie div popping up over that kid in the mirror holding taking a picture of him/her-self.
ender-iii
If google is successful in this campaign it stands to loose a lot of money. 80% IE usage and 1 billion internet users mean that it will loose $800 million.
You totally don't get the point. People using IE are ignorant of the problems that non-windows users experience. They dismiss the complaints of those in the other position. I think you need to watch the documentary A Class Divided (for free online) to get a better handle of the type of problems such ignorance creates.
Until IE users "walk a mile in another person's moccasins", they will just continue to accept and perpetuate IE's ostracizing of non-windows users.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I'd like to get one of those banners saying "Switch to Linux." All the banners I ever see are "This browser [KDE Konqueror] is not supported, download Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher." The WebCT online course system always tells me "You appear to be running Linux. Linux is not a supported operating system. Please select your operating system below: {Windows} {Macintosh.}" But the ironic thing is that Konqueror on Linux runs flawlessly on WebCT and IE 6.1 on Windows will often crash. Poetic justice, perhaps.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
This is just a variation of the Firefox AdSense Referral Program (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/19678) .
The disadvantage: You have to put google adds on your website.
It's not clear, but I think users also have to install the google toolbar
Anyway, I agree, it does grab a lot of memory on my Fedora laptop. Still it's not anyway near the memory / CPU hog that, for example, Adobe Acrobat Reader is for me.
Right, this tactic would only be used by the childish.
Microsoft would never try to prevent other browsers from using a websites functionality (activeX) or intentionally break websites for people who don't use some specific MS product (ms java). Their web applications always render on whatever browser (asp) and they go out of their way to make their technologies OS independant (.net)
There's one site I've discovered in receant memory that warns me, the Logitech Harmony remote controls site. It notes I'm not using Netscape or IE, and as such can't gaurentee it works, however it does work fine. The only one I can think that requires IE is Creative's Autoupdate. It uses an ActiveX control, and thus mandidates IE. If you use another browser, you just do manual downloads as normal. Other than that, I can't think of any sites I've run in to in the last 6 months that have said anything. Some have little "designed for IE" things at the bottom, but that doesn't impair their functionality at all.
Really, I see this as just trying to create problems where there are none. It's also very juvinile. OSS advocated like to claim the high road, claiming to be on morally high ground as compared to people like MS. However it seems they never hesitate to do the exact same sort of things they rag on MS for. If you really want to be the good guys, you can't pull stunts like this. If OSS is really about choice, it should include the choice to use non-OSS. To claim it's about choice, but then mandidate the choice be something you like is stupid. That's like having a rally supporting free speech, but then trying to silence those that don't agree with you.
If it's REALLY about openness and choice then you need to be welcoming of people to your cause, win converts by excellence, and still be tolerant of those that don't agree and don't choose to do thing your way.
Why do they fund it? It could easy reach $20m with in a week or so, how does this benefit their share holders? Anyone has any links about this? Cheers, Moi.
"667 - Neighbour of the beast"
it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.
I'd agree with you, if it was their fault; but it isn't. As it is, preventing access to IE is every bit as bad as preventing access to non-IE browsers.
If you want to code to the standards as Opera and/or Firefox implement them and let IE fend for itself, fine. If you check the user agent and simply block IE, then that's just plain dumb.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
As a web developer, I have *zero problem with people favoring the fox over IE, even through the mechanism of annoying users (assuming that method is effective, which it might not be).
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Perhaps this is wrong of me. But I can't trust layouts to CSS.
I have to use tables instead otherwise it just won't display the same in IE/FF/MZ/O/Safari.
I know that tables should be left to tabular data, however, I also know that tables work the same in all browsers, layouts in CSS rarely do.
This is what makes me stick to 'bad practices'.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
"Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)?"
Because it's NOT acceptable to frustrate non-IE users and it shouldn't be acceptable to frustrate IE users for the very same reason. Being petty and annoying seldom gets anyone anywhere.
You can use any bank in the world.
In the United States, automatic teller machine owners usually charge $2 for withdrawals by non-customers in addition to any fee that the bank charges (also usually $2). In addition, ATMs generally do not take deposits of cash or checks from non-customers. So while residents of Fort Wayne, Indiana, have access to a dozen banks and credit unions, residents of Terre Haute, Indiana, must deal with Terre Haute First Financial if they ever want to deposit a check.
If a site like livejournal.com agreed to hand out more userpics to firefox users, then livejournal users would switch over to firefox en masse.
You can catch more flies with honey then with vinegar. And IE users are a lot like flies.
~= scwizard =~
Oh yeah, they're on their way there. A friend recently sent me a link to her recent photos, hosted on some MSN site. When I clicked it and the page loaded, it informed me that they did not support my OPERATING SYSTEM. Right, not just the browser, they had to tell me they didn't support my whole dang OS.
Well... that's fine, because I don't support anything they do either.
My metamoderation cancels your moderation
Microsoft would never try to prevent other browsers from using a websites functionality (activeX)
.net was designed to be OS independant. That's why you can run .net applications (once recompiled) on Linux or OSX or whatever. Might want to take a look at the Mono Project. Oh, and unlike Sun who has refused to make Java an ECMA-compliant standard, .net has been from the beginning.
Nothing's stopping Firefox or Opera from using ActiveX. Any application that runs on a Windows platform can use activex controls. The only thing stopping the other browsers from using it are the authors of those browsers.
or intentionally break websites for people who don't use some specific MS product (ms java)
Microsoft doesn't make a Java product, and hasn't for years. Even still, back when there was a choice between the MS Java interpreter and Sun's, I always chose MS'. It was faster, used less memory, and more stable. Since they've stopped shipping theirs, I've stopped having Java.
Their web applications always render on whatever browser (asp)
You'd almost done a good job convincing me you at least had SOME clue as to what you're talking about. Here's where you went wrong: ASP is a server-side scripting language. Anything your browser sees is written BY SOMEONE ELSE. It's written by the webmaster of that site, not MS. It's true, ASP runs only on IIS which only runs on Windows, but it has nothing to do with how shit is rendered.
and they go out of their way to make their technologies OS independant (.net)
Then you go and follow up with this one, and I have to wonder just who ties your shoes in the morning for you. Here's another clue, free of charge:
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2003/02/14/
Hmmm. Scratch that.
* * * * * *
You'll pay to know what you really think!
--Bob
I earn my living on the MS stack, and I was an IE-only user from early in my PC experience. Still, I was a permanent convert to Firefox on my first trial of it -- and pretty early in the beta process at that. The hook that got me to try it? When I saw that despite > features than IE's set, it was only a ~4.5mB download (compared to a ~60mB base IE package). The $$$ to go from 4 to 8 to 24 to (gasp!) 48 megs of ram to run Windows at any kind of reasonable clip had me pretty ticked. FF appealed to my impatient nature, as it promised a much quicker download & install than what I was used to. What's more, from what I'd heard it promised not to frak up my OS or hose other apps by putting tentacles way down into system stuff. IE had done that a plenty.
If FF advocates want to evangelize Win+IE folks (and do so more effectively than they've done with Linux so far), the key dictum is: Remember the audience. They require some coddling. Their food needs to be pre-chewed a bit at first. Stay on-message with a simple one-two mantra: 1) "It's SIMPLER... Just try it!" 2) Those who have tried it would never go back.
The Joe & Jane 6-packs who don't know or care about standards compliance can still understand a simple "We're sorry, but IE has known bugs that prevent it from properly displaying official, compliant HTML. Fortunately, nearly every other browser on the planet can display it just fine. It only takes two minutes, and we highly recommend you try viewing this site in FF. Those who have tried it are glad they did!" (Maybe a table graphic with red Xs and green check marks for browsers that support HTML would be better than a list. Shiny pictures is go.) More detail for those who want it: "It used to be that more webmasters could accomodate Internet Explorer's handicaps by just writing their sites using IE's unique, special language instead of real HTML. Now, however, IE's declining popularity forces us to make our sites with real HTML, so they can be properly read by the browsers that more people are switching to today. (Second graphic: Estimated Number or % of people switching TO each browser FROM another.)
I make a conscious effort to entice friends and associates into trying FF. In my experience, FF downloads & installs in about 3 minutes. It prevents malicious code execution a hell of a lot better than IE, and it doesn't mess up anything else on my system. Everyone I know personally who has tried it loves it. That's the message that works best for me in person-to-person interaction, at least in the absence of some specific problem someone has that FF (or an FF extension) would solve in a jiffy.
Now, go ye all and spread this gospel to people of all nations, tribes, tongues, and bit orderings....
Pi Ran Out
Er, how do you check your responses. I post on Digg and find the lack of mechanism there daunting at best.
Let's see...
e m politics from both sides of the IE/Firefox turd pile.
When Slashdotters find pro-IE sites that display different for IE users than Firefox users, they raise hell and decry it as evil.
But when Firefox users make sites that render different, its okay.
I thought Slashdot was supposed to be the side that says everyone should stick to fucking standards that render the same under all browsers. But then as long as I've been a Slashdot member and reader, I should be used to the high degree of hypocrites here.
I think I need to go investigate Opera...I'm getting tired of the they-shouldn't-do-it-to-us-but-we-can-do-it-to-th
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
"That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website". Doesn't firefox get enough promo already? So now they resort to spam. Say no to both and use Opera.."
1. SPAM is unsolicited email, not banner ads. Ads are what keep great content getting produced on the internet for free. They have nothing to do with SPAM. At least try to use the proper word when wasting my time with your comments.
2. They didn't resort to anything. This is not Mozilla's campaign, and it is not sponsored by Mozilla. It is simply a third party website that hosts some scripts that make it easy for noobs like me to put annoying banners on my website to encourage people to switch (and to make some dough while your at it).
3. Ummm, how is Opera any better than Mozilla in this regard? Of course Firefox is going to have more switch campaigns started by third parties, it is the more popular product. It's not Mozilla's fault.
To sum up your comment: BLAH BLAH [Insert random, non-sensical text] use Opera BLAH. I hate people who post dumb comments to promote a product. Your comment is just as annoying as a banner ad, and both are promoting browsers, so can your comment be marked as SPAM? [/rant]
Firefox has been around in final version since November 2004. This project started about a week ago. It is not sponsored by Mozilla. I have yet to see a single site actually use this (I do use Explorer from time to time). So yes, they are competing fairly. Try thinking before commenting.
Now, how the heck is this different than thousands of web sites that sense for Internet Explorer and if not give you a message saying you have to use Internet Explorer? LOTS of those sites have absolutely no reason for this.
For some reason its wrong if another company uses those same tactics?
Any site that wilfylly (as opposed to accidentaly') ruins my browsing experience because I don't use the browser of their choice, obviously has nothing useful to offer me.
I only wish Google had an option to blacklist sites in the search-results based on filters.
At work, I don't even have a choice in browsers.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Drop a few tests in for non-compliance and complain about them using a 'non-compliant' browser rather than 'IE' - at least that way they won't feel like you're being racist :)
The first step in the process is to sign up for an AdSense account. Should the visitor deploy this and actually make over $100 the creator(s) of explorerdestroyer.com get $20.
Slashdot really should be more careful about posting this sort of stuff - fine if the money goes somewhere like the Mozilla Foundation, FSF, etc. but otherwise assisting this profiteering by sending millions of hits over to their site is wrong.
It's not exactly a non-conforming website, more a single-platform application. Yes, they could have done better, but it's more of a PITA from an app vendor than a slap in the face to W3C standards.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
The code should be used to exploit all browsers that do not follow W3C standards, this is mostly IE anyway, but it would be morally right if it did this.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
duh, oh, okay. gee, where would I be without such brilliant intellectuals such as you. I shall go drool in a corner now.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com