Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Now Serious Threat to IE in Europe
Tookis writes "Mozilla's Firefox web browser has made dramatic gains on Microsoft's Internet Explorer throughout Europe in the past year with a marked upturn in FF use compared to IE over the past four months, according to French web monitoring service XiTiMonitor. A study of nearly 96,000 websites carried out during the week of July 2 to July 8 found that FF had 27.8% market share across Eastern and Western Europe, IE had 66.5%, with other browsers including Safari and Opera making up the remaining 5.7%. In some key European markets FF has already reached parity and is threatening to overtake IE as the market leading browser."
Europeans love foxes. Rawr!
CmdrTaco reports from the our-logs-show-nobody-using-ie-anyway dept. but this has got me interested: what are the percentages of usage of browsers for accessing Slashdot?
At least it isn't proprietary junk that doesn't follow standards and tries to shut out the competition. It's a step forward.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
Now I'm going to have to find something more obscure to avoid the attentions of the malware makres... what was the name of that other one... Icemeasles?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Once you've seen IE 7, you too will want to switch to any other browser.
I think the success Firefox is having at the moment will drive its development further. Because it's not a commercial product we're not going to get the IE experience where the lazy bastards never fix anything and just add features that are broken. There is a genuine drive to innovate and make something that withstands the scrutiny of the community.
Maybe it will pave the way for some proper competition like Opera and others, which are bound to win more market share as the firefox using public start to hear about other alternatives.
Personally though, I've found Firefox to have gotten better and better with time. It's gotten very stable and has plug ins which run well and reliably. It's definitely ready for prime time.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Well, I wish that were the case in the US. There are still *FAR* too many sites that have IE-only components. So, although the vast majority (90%+) of sites we use (at work) work for us (we use only FireFox), there are still a few important sites that cause a nightmare for us. Since we use Linux only, running IE is not an option. (And yes, I know about emulators and IES4Linux, which are nice, but don't work everywhere, don't work well for thin clients, and/or are difficult to maintain).
What is more irritating is that those few IE-only sites are about 95% working with Firefox. There are usually only a few parts of the site that don't work (but that is all it takes). With minimal correction/effort, those sites would work on any platform. But even after repeated begging (on one, for YEARS), a few such sites have still had no interest in "fixing" things. I do wish there was a version of Firefox/Mozilla that had an IE-compatibility mode... "FireIE Fox" or something, for use in such cases.
Fortunately, another few broken sites finally "saw the light", probably due to complaints from people like us, and fixed things.
While the article doesn't mention how, a previous study on XiTiMonitor's site shows that they're using share of visits by each browser type to the sites in question.
Thinking that Nazi Germany is better than the Soviet Union? Yay for the school system on your country.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
From the largest site i have access to - a medical online shop, in fact: last 30 days: IE: 78,26% of visitors Firefos: 16,33% of visitors Gets funnier if you look at the revenue: IE: 85,9% of revenue Firefox: 9,46% of revenue. I can not really see "great advances". Firefox is a respectable and solid nr 2, but that basically is it.
This is not at all what we're seeing with a UK based employment site with ~40,000 hits per month. What we see is 55% IE 6, 25% IE 7, 12% FireFox, 4% safari, and all other browsers below 1% (every browser from opera to lynx (!!)).
I wonder if this has anything to do with Microsoft refusing IE7 upgrades to non-genuine Windows installations. Everyone I know who has a pirated copy of Windows (mostly self-made boxes) uses Firefox, while nearly everyone I know who has a genuine copy of Windows (mostly laptops) uses IE7.
I'm not sure why they refuse it to non-genuine users anyway. I can understand security patches, but this? No one is going to go out and buy Windows just to use IE7.
It seems everything Microsoft does to curb piracy these days hurts its monopoly.
what are the odds you don't have a computer? How many are accessing the site from public libraries and state run employment centers? There could easily be some considerable bias in your numbers.
FOSS should not be obsessed with the popularity contest of userbase size. It will only come back to haunt you in the end. Like the man said, "The majority are always wrong"
There are many Firefox users who select MSIE as their User Agent string in order to get sites to even allow them access, banks being one particular group that springs to mind, but I am sure that there are others. I cannot imagine that any MSIE users would need to select Firefox as the User Agent. In which case the figures will be conservative for Firefox usage and optimistic for MSIE usage. What we don't know, or at least I don't know, is how much this skews the figures.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
I am now in college and the public schools I attended NEVER touched on the Soviet Union, and they just barely touched on WWII. Basically we talked abot American History... as if I hadn't heard it ever year for 12 years....
I don't think 1 is a majority, unless everyone else is 0. But I know why you are trying to say.....
You can download the source code for Firefox to check that it is not being naughty, you know? And you can then compile it yourself so that you can sleep at night. If not use Epiphany, Opera, Lynxs or make your own fork.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
What's its problem? Does it not browse the web? Is it insecure? Is it unstable? Is it unpleasant to use? Does it lack features? Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? Is it poorly programmed?
For those of you who answered yes on the last count, ask yourselves this: Is it worth dismissing the entire software as junk?
For those of you who answered yes again, ask yourselves this: Why are you so f*****g picky?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
No, see, the school system wants you to think Nazi Germany is worse.
Yeah, the well-known insurmountable power of communism over Western school systems. I'm pissing my pants.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Sorry, too many typing mistakes in my last reply: s/why/what/ s/lynxs/lynx/ . Its probably an age thing, it must be time for my cocoa and bed.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
...and pretty much most of US office workers. The Internet Explorer is corporate choice. Although I have local admin account, the "remove firefox" script runs daily. There's not much workaround it, most of corporate intranets do not work with anything but Internet Explorer - mostly because authentication issues.
So this should be taken into consideration, IE share at home might be lower than statistics show.
My rate of failure these days is less than one percent. It's very rare to find a site that I NEED that is IE only.
I do wish there was a version of Firefox/Mozilla that had an IE-compatibility mode... "FireIE Fox" or something, for use in such cases. Fortunately, another few broken sites finally "saw the light", probably due to complaints from people like us, and fixed things.
It's better to complain and get the issue fixed than it is to waste time on the endless task of chasing M$'s tail. The great thing about Firefox use is that it punishes people who blindly set up M$ servers or carelessly cater to IE. It's foolish for a company to turn away 1/10 of their customers but suicidal to turn away 1/4 or 1/2.
M$ can't win this one. Their browser is harder to use and less secure. The only thing it has going is the few sites you have noticed but those are bad for the business that runs them.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
the worst that would happen to MS is that they would be better protected against future antitrust cases. Web sites built using ASP.NET 2.0 work as well on Firefox as they do on IE, so it wouldn't impact the server side.
And AT LAST, Internet Explorer is back to where it belongs: A nice tool to download Firefox. ;-)
Write boring code, not shiny code!
>It's better to complain and get the issue fixed than it is to waste time on the endless task of chasing M$'s tail. Well, I agree with that, which is why I *do* complain, and give lots of info and why. I also tell my staff the same thing, and also my LUG. But if they don't fix it, it is still me that suffers. This is a case where I can't choose to just "use another vendor", unfortunately.
...like Opera and Safari.
:-)
That makes Steve Jobs' recent presentation using a diagram with just I.E. (ca. 75%) and Safari (supposedly ca. 25%) shares shown for some time in the future an even more ridiculous event...
Does this statistic underline or undermine the argument that integrating and bundling IE with Windows harmed the competition? The answer to that has wide ramifications. Not just for MS. Depending on how you define markets, someday things like the Iphone may face the same questions. However the Iphone will have atleast one advantage, since it was bundled with Safari from Day one, when it was not yet a dominant player, it cannot be argued that Apple abused a monopoly position move into a new technology area.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
First of all how is Google evil?
Second of all how is Mozilla tainted? Whats wrong with executives riding 1st class to a conference in the carribean?
Are you one of those people who is automatically supspicious of wealth and success and puts the poor/underdog up on a pedastal when in reality both groups consist of humans?
As for other options, there's Opera, Opera is free as in beer but not as in speech. Konquerer is open source. Since you seem to despise anything corporate you are probably running Linux already so I'm surprised you haven't heard of it yet. Making a browser requires a LOT of developer resources if you expect it to perform anywhere near decently. You may be dismayed to know that the source code for Konquerer, KHTML, is used to make Apple's Safari web browser and Apple has improved it so greatly that the KHTML guys are pretty much going to adopt Apple's changes wholesale instead of continuing with their original codebase. As Apple is a corporation that sells things for filthy evil money instead of giving things away for free this may make Konquerer unacceptable to you.
Perhaps you should try coding your own web browser? Because any other way you look at it based on your overly restrictive morals.....you're fucked.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
last week, I found a site that worked in FF, but not in IE. I use the IE-Tab extension in FF for those sites (mostly news sites with video) that do not work with FF. I had the IE-Tab activated and next thing I knew the site I went to (sorry, don't remember which one) wasn't working. I went to turn on IE-Tab not realizing it was already on. I smiled.
damaged by dogma
Firefox's goal is to make the web use standards, so that you could select what browser you want to use. How many websites you have seen that work only with Firefox? And how many that work only with IE? That is they key difference.
So once Firefox has majority of the global market share, the web has already been converted to work with any browser and we (users, companies, developers, anyone except Microsoft) have won.
He is talking about Firefox :P
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
You're telling me I want to go back to IE 4 all of the sudden?
Dillo would be easier. As a bonus it has tabs and better rendering. Both, however, have fewer digital restrictions and would be preferable to the terms of use of IE7.
Firefox, of course, offers better rendering, more user customization, ease of use, security and hardware choice than IE7. Combined with GNU/Linux, you can install Firefox on just about any computer without loss of modern web standards, flash and all that. IE7 is PIII and above because it only works with XP and Vista. With IE7 you are stuck with the choice of seven year old software that has to be patched and still sucks or software that barely runs on the latest and greatest multicored watt burner.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
and found that IE gets 67%, FF gets 22% Opera is at 4.4% and everything else is less than 0-5% (probably our geeky staff using obscure browsers!) So I am guessing that the last time I actually looked at those stats, FF was a lot lower.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Where I work, one of the systems has us completely locked in to using Netscape 4.0. I can't see any reason for it in terms of what the system does, but it refuses to even give you access with any other browser. Netscape is installed on every PC so they can access this system, and because management hope to "eventually" get rid of the system entirely, they refuse to update it to work on any other browser.
:)
So, when you are cracking up because of idiot webmasters locking you in to using IE7 to view their sites, just know you don't have the absolute worst of it
Who would want to use a machine without a PIII or higher chip in the first place. I am running a dual core centrino chip + 2gigs of ram and it still isnt enough. When I work on an older machine I just want to cry they are so slow compared to todays standards.
Well if people are switching to this junk, there is something about it to be learned from. Is it better marketing? Some feature people like? Or is it the image? People are nothing but a multicellular organisms and their behavior is clearly predictable...
There are two kinds of people - those who are radioactive and those who have already decayed..
I'm with you on tool, nice on the other hand... :-)
Nah. I had a friend bring over firefox portable... I don't touch IE.
Or maybe you should open up a dialogue with the IT staff about why FF can't even be loaded. Going around company policy would not be my first choice. At my company, FF is the only way to use the intranet, go figure. However, I don't think there are any restrictions for others. I am a developer so I get to load anything I want.
Personally, I don't see how anyone is forced to do anything, however the original poster could be in China, North Korea, Russia, South Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America or Africa, where there is known slavery, in which case the possiblity that the poster is shackled to a windows box is somewhat there, in a hazy, ghost like shimmer along with ID, nessie and Xenu.
Somewhere in the world actual people are forced to dig for diamonds every day, forced to produce crap electronics, forced to sew garments, forced to make sneakers, forced to do sex acts, forced to commit murder. For many of these people, they are forced at an age when they are helpless to resist. I know most of the slashdot crowd has lost all perspective, but please try to think about the world you inhabit and the other people that are in it before posting your sob story about the man keeping you down. You have no idea.
I'm willing to bet that you could afford an I-phone, so there's a second option for you. Third option, go work some where else. Cheer up, things aren't all bad.
Oh I see! I am not used to so much subtlety and historical knowledge on /. :) Thanks for pointing it out.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Connecting educational levels with political and business ethics awareness is very much at the heart of questions such as this, in fact a lack of higher educational levels/standards are the primary cause of the monumental mess we are currently in. As we read more and more about the failure of American (US) schools and as foreign exchange students come to the US to find themselves ahead of the equivalent grade level when they get here. As we forgive companies for gross breaches of law (anti-trust, racketeering, abusive use of monopolistic powers ...), gross abuses of public trust, gross abuses of corporate morals (see below), are we showing ourselves to be a better educated people? The decisions we make increasingly sacrifice long term viability, profit, well-being and world standing in favor of current financial and political profit.
The members of this site have largely been far more politically aware and educated, whether correct or not, than the average person and we use firefox more than the average public does as well. Members tend not to agree with each other in large groups on most topics and provide for some heated and humorous debates. That is one of the things I like most about slashdot - many different viewpoints, from the nonsensical and flat out wrong to the deeply insightful and hotly contested! But, on this topic (to MicroSoft or not to MicroSoft), there seems to be a large agreement on the harm that companies like MicroSoft and others cause to software development and any company that treats its market the same (phone, cable, internet ...). Before you reply, I know there are members on here who are clueless, I never said perfect society.
Those of us who are Americans are held responsible for the war in Iraq, the progress or lack thereof on the war on terror, environmental issues and many others *agenda* items, whether or not we voted the Bush group into office, prefer businesses having more rights or not. These are all very politicized topics, from the global war on IP freedoms waged by MS, RIAA, MPAA and others to the lack of quality security and interoperability in Microsoft applications (I know, I am going to get hit for that). MS is seemingly improving, but not there yet. Choosing to use Internet Explorer or something else is a huge issue, as it strikes directly at the goal of MS to own the Internet, the Internet's standards and further tighten their control over all information with another level of lock in. Have you not noticed the business model they have used for at least two decades now?
The people in slashdot (as a whole) tend to not fit other market demographics. On our own as individuals, we each fall into some market demographic, but as a whole, slashdot is different. Europe seems to be rather different from the US (which many people in power automatically assume is the *prime* market example to follow). Why are these two groups so different from the US? There are many answers and theories. The important point is that they are different. Whether you are hoping for some group to crack the corporate stranglehold on business and freedoms in the world, or you think that there is not enough controls and big brother in place to manage the current security threats, these have serious implications. Understanding them is important. And understanding starts with knowing what is there (the statistics). MS wants to know so that it can better target its marketing, FUD, lawyers and products. IBM wants to know for the same reason. So does AT&T and MCI. So does every web designer out there who thinks about customer experience. So does every virus maker, malware maker and add-on product maker.
InnerWeb
On corporate morals...
As a corporation is an entity under law with nearly the same rights as any living citizen and with dramatically more impact on the laws, finances and political directions of anyplace they assert their power, they ought to be held to a higher moral expectation. Hence, entities lik
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? No, only M$ has the source.
Is it poorly programmed? I think the above answers this question.
Why are you so f*****g picky?
I'm not. Why are you so fucking stupid?
The most annoying thing about IE is that it's tied to a DRM'd asspain. It will auto install all sorts of malware along with "security" applications from Sony and others. The impossible and stupid goal of these programs is to keep you from making copies. IE is the browser of slaves.
I think he was referring to calling Firefox junk. Because the answers for IE were obvious:
It's a web browser that can't even browse websites without the designer taking the time to break their own code and make sure it (the mangled code) only gets given to IE. The other points are irrelevant until it can actually read html/css and not brain-fart on a million basic things. The entire rendering engine just feels like a giant hack that they mangled until it "looked about right"; The whole thing is like a house of cards, and this is IE7 we're talking about, the version we'll probably be stuck with for a long time to come.
But of course they have their html table implementation working fine and dandy, so all the crap sites too lazy to fix their backends to use html properly, exactly the kind of idiots to create IE-only websites, will probably carry on oblivious to everything except IE7's still-crap PNG support.
As for Firefox being junk: I can forgive all the memory issues people go on about and the strange unresponsiveness and problems saving to fat32 volumes the Ubuntu version seems to have because at the end of the day it can actually do what it is supposed to, It can display a website, and along with Opera it is the best at what it does.
Perhaps Windows will share a similar fate? One can hope.
What the % of IE developers use FF.
Sounds more like someone else has an inferiority complex.
It has nothing to do with communism, and everything to do with the politics of WWII. The reason Nazi Germany is covered more thoroughly and often thought of as worse than Stalin's USSR is because:
1.) Stalin was our ally at the time, and pointing out the systematic slaughter he carried out against his own people would not have been good for domestic support of the war.
2.) The Nazis committed the Holocaust, and we in the West have convinced ourselves that killing based on political ideology is more palatable than killing based on ethnic/cultural/religious identity.
If you bother to pick up a history book, though, or even just look at the total dead under Stalin's regime, you'll quickly begin to see that Hitler had nothing on Stalin. Hitler killed roughly 9-11 million in the Holocaust. The general consensus, according to Wikipedia, is that Stalin killed at least that many, and likely killed nearly twice that amount. Stalin just chose the right group of people with whom to ally. And, he didn't specifically target the Jews. If history has taught us anything, it's that killing the Jews never works out as intended.
The best part about history is how they teach the useless bits, like the early military and colonial aspects of a nation. Kids know all about the founding fathers and world wars, but what the hell do they know about the thousands of other influential people and events that didn't carry weapons or invade other people's land ?
This isn't just US history, it's the same here in Canada. What the hell do I care about some inbred french colonist from the dark ages whose claim to fame was simply being wealthier than the other bums ? History repeats itself, so why aren't we teaching kids about the smart, revolutionary and forward-thinking people of the past ? It takes a lot more than guns and money to build a future.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Can I just first I'm a huge FireFox fan, and am indeed writing this very message from it.
That said, IE is the only browser where you can easily configure it enterprise wide, extremely easily. Want to lock down specific websites to text & images only for thousands of machines remotely? It's as easy as doing it in "Internet Options" in Windows. Want to switch off JavaScript internet-wide for specific departments/offices in your enterprise? Same again - just set the group policy option.
Basically, ALL of the IE options are over-ridable at a Group Policy level, built into every AD system since Windows 2000 Server. IE is the only browser that makes this possible. That, folks is quite often why IE is the corporate browser of choice - it's the only one that can be centrally managed like that.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Someone who isn't running Vista or XP? Someone stuck with ten year old hardware?
I have a ten year old P266 machine I still use from time to time. It runs Gentoo Linux, X.Org, a heavily customised FVWM desktop, and Firefox. For most purposes, it's still quite nippy. (And yes, emerge -avuD world is kind of slow; but that's why distcc was invented :)
Oh, certainly. But in most modern operating systems, most of the speed increase gets used up by infrastructure overheads. That's why a Dual Core monster now doesn't seem much faster to the user than my top-of-the-range P266 did back in 1997. The gripping hand is that if you use a lightweight distro, then firefox will run just as happily on 10 year old machines as it will on the latest hardware.
Which, if you're stuck using something from the dark ages, can be a good thing.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
1. Hitler started WWII
2. It i not about the number of victims, or the existence of camps. The reason why any respectable historian (at least in Europe, dunno about the US) considers the Holocaust as a singular event is that the Nazis were the only terror regime that built factories solely for the extinguishing of certain people. It represents the point in history where the promises of enlightenment were shattered.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
That has nothing to do with it not being a 'commerical product,' and everything to do with the fact that it's the underdog - it has to win customers over to gain market share.
There's a reason why the Holocaust garners more attention than Stalin's purges or the vast number of deaths attributed to Mao's Great Leap Forward, and that is because the Holocaust wasn't merely a mass-murder, but an institutionalized bureaucratic machine. This wasn't some mad man forcing his subservient lieutenants to shoot Polish officers, but rather an entire government apparatus, with civil servants, budgets and records, all dedicated towards the murder of every Jew within the Nazi's grasp. No one is defending Stalin, whose own attrocities have come to light in very great clarity since the end of the Cold War. But Stalin was your typical monomaniacal paranoid tyrant (or you might say the very pinnacle of monomaniacal paranoid tyrants), the sort of prototypical Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and Saddam Hussein. Hitler and his cohorts were not ordering the murdering millions of Jews to force subservience out of conquered populations, or to destroy political rivalries.
There is also the historical aspect of the Holocaust; of over a thousand years of abuse of Jews, of countless demagogues calling for violence and even murder against Jews, against the entire culture of Christendom having in its foundation a hatred of the Jews. Stalin's madness is more an outgrowth of the French Revolution, of men who believed that sacrifices of this horrific nature were needed to create a better society. The Holocaust, on the other hand, is the most infamous and deadly chapter in a long sordid story of the hatred against the Jews. The Holocaust is the ultimate example of how racism can poison a civilization right down to its core, and convince people to commit the most insane and evil acts.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually, if you're talking about displaying websites, its Konqueror and Opera that are the top :) Both pass the Acid2 test. IE doesn't even come close, though FireFox is better.
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You think I was referring to IE?
:)
Or to put it another way, if anyone answered yes to more than one or two of those questions, let me ask you this: Why are you so f*****g forgiving?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You don't think Stalin's gulags and deportation camps were just that? He was less organized about it, but replace "Jew" with "someone I do not trust" and you've got Stalin's Russia. Hitler even tried (albeit pathetically) to create a pretext for his slaughter, by blaming Germany's economic state after WWI on the bankers, who were largely Jewish. Stalin didn't even bother with pretexts. If he didn't like you, he killed you, your family, even your dog. You are arguing what I pointed out as absurd, earlier: we in the West consider killing based on ethnic/religious lines to be more heinous than killing done for purely political purposes. Explain to me how this is internally consistent. You may argue that "someone can control their political beliefs; someone can't control their ethnicity," but then I would ask you to show me evidence of where Stalin accepted the political "conversion" of one of his former opponents. From where I'm standing, killing is killing, and the motivations for both Stalin and Hitler end up being fairly arbitrary: both created a system to dispose of those they wanted dead, and then both put them into practice. Stalin was ultimately more successful.
WTF? When are they going to support Firefox, Opera, and Safari?
The ActiveX, required for all downloads (to "optimize" downloads), is particularly evil. That only runs on Windows. When are they going to switch to something sane, like pure Java?
Really, they ought to just throw everything on an FTP site. They could use Bittorrent for the big ISO images. It works for Fedora.
Precisely, and this is what I pointed out: what, inherently, makes Hitler's killing worse than Stalin's? Why do you believe that killing a particular ethnic group is more heinous than killing political prisoners? Stalin created his own institutionalized machine, he was just remarkably less adept at keeping records than Hitler. Why does Hitler's professionalism somehow make his acts worse? Why are we conditioned to believe that some types of slaughter are worse than others? It's an absurd and insulting statement.
Terrible, to be sure, but how is it worse than, say, the Mongol invasion of Iran? I think it's telling that you believe Stalin sought to create "a better society," when really all I see is his desire to wield as much power as possible. And you still have not shown what makes Hitler "most insane and evil." What is it, in particular, that makes the systematic slaughter of an ethnic group more heinous than the systematic slaughter of a political group? And why, in particular, is the slaughter of the Jews so heinous in particular, when compared to the Roma? (I should point out that Hitler was at least partially successful in wiping them out; the Bohemian-Romani language was completely lost.)
You don't think Stalin's gulags and deportation camps were just that?
Show me a Soviet gas chamber. Plus, regarding the singularity of the Holocaust, you are arguing against probably >> 90% of (as least European) historians, and your arguments are not new.
You are arguing what I pointed out as absurd, earlier
No I don't. I am arguing that Nazi Germany was the point where enlightenment horribly turned on itself. Prior to 1933, Germany was what was regarded as a modern nation, albeit with its problems. In the 20ies, prior to the world economic crisis, it was _very modern and liberal. _This is what is worse about it. The fact that atrocities occurred in some nation that had been stuck in that 17th century for too long (czarist Russia) and that was full of illiterate peasants, lead by a brutal peasant (Stalin), is not all that surprising. Plus (see my gas chamber remark) they had no industrial extermination.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Isn't that what ftp.exe is for?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Bloody hell, it's people like you who spread a false abbreviation. FX is Firefox. FF is Final Fantasy. Check the spreadfirefox website for FX. They ask people to stop calling them FF. DO IT.
We could pop up a warning when the user transmits a form to a Microsoft IIS server. ("This web site may be insecure...")
I'm sure Bill Gates will be happy to take some of his own medicine.
Either VMWare or Paralels should do the job.
If you make Windows the guest, you also get Qemu+KVM.
Who would want to use a machine without a PIII or higher chip in the first place.
I think you mean "lower".
There are lots of nice laptops with PII and PIII class chips in them and they really are all you need if you are using GNU/Linux. My best laptops are 1 GHz PIIIs and Etch works great on them. My favorite laptop is still a Thinkpad 600. It has a 233 MHz PII and 300MB of RAM. Etch works great on it. Sound works, and I can watch movies with it. It's a little old for number crunching and it's a lot heavier than an X30, but it's low power enough for me to use in my lap without getting burnt.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
if they don't fix it, it is still me that suffers. This is a case where I can't choose to just "use another vendor", unfortunately.
I'm sorry to hear that. You might try IE under Crossover Office or XP under Parallels. If that does not work, you need to have an XP box in the corner.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Portable Firefox + USB thumb drive.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
you must mod this parent up, it has much lulz
The people who respond best to spam are more likely to use Internet Explorer?
No big surprises there.
Or maybe it's "money grubbers who'll go to any lengths to save $0.02 on their prescriptions more likely to use Internet Explorer"?
It's the same thing really...
No sig today...
I don't know how to change the UAS and there isn't an option for it in the settings. How likely do you think the average Firefox user is to do it?
Firefox users like me are much more likely to use IEtab or similar to get garanteed 100% compatibility instead of a hack like changing the user agent.
No sig today...
FX is an abbreviation for effects... or fed ex...or an instrumental song from Black Sabbath's 1972 album Black Sabbath, Vol. 4
:)
FireFox F...F..
See how that works?
I dare you to find a 2 letter abbreviation that is unused.
You do know the Acid2 test is meaningless right? No browser fully supports CSS2, so even out of the best browsers it's still a lucky dip depending on exactly where your weak-points in support are and exactly what the minor issues are. So the Acid2 test is pretty useless if you're a user that wants any realistic information on how good any of the current browsers are. I would have thought it was well known to be useless by now.
Opera and Firefox CSS2 support are pretty much equal, with Opera being miles ahead in print support and Firefox having better support (read less niggles) in other areas more important to screen media. Which pretty much balances out to me. Of course the print support etc. trade off balancing out is only my personal opinion.
Because it challenges the assumptions of the west. Tyrant comes into office and kills his enemies is of the dog-bites-man variety. Every tyrant did it. Stalin happened to grab a large country so he killed a lot of people. On a moral plane, it's just as bad at Hitler, killing people is bad. However, it's the same reason people get on Israel's case for shelling Palestinian terrorist holed up in civilian areas and causing collateral damage, but nobody said anything when Lebanon did it a few weeks ago. Enlightened civilizations are NOT SUPPOSED to kill civilians, petty third world tyrants are EXPECTED to act like tyrants.
In Germany, the Jews were largely assimilated. In their modern western society, Jews were treated as Germans whose religion was Judaism, no different than Germans whose religion was Catholicism of Lutheranism. What stuns the west TO THIS DAY is how an enlightened country of "one of them" could pull out a segment of their society, call them "other" and get everyone to persecute them. When Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, it wasn't unusual, dictators DO THAT ALL THE TIME. If France went and gassed a Muslim suburb, the world would be outraged. It wouldn't make France's behavior morally worse on an absolute scale, but it would be more newsworthy and attention grabbing.
Further, my great-grandfather's service to the Kaiser during "The Great War" and his member of the social elite as a business owner didn't change the fact that to the Nazis, he was a Jew. That is what stuns the world, the someone would go through their own culture, pull out a segment that nobody recognized, and designate them. Further, the Nazis further justified their attempt to capture the world as a way of wiping out the Jews. Plenty of would-be dictators tried to take over the world, that's pretty normal. Plenty of people tried to wipe out the Jews in their midsts. It's the fact that he tried to take over the world TO KILL THE JEWS that stuns people. The fact that when his army needed trains to move troops around to try to capture the world, and his SS needed trains to wipe out the Jews in an area, he would favor the later. He would give up territory solely to kill more Jews.
The US sent Indians to Oklahoma because it wanted their land. Many died. The US wasn't TRYING to kill Indians, it was trying to steal land, we understand that. What people don't understand is how he rounded up the Jews and put them in work camps as slaves, and still wanted to kill them. The systematic destruction stuns people. In most cases, people have been killed as people pursue rational goals (albeit immorally), this was unique in that nobody understood it. The Spanish Inquisition was launched to steal Jewish property, they were happy to let the Jews leave and take their stuff. The Germans wanted to kill them MORE than wanted to take their stuff, that's what is SO disturbing.
As far as I can tell, there is no IE for OS X (I looked because a local radio station can stream only to IE for some weird reason).
Since there is no IE, and there have been some goodly (for random value of goodly) Macs upgraded to OS X, plus some switchers, perhaps this has helped?
Also, there is also the fact (where fact = my opinion) that IE is FF's whipping boy.....
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
At work the number of times a user has phoned up for administration help or regular support and they are using Firefox has doubled over the past few months and it's still growing especially when browsing is far more easier in Firefox. People are also tagging onto the idea of extensions like IEtab where some sites only work in IE so people use IEtab in Firefox. It's awesome.
//robbiekhan.co.uk
The stats on my own little site (thousands page hits a day) shows a clear incremnent in Firefox usage on those last 6 months, I am not sure about being an european only trend.
What's in a sig?
It takes a lot more than guns and money to build a future.
But that's all you need to destroy it.
What?
I thought the decision to use a design team they hired away from Play-Skool was brilliant, man, a true stroke of genius! And removing features IE6 had (* hack) was also much appreciated by the developersdevelopersdevelopers.
And the Outlook 2007 team - what brilliant people they are, too - removing abilities Outlook 2003 had for a 'consistent' HTML renderer base - fantastic move. You know, avoiding the *obvious* move of using the more-capable Outlook 2003 HTML renderer in Word 2007, instead of what they did (using the less-capable HTML renderer from Word) - that takes real vision.
I think it's *great* that Microsoft hires retarded software developers, really I do. They've got bills to pay just like everyone else, right?
It takes several times as long to download Firefox via the windows ftp app. The thing even lacks tab completion. If you're a lightning fast typer and know the path exactly it might be a good alternative if not then it isn't.
MSIE 6 - 5,380 - 37.61%
MSIE 7 - 3,733 - 26.10%
Firefox 2 - 2,526 - 17.66%
Firefox 1.5 - 829 - 5.80%
All other MSIE/Firefox contributions are less than 1&. So far, Win + Safari have made NO contribution to the stats.
My web domain.
It's also junk without all the security problems of IE.
There's a third reason more attention is paid to Hitler's Germany that Stalin's USSR, and that's current politics. Most teachers, particularly at the college level, are leftist. They properly consider Stalin's USSR leftist, and ignore its evils; they wrongly consider Hitler's Germany rightist, and teach about its evils.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I run firefox on an old latop (among other machines) under windows 2000 (which was a current OS at the time the machine was made and is in the list on the machines "designed for" sticker). After the initial load time its fairly snappy on most sites provided I don't open too many tabs but only because of the flashblock and adblock plus extentions (normally i don't block ads on principle but the heavy javascript of some adds was really bogging the machine down and i really didn't want to turn off javascript completely).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
"How many websites you have seen that work only with Firefox?"
All Google apps, sort of (yes, I know, they aslo work under IE, but that's pretty much given). They certainly limit functionality on Opera and KHTML (Webkit - don't know).
One that hath name thou can not otter
no, he is right; 1789 was the sparkle that started the Marxist theories. while technically you are right; it is you who should read a bit more. the class-hatred started there.
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
Stalins' repressions were somewhat economical - he needed work force to build better future and gulag was supplying him with that, and somewhat power-struggle - anyone who possessed strength or looked like possessed strength to go against communist regime was imprisoned. This been said - OMG, comparing IE and FF to that ????
Browser market share matters. As long as IE had all the market share, Web developers tended to ignore Web standards and build sites that only worked in IE --- it's a simple economic decision on their part. Wherever Firefox has major market share, they can't do that anymore. They are forced to build sites that at least work in Firefox too. That has the nice side effect that those sites are now usable by Linux and Mac users, and they're also much more likely to work in other browsers. Everybody wins --- except Microsoft.
This is why it's not enough for us to just believe in freedom and build free software. We have to make sure it succeeds in the market, or we'll lose the ability to communicate with the non-free world and ultimately our free software will be useless.
> How many websites you have seen that work only with Firefox?
There are many actually that only work with Firefox and IE.
However, we handle this situation very differently from IE: We are always fixing standards compliance bugs. If some site depends on a glaring Firefox standards-compliance bug, we will almost always fix it and break the site, forcing the Web developers to fix their site. This, plus the fact that WHATWG keeps tightening up specs, should mean that the situation keeps getting better over time for users and developers of other browsers.
Note that this actually hurts Firefox, by creating work for our developers, annoying Web developers, and making life easier for our competitors. But that's OK: it's the right thing to do.
I am forced to use IE6 all day because McAfee deletes firefox as a security threat (fair enough) and my corporate lan won't let me Windows Update.
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Ive had Ubuntu loaded on this machine and it didnt seem any faster then XP, sure I probably could have custimized it to hell, but who has the time and the need to do that?
Opera is closed source, and proprietary. They may have many happy users, but that's it.
Firefox is open source, and free software. This creates a strong and active following, if only for the fact that it's open source.
So for me it's no wonder that Firefox steels the attention from Opera. Opera may be a great browser, I never tried it, but it misses that one important thing Firefox has: the open source cult. The free advertising just because it's open source.
Anyway, good luck to Opera and all the others: competition is always a good thing. The more browsers in the 5-15% market share range and the less browsers in the >40% market share range the better.
Look for "Shelley Goodman" here.
Less-geeky computer repair alternative for Lansing, MI
We'll see this more and more overseas, especially in developing countries who wish to find their place within the current IP related markets. It's just a sign that an acceleration towards a shift has already started. Funny thing about this is that MS just outsourced a research lab to another country to remain competitive.(Needs to be cited or have clarification) Unfortunately, it's a catch 22 when it comes to globalization. Companies need to be competitive as much as any other company needs to be. While we have a certain advantage, we might have to take some losses due to new competitive forces on the horizon. While I only support Microsoft insomuch as to keep a certain level of wealth within the states, it sucks to see that the market might marginalize the company to obscurity. It will take a lot to get there but you never know. Given any opportunity for certain developing countries to succeed, something might pop up here and there which would give us a run for the money. I would hate the world to be homogenized but with the amount of diversity in resources for each area, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I hate the concept of interdependence but it's been that way for quite a while and I doubt that will change any time soon.
Well, with IBM, Novell, Sun, and Red Hat being US companies, there is a certain technical advantage that will help the US over time in terms of *n(i/u)x related IP. Who knows what OpenSuSE (Germany), Ubuntu (Britain/Isle of Man), Mandriva (France) might come up with over time. I would like to mention a Chinese distribution of Linux but I can't seem to find one yet. If India ever gets a sense of entitlement outside of their dependency on MS outsourcing, I wonder where they will put their interest towards. Swaraj can be a double edge sword sometimes.
Don't mean to sounds ominous but I think its time to bring this conversation to the table in an open manner. We see very little of it because when someone talks about globalization they come off as wearing a tin foil hat. Somethings happening, don't really know what but I do think there should be a certain invested interest in certain things that are currently going on in the market. At least have some reasonable argument to pacify certain concerns. Spreading democracy is one thing but spreading capitalism is another. Not that I necessarily disagree (double negative, I know) with what's going on, my main concern is what's keeping it together. Simple answers bind truths further than any excuse or reason.
Firefox is the new IE.
Opera is the new Firefox.
IE is (will be) the new... Netscape?
Eventually, Opera will get the attention it deserves. Hooray!
...that all those Firefox browsers are running on Windows? Could it be that alternate OSs that run Firefox are adding to the numbers? Maybe IE isn't the only Microsoft product in trouble?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
This article is featured in the "Internet Explorer" category, and has a big blue IE logo next to it.
It's an odd way to celebrate Firefox and Mozilla's success.
--
Toro
So by your logic, I could say that Linux isn't free of charge, because I have to pay for hardware to run it on and hard drive to store it on. Or maybe you know where I can get decent modern hardware free of charge?
Yes, IE is free as in beer. Just like Opera, Safari, and other programs for Windows are free as in beer. Free as in freedom was not being compared. The OP wrote "commercial programs". IE is not a commercial programs. It is freeware.
Many of AJAX-based web apps do that sort of thing. Lots of Google offerings, for example.
The day we don't have to fight with IE to get it to render correctly, is the day we've won. Either because we don't have to support it, or because Microsoft have finally fixed it.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
nope... It's not his logic... It's the MS EULA... Your license for IE is only valid if you hold a license for Windows...
Interesting how we went from discussing the proliferation of Firefox vs. IE ... to genocide. /. :-)
One sure does get around here on
I personally prefer 'wget' or aptitude for my acquisition of the fox!
mod parent up
It's better than that...
They removed the IE based rendering engine, that has been so completely battered with security holes there can't be too many left yet, in favour of the word one which is just starting to be attacked, and is based on much older kludgier code.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Well never mind, maybe one day you'll be able to save up enough money to leave and live somewhere nice ? I'll ask my prayer group to pray for you.
It won't. Full fledged Ubuntu needs a decent system spec. Gnome has got its own framework overheads, and Ubuntu adds a lot more newbie friendly stuff that ups the system reqs to about the same as XP. Ubuntu is a lovely distro in a great many ways, but svelte it ain't.
You could try XUbuntu. Uses XFCE rather than Gnome, and uses a lot less in the way of resources. You can install it from Ubuntu using synaptic. Did it in about 10 mins on my wife's old desktop machine. I'm still not sure it would cope with a PII, but it runs just fine on a Windows ME era AMD Duron system. Which is more than can be said of vanilla Ubuntu.
Failing that, look at some of the lightweight distros. The slackware derivatives seem to be good at this, so Vector Linux might be a good place to start. Or else Damn Small Linux, if you can persuade it to install on the HD and not run from a ramdisk.
Well, if you don't need it, don't do it. Personally, I'd sooner my resources were doing what I tell them to, rather than monitoring the system to see if I needed a help bubble popping up, or a usb drive mounted - but I admit I'm not the typical user. Then again, if you have old hardware, and you can't upgrade for whatever reason, it's not a bad angle to explore. It certainly beats using out-of-support Windows 98 because you can't cope with XP.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Yeah, flash and heavy duty javascript can be a problem, certainly. And not just for older machines, either.
I use NoScript for that. Turn scripting off by default, and then whitelist sites that use it in the Furtherance Of Good. It apparently doesn't get on with FlashBlock - but then you don't need flashblock if you have NoScript. It's one of my must-have extensions these days.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Firefox gathers revenue from the default search engine setting (google). If I remember correctly, MSIE has the exact same search interface, default set to MSN. It does generate revenue, even if it is not accounted for by Microsoft.
There are other internal revenue streams. It's just that this one is in your face; perfectly identical to FF's.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Hitler killed 34 million people, and Stalin 20 million. So you are wrong. These numbers are open to debate (Stalin may for instance have killed "just" 11 million, Hitler 55 million if he is made responsible for all WWII dead), but no serious historian argues that Hitler killed less people than Stalin.
A major reason that Russia -- and China -- make it to the top of any mass atrocities list is that they have many potential victims to begin with. By this reckoning killing one in ten of the national population to consolidate your position (Stalin) makes you a worse mass murderer than killing, let's say, one in five (Pol Pot), simply because you are a Russian dictator instead of a Cambodian dictator. I don't think Pol Pot is a better person than Stalin, and as for instance this list (see the proportionality table) shows, Hitler's activities in Poland (specifically) do rank higher than Stalin's activities in Russia as a horror scenario for the people involved. When you limit the subjected population to jews only, Hitler obviously jumps solidly to the number one position. And when you consider the more limited time frame in which the Nazis made their victims, you will appreciate that some populations victimized by Hitler are entitled to a greater national trauma than the Russians.
Note: when you look at the proportionality table you will also see another interesting thing, as the author puts it:
If I had simply picked 25 countries out of a hat, I could not have gotten a more diverse spread than we've got here. We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors -- white, black, yellow and brown -- widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies. We've got innocent victims invaded by big, bad neighbors, and we've got plenty of countries who brought it on themselves, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
Actually, the poster stated "great step forward" which was an obvious reference to China and NOT the USSR or NSDAP.
Remember: Revolution is just a t-shirt away!
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Um, he said "step forward", not "great step forward". And why would it refer to China? China's post-revolutionary phase has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazi Germany.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
nope... It's not his logic... It's the MS EULA... Your license for IE is only valid if you hold a license for Windows...
Logic... Why was Internet Explorer available as free download for Mac OS? And as for the Windows version, could you run it if you don't have Windows? And, can you run Firefox for Windows if you don't own a copy of Windows? No. Unless you're a thief (sorry, "pirate").
Red herring shit.
Believe it or not, I completely forgot about this thread, and I wish I hadn't, because this is an interesting issue you raised. I'm going to let the other argument go because I think you made a compelling one, but I disagree with parts of it, and I think hammering it out would be for a distinction that's ultimately not very important.
When you refer to Persian attempts to wipe out the Jews, exactly what events are you describing? To my knowledge of Iranian history, prior to the Iranian Revolution and the ascent of power of batshit loco mullahs, Iran has traditionally been a safe-haven for Jews. It is perhaps the only nation in history that has repeatedly freed the Jews from slavery or protected them from persecution, beginning with the Achaemenids, continuing to the Sassanids, and even during the Safavid era. Jews have had it pretty good in Iran, from what I can tell. The historical accuracy of linking Purim to Xerxes I doesn't make much sense, and most modern historians dispute it. I'm certainly not trying to absolve the Persians of their sins; we have a long history of being complete morons. But I like to think that religious tolerance and individual liberty is one of Iran's continuous and shining examples: we were the first to outlaw slavery, and we were the first to proclaim that one should be free to worship however one chooses. I've no doubt that there were Iranian despots who wanted to suppress religious groups in the past, but the vast history of Iran as an autonomous nation shows it being remarkably tolerant of other religions.
Also,