Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Appears Ready to Crack 20% Share Next Month
CWmike writes "Mozilla's Firefox browser is on pace to hit the 20% market-share mark next month. Net Applications marketing VP Vince Vizzaccaro didn't pin all of Firefox's increase on a change last month to its update dialog; he did note the new approach. 'Mozilla has implemented a change in Firefox 3.0 [Release Candidate 1] where the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser,' he explained. He refused to ding Mozilla for the practice. 'The option is clearly displayed and labeled, unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update" [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.' However, this practice is a break from the traditional practice browsers employed of defaulting this option to off.'"
What's wrong with having default as enabled? All applications around the world does it and even hides it in advanced install settings. Firefox doing it openly is just OK. Not good, not bad, but just OK.
Stop being so nitpicking. I am no total Firefox fan (have lot of issues in Ubuntu), but this is not a case to bash them.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
To be fair, most people installing it will want it as default. And besides, if they don't, the next time they open IE or whichever other browser they use, it will throw a hissy-fit about not being the default and show some obnoxious message complaining about this and suggesting they correct their error.
I installed the RC1 and the check box is rather obvious. Not to mention IE will throw a fit if its not the default browser next time its opened. As for immoral Nah. Bad practice maybe, but presumably if you are downloading the browser then you are doing so with the intention of making it your default browser, seeing as I don't download random browsers just for the hell of it. kjb
Am I the only desktop admin who has, in the recent past, seen the default browser switch back to IE after and update from Microsoft?
I think it's been a while because I control when updates are applied and I don't remember a recent situation when that occurred.
I have a feeling there may be another update coming to "fix" the default browser. More likely in a new and improved convoluted way involving a dialog box, but still....
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I happen to live in a country where Firefox usage broke 45% months ago and is the most popular browser, overtaking IE by 5-6%.
I honestly don't care about marketshare after the point of no return has passed where web developers are forced to use the standard in order to make it work on multiple browsers.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
It's Simple...
... you shrug and get on with your work
If 0.01% of your potential customers cannot use your website
If a fifth of your potential customers cannot use your website... you fix it!
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
The same way many people can bash windows and continue to use it.
Because Firefox renders our code correctly. IE doesn't. Design for Firefox, you design to standards, design for IE, you design for IE.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
public static function firefoxSux():boolean
{
return false;
}
America, Home of the Brave.
Well, At time, microsoft was betting the farm on the fact that most people would NOT bother programming for anything BUT IE. Some people around me had that attitude. I didn't because I wouldn't help microsoft conquer the world. It was hard in the netscape 4.7 days though. So I would develop in netscape and test with IE. Yes it's a lot easier now. And yes Firebug helps too.
I know that GNU's Not UNIX -- but it was supposed to try and be. The real question is, why should Linux try and be "largely compatible" with Windows?
If it were meant to be an "alternative" to windows, using your metric of "largely compatible," then it shouldn't have been a UNIX clone, it should have been a DOS/Win32 clone, shouldn't it have?
Linux "fails" to take to the Desktop because it fails to be Windows. It fails to be Windows because it is not -- it's Unix. And that means it has a completely different underlying philosophy of how things should be done that goes back over 30 years.
Then again, it seems that most people who "switch" to Linux, especially these days, do it because they want cheap/free windows, then complain when its not windows.
This is like buying a Crysler 300M then complaining that its not as nice as the Bentley Brooklands that its a rip-off of.
That should be around the time that they add the boldly sarcastic mod.
which is totally what she said
Your story is too convenient to be 100% true.
.NET goodies didnt work? Only some? If sales dipped like you said... then the whole system had to be hosed to get 0 sales from that demographic.
1) No programming team would ignore FF unless directed to do so. You are telling me you got a group of programmers together and they all loved IE so much they were completely oblivious to FF?
2) Some
3) You traffic would not drop to nil in a week, so that is your biggest "I am lying" thing. You are suggesting that all your past users accessed your site that week, saw it didnt work right, and decided to not come back ever again. None of the only check the site every couple weeks? I mean give me a break - this is obviously an exaggeratiom
4) FF traffic shot back up in a week. (See #3)
5) Your 'younger' crowd would have been apt to try your site in IE if it failed in FF... at least in lets say... 25% of the cases.
The bottom line is this story is almost certainly partially fabricated and why? Do you not like Microsoft or maybe you just really like FF? I cannot believe you got modded up for blatant fanboyism.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.